Was Churchill really any better than Hitler or Talaat Pasha?

HackneyedScribe · May 24, 2025

Leftyhunter said:
Your missing the whole point of Zionism. Jews where citizens of Germany,Poland and Russia and fought in their armies but were still subject to mass killings . Jews can live in other lands only at the pleasure of said countries inhabitants which is subject to change without notice.
Ultimately Jewish survival hinges on having their own homeland and the military means to secure said homeland from hostile forces.
Leftyhunter

Mod edit: @HackneyedScribe, please avoid phrasing that could refer to current (and post-2000) events.

That ~~doesn’t~~ didn't give Israelis the right to ~~subject~~ have subjected another unconsenting people to the same sort of abuse. That’s the point Israeli Zionists tended to miss: not everything’s about them! Those who made these types of arguments should have been the first in line to offer up their own homes/land/property/country to be taken away by Israeli settlers, instead of forcing it on a people who weren’t even the same people who had been abusing Jewish people in the first place.

Take Churchill, during a time when the British didn’t want Jewish people in Britain. They wanted to move them to East Africa, Churchill pushed to move them to Palestine. Nobody pushed for setting aside their OWN land like what Malaysia did to Singapore. They always expected someone ELSE to make these sacrifices of being displaced just so they themselves don’t have to see a certain type of face. And the Zionists fell right into this divide-and-conquer, playing the oppressed against themselves sort of historic cycle. Instead of fighting for equal rights in the land they were born in, they fought to take rights from the people of another land they themselves never stepped foot in.

Secondly the argument requires the assumption that Israel is some stalwart defender of Jewish lives; which historically wasn’t the case. They intentionally spread anti-Jewish sentiment including committing terrorist attacks in Muslim countries, just so the population of Jews in those countries will move to Israel, so Israel could gain the demographic advantage against the rest of the Caanite descendants to commit massed population displacement. As the father of Zionism Theodore Herzl said in his Diaries: “the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies”

WITSEND · May 24, 2025

Leftyhunter said:
I can't discuss post 2000 events but no sign of religious bigotry which has been around since religion began is going away any time soon.
Leftyhunter

I'm more of an optomist than that but your right, we're skirting close to current events.

Chandragupta Maurya · May 25, 2025

HackneyedScribe said:
That doesn’t give Israelis the right to subject another unconsenting people to the same sort of abuse. That’s the point Israeli Zionists tended to miss: not everything’s about them! Those who made these types of arguments should have been the first in line to offer up their own homes/land/property/country to be taken away by Israeli settlers, instead of forcing it on a people who weren’t even the same people who had been abusing Jewish people in the first place.

Take Churchill, during a time when the British didn’t want Jewish people in Britain. They wanted to move them to East Africa, Churchill pushed to move them to Palestine. Nobody pushed for setting aside their OWN land like what Malaysia did to Singapore. They always expected someone ELSE to make these sacrifices of being displaced just so they themselves don’t have to see a certain type of face. And the Zionists fell right into this divide-and-conquer, playing the oppressed against themselves sort of historic cycle. Instead of fighting for equal rights in the land they were born in, they fought to take rights from the people of another land they themselves never stepped foot in.

Secondly the argument requires the assumption that Israel is some stalwart defender of Jewish lives; which historically wasn’t the case. They intentionally spread anti-Jewish sentiment including committing terrorist attacks in Muslim countries, just so the population of Jews in those countries will move to Israel, so Israel could gain the demographic advantage against the rest of the Caanite descendants to commit massed population displacement. As the father of Zionism Theodore Herzl said in his Diaries: “the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies”

And the European Jews were willing to move to a godforsaken desert half a world away than live between the more civilized Europeans.

As you well pointed out, the Europeans outsourced their Jewish problem to the Middle East.

Leftyhunter · May 25, 2025

Chandragupta Maurya said:
And the European Jews were willing to move to a godforsaken desert half a world away than live between the more civilized Europeans.

As you well pointed out, the Europeans outsourced their Jewish problem to the Middle East.

Except the Jews turned lemon's in to lemonade and became a food exporter. Getting back to the OP during WWII Churchill didn't allow Jewish refugees into then British Mandate Palestine. Its better to live in a desert then be murdered by obes countrymen. Also although India at first gave Israel the cold shoulder they eventually became great friends with Israel.
Leftyhunter

Chandragupta Maurya · May 25, 2025

JoanOfArc007 said:
Yes, into the point about the older Sikh gentleman… he reminds me of one of the posters from India on this forum(I don’t think he has posted in a while) but this poster was known for a heaping praise upon the British and Christianity for what were effectively his view being responsible for civilizing India. He was very critical of the Hindu and Islamic history of India.

The video is about 10 years old so since then we might have even less pro empire people in the UK. One thing that also stood out to me from the video was seeing the younger Sikh man being harshly critical of the British empire, to which one of the audience members a Pakistani Muslim was agreeing with him and clapping every time the young Sikh spoke….but eventually the young Sikh provided his opinion that the Arab Muslims were even more brutal than the British, which received the look of disapproval from the Pakistani Muslim. That reminds me of the divide between Pakistani and Indian nationalist in the 20th century. And the wars and disagreement between these people. On one hand, they both are in agreement with regards to criticizing the British and maybe they must have some agreements on celebrating both Hindu and Muslims from the Indian subcontinent who fought for independence from the British? or even established empires with success before the arrival of the East India company. On the other hand they criticize each other religion and history which does not seem to ultimately serve either of their purposes.

The point is not that everything was perfect before the British came in. But Indian kingdoms were not divided on the basis of religion - they followed natural geographical and linguistic borders in general. The whole idea of Pakistan came from the British Divide and Rule policy - something they used successfully in their colonies around the world.

The British professor who pointed out sati affected 500 women a year (but thousands of pages have been written on it and commentators here bring it up too) but famines killed hundreds of thousands a year deserves a big hug from me.

The older British guy who brought up the caste system didn't mention it was legal under the British and an apartheid system was enforced in all British colonies. In Hong Kong this went on till the 1990s. The caste system was illegal in independent India and 50 percent affirmative action is enforced in colleges in India for lower castes. Probably one of the strongest affirmative actions in the world.

Chandragupta Maurya · May 25, 2025

Leftyhunter said:
Except the Jews turned lemon's in to lemonade and became a food exporter. Getting back to the OP during WWII Churchill didn't allow Jewish refugees into then British Mandate Palestine. Its better to live in a desert then be murdered by obes countrymen. Also although India at first gave Israel the cold shoulder they eventually became great friends with Israel.
Leftyhunter

That was due to India having a large Muslim minority that was already on the edge after Partition.

David Ben Gurion was very fond of India. So were other Israeli leaders. They had to deal with a large disaffected minority and still remain a democracy. For a long time they said there were no other democratic countries geographically between India and Israel.

Leftyhunter · May 25, 2025

Chandragupta Maurya said:
That was due to India having a large Muslim minority that was already on the edge after Partition.

David Ben Gurion was very fond of India. So were other Israeli leaders. They had to deal with a large disaffected minority and still remain a democracy. For a long time they said there were no other democratic countries geographically between India and Israel.

That plus India wanted good relations with the Arab world but as a general rule the Arab countries sided with Pakistan over India and while they never sent their militaries to fight alongside the Pakistanis they had very close economic relations with Pakistan. Also India wanted to diversify their arms imports from being overly reliant on the Russian Federation and France during the 1990s. Indian students were interested in attending Israeli universities plus Indian high tech companies wanted joint ventures in Israel.
Getting back to the OP for better or worse the British created modern India and Pakistan by giving the respective independence movement s of both now countries a reason to set aside their differences and create a brand new unified political entity that managed to stay cohesive despite some bumps on the road.
So Churchill be he good or evil helped bring about both India and Pakistan.
Leftyhunter

JoanOfArc007 · May 25, 2025

starstrike said:
Which Arab muslims? There were no Arab muslims ruling any part of India after the 9th cent.

It was a general point being made by the young Sikh that Arab Muslims treated minorities and natives they encountered worse compared to the British Christian treatment of minorities or natives they encountered . That’s the opinion that was being made.

starstrike · May 27, 2025

Chandragupta Maurya said:
That was due to India having a large Muslim minority that was already on the edge after Partition.

David Ben Gurion was very fond of India. So were other Israeli leaders. They had to deal with a large disaffected minority and still remain a democracy. For a long time they said there were no other democratic countries geographically between India and Israel.

What did Palestine have to do with Indian Muslims? Partition was demanded by Muslims - it wasn't imposed upon them, unlike it was on the Hindus. The fact is that pan-Islamism was encouraged by everyone including Gandhi who pandered to political goals that had nothing to do with India, like the Khilafat movement for reinstating the Pan-Islamic Caliphate in Turkey of all places.

Chandragupta Maurya · May 27, 2025

starstrike said:
What did Palestine have to do with Indian Muslims? Partition was demanded by Muslims - it wasn't imposed upon them, unlike it was on the Hindus. The fact is that pan-Islamism was encouraged by everyone including Gandhi who pandered to political goals that had nothing to do with India, like the Khilafat movement for reinstating the Pan-Islamic Caliphate in Turkey of all places.

Perhaps. But Sarvarkar or SP Mukherjee were never going to get freedom for India, any more than Jinnah.

starstrike · May 27, 2025

Chandragupta Maurya said:
Perhaps. But Sarvarkar or SP Mukherjee were never going to get freedom for India, any more than Jinnah.

Most European empires collapsed after world war 2. They became both financially and politically unsustainable for the metropole countries. India was no exception.
Gandhi's success was more in turning the nationalist movement into a mass movement than in actually delivering independence.

starstrike · May 27, 2025

If anything Hitler was the biggest reason for delivering independence to the third world by
1) weakening Europe enough that it couldn't sustain colonialism any longer both economically and morally.
2) then losing the war.

Additionally, Hitler also helped expose the limits of Gandhi's ideology, which failed to produce any useful response to Nazism. Gandhi's own suggestion to Jews was to fling themselves to death from cliffs in the hope of rousing Hitler's conscience. That would have been about as effective as cows jumping into slaughterhouses to rouse the conscience of the meat industry.

Knapf · May 28, 2025

HackneyedScribe said:
They intentionally spread anti-Jewish sentiment including committing terrorist attacks in Muslim countries, just so the population of Jews in those countries will move to Israel, so Israel could gain the demographic advantage against the rest of the Caanite descendants to commit massed population displacement.

Avi Shlaim Falsifies Iraqi Jewish History

In his memoirs, historian Avi Shlaim joins those who blame Zionists for the dissolution of the Iraq's Jewish community — ignoring, obscuring, and outright

www.camera.org

Solidaire · May 28, 2025

starstrike said:
If anything Hitler was the biggest reason for delivering independence to the third world by
1) weakening Europe enough that it couldn't sustain colonialism any longer both economically and morally.
2) then losing the war.

The biggest reason for third world independence and the collapse of colonialism were the struggles and independence movements of the colonised themselves, don't you think?

And besides, the decline of European imperial power and its ability to sustain global colonialism was already underway, even before WWII. The Great War - WWI - being the turning point. The 2nd world war only accelerated the process.

Just in case there were any lingering notions that anyone should feel grateful to Hitler about anything. Let alone "delivering independence to the third world". That is something bringing to mind Simon Bolivar and people like him, the complete antithesis of the likes of Hitler.

At Each Kilometer · May 28, 2025

I've seen this thesis in the net. AH did indirectly cause the end of the Western Colonialism by the conquest of the very heart of the French Empire (short-lived indeed) and by threatening the very core of the British one. The 'Good European' fighting against the Big Bad Imperialists.

starstrike · May 28, 2025

The biggest reason for third world independence and the collapse of colonialism were the struggles and independence movements of the colonised themselves, don't you think?

And besides, the decline of European imperial power and its ability to sustain global colonialism was already underway, even before WWII. The Great War - WWI - being the turning point. The 2nd world war only accelerated the process.

Gandhi's main success was in using the means at his disposal - radio, newspapers, telegraph etc. to create a mass movement, but he could have done that indefinitely without making a dent in the British empire itself. In fact the British pretty much ignored all of Gandhi's movements, treating him more as a nuisance than any real threat. His last attempt - Quit India Movement in 1942 - ended in failure.

Only after WW 2 ended did the empire become financially unviable - they had to pay far more to run the empire thant they were getting in return - and thus they decided to dissolve it.
This had actually been the case since the 1920s, thanks to their own policy of destroying Indian industries. But they held onto it for a couple of decades more while they could still afford to.

Solidaire said:
Just in case there were any lingering notions that anyone should feel grateful to Hitler about anything. Let alone "delivering independence to the third world". That is something bringing to mind Simon Bolivar and people like him, the complete antithesis of the likes of Hitler.

There's no mention of feeling grateful or any kind of feeling in my post. it's a simple thesis based on the theory of cause and effect.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt · May 28, 2025

Dave Evans said:
My main thoughts on your posts have nothing to do with Churchill and rather more with how anyone with an ounce of humanity could frame the Holocaust as something that just 'happened' rather than being actively perpetrated? In other words I think you're practically flirting with denialism.

As for my original thoughts on Churchill, I equate the deluded types for whom he is the ultimate bogeyman with the idolatrous flag shaggers of the British right. I hope you'll very happy together in your mutual masturbatory fantasies.

Holocaust was a deliberate scientific systematic genocide. When did I claim otherwise. I claimed originally they wanted Jews out of Europe and as it became impossible they moved towards extermination.

I think you are practically flirting with denialism and imperialism, the fact you chose to challenge me on someone who is dead, as opposed to jump in and .... on Churchill and his Empire when their supporters are on and about freely.

charlie ia · May 28, 2025

Solidaire said:
The biggest reason for third world independence and the collapse of colonialism were the struggles and independence movements of the colonised themselves, don't you think?

And besides, the decline of European imperial power and its ability to sustain global colonialism was already underway, even before WWII. The Great War - WWI - being the turning point. The 2nd world war only accelerated the process.

Just in case there were any lingering notions that anyone should feel