Was Winston Churchill bad

Answer 1

Churchill was a murderous monster, responsible for Bengal famine (6 million deaths), racist, eugenic, who admired Mussolini and Hitler up to late 30s, and should be remembered as a racist fanatic he was.

This is Churchill in his own words:

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." House of Commons, 1919, on use of mustard gas against Iraqi women and children

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937 (both American Indians and Aborgines of Australia were brutally exterminated in genocide by British Imperialists)

"One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."

Churchill in Great Contemporaries, 1937

"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."

Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

Hitler was responsible for deaths of 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, and millions of other people.

Also, he had concentration camps and was a racist, but he modeled his policies on another abominable racist, who inspired him and his crimes - on Churchill, and British rule of India (that Hitler intended as a model in his brutal oppression of the Slavs and Jews).

Churchill was responsible for starvation of 7 millions of Indian people, while British rule is responsible for genocide that resulted one 1.8 billion of Indian lives lost - yearly death toll was 3.4% during 200 years of brutal rule of India, that Hitler wanted to model (and indeed has "modeled") his rule of Russia on. That's about 8-10 million excess deaths per year. Many famines killed 10s of millions of Indians in span of few months. Churchill was unashamed racist, was in favor of use of poison gas on "uncivilized tribes" (Hitler used Zyklon B on Jews, and British used mustard gas on Iraqi women and children in the 1920s). British invented concentration camps of the sort Hitler would later emulate in the Boer war, killing 28,000 women and children. Hitler imitated British in every way, but racist theories and policies, implemented by Churchill in during and after WWI, and in WWII are of British origin. Hitler spared what he hoped to be his potential allies in Dunkirk, but Churchill believed higher race are British, not all Germanic people. He killed millions in firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin and many other cities. Both Churchill and Hitler were in favor of eugenics.

Hitler was a kindly man, who never forgot employee birthday, vegetarian who didn't drink or smoke. Churchill was an ill tempered alcoholic, who smoked fat cigars and held his meetings in nude. His "nude club" was well known as ring of his closest confidents, most of them racists and Imperialists.

Death toll:

Hitler and Nazi Germany : 30 million (6 million in direct genocide)

Churchill and British Empire: 1.8 billion (7 million Indians in one genocidal incident alone, rarely mentioned today). Brutal genocide of "Red Indians" (as they called them), Indians (1.8 billion excess deaths), Australian Aborigines (in Tasmania they went extinct, and in rest of Australia, 90% were exterminated).

Both Churchill and Hitler were racists, for eugenics, use of poison gas and concentration camps, Hitler in fact emulated Churchill.

Yet due to Propaganda, their images are distorted. The brainwashing is done so extremely, that with religious fanaticism moderators here block content from published books by respected scholars (Guggenheim fellowship winner), and quotes that were even published in british press and are not controversial at all.

Both Hitler and Churchill were clearly criminals.

Clearly, both were racist, Churchill even to greater extent than Hitler, but Churchill managed to get his record cleared from history textbooks. Does that censorship make him a better man?

Why is it OK here to ask who was worse - Stalin or Hitler, and not to compare Hitler and Churchill, who had much more in common. Clearly, western propaganda can make Stalin look bad, while he alone with Russian people is responsible for beating the Nazis, citing Ukrainian famine as his greatest crime (by death toll), same is done with Mao, while Churchill is responsible for far greater famine in India (7 million deaths).

Here is a link for some of the Churchill crimes

Hitler was referred to as kindly man by those who worked with him - his secretaries and technical staff. This was quoted in media recently a lot. He never forgot an employee birthday, for instance.

That he was responsible for some of the worst crimes that happened in History, is not in contradiction with him being a kind man. He followed extreme ideology (of racism), but so were rulers of Britain (who had many gentlemen in their ranks of criminal racist governors of Britain, though Churchill was a crude man, not among those gentlemen).

Hitler is in a way a perfect exemplar of Victorian Imperial British gentlemen. That we do not think of Victorian gentlemen in terms of Hitlerian crimes and their deeply racist legacy (that inspired Hitler), is a proof of power of western propaganda (that owes much to dr Goebbels and lady (oops, i mean Leni) Riefenstahl, admired in the West for their technical skill).

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230109.htm

As for the total of 1 billion, in fact it is 1.8 billion, according to this quote:

1. British Indian Holocaust (1.8 billion excess deaths, 1757-1947; 10 million killed in post-1857 Indian Mutiny reprisals; 1 million starved, 1895-1897 Indian Famine; 6-9 million starved, 1899-1900 Indian Famine; 6-7 million starved under Churchill, Bengali Holocaust 1943-1945].

Not all of these deaths were under Churchill (1.8 billion is total of EXCESS deaths, that includes demographic losses etc), the total of 1.8 billion is under 200 years of British rule of India. It is comparable to the 40 million EXCESS deaths (demographic losses etc) frequently mentioned for Stalin, or 60 million EXCESS deaths (demographic losses etc) for Mao. Stalin is in fact responsible for around 1 million deaths in Gulag and during the 30s, and for Ukraininan famine (5-6 million), deaths).

Churchill said about Indians to an advisor in 1943, "I hate Indians. They are beastly people with a beastly religion." He considered assassinating Gandhi in the 30s, but was stopped, just like he was stopped from implementing Eugenics in 1910, when he said:

"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed."

Recently, President Obama returned Churchill bust from the White House. Obama's father was tortured in Africa during British Imperial rule, and Churchill. That's why he has thrown bust of this criminal out of White House.

Churchill said: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." And it was, up to recently. As the once oppressed world develops, truth about this brutal criminal, in many ways worse than Hitler, is coming out.

I recommend reading book by an Indian author Madhusree Mukerjee, a Guggenheim fellowship winner, called "CHURCHILL'S SECRET WAR: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II"

from 2010, ISBN: 9780465002016

He knew about Pearl Harbor, but did not report to Americans. In fact, he ordered all those few British soldiers who knew about it (as information leaked) to be strangled by MI6. Licence to kill, indeed!

Hitler and Churchill. Well, when Hitler came into power, Churchill wasn't prime minister att all. He was the maritime minister during WW I. A post he had to abandon after the dreadful defeat at Gallipoli.

His predecesson Neville Chamberlain went to Germany to meet Hitler in a peace mission. Neville that hated to fly, flew over the channel. There he met a Hitler that told Neville that Germany had no expansion plans.

Neville went home and broadcasted the good news, only to soon find out that Poland had been invaded by the Germans...

When Churchill came into power, he was a rather lazy prime minister. He lay in bed until 11-12 and he drank alot of watered down wiskey. However, he soon found himself with the 'Hitler problem'.

He was all for that the US should embark on the same waggon as himselves against the Germans. The English Channel beeing his great fortune towards the German empire. The Germans had a hard time crossing it, and to begin with Germany launched air-strikes.

After Pearl Harbour, the US entered (reluctantly) the war, and stared to send even bigger shipments to the ally England.

Hitler now saw a formidable enemy in Churchill, however he's main focus was on the eastern front where he fought the Russians. Like Goering once ansewerd a question about the fact that there lived over 40 million people in Russia: "Ah, those we will sweep away"he answered.

Well the sweeping did not occur, and towards the end of the WW II many German generals said it was a better deal to surrender to the Brittish/US troups than to the Russians.

So, in the end Germany collapsed, mainly to the destruction brought by Stalin than anything else. The allied liberated Holland and France, though.

After that, Churchill's role diminished, and he was awarded The greatest Britt in all times by a vote cast by the BBC.

---

Answer 2

i am not sure, but this is what i have heard,

1.Winston had never met Hitler and secretly dispised him.

2.they got along so well then had an argument.

i think number 1 is right. but i really don't know!

I think it is safe to say they did not see eye to eye ! No is the answer.

Answer 3

No, he was a very good British Prime Minister in WW2 and his rousing and patriotic speeches inspired many people to fight the Nazis, and kept spirits up when morale was low.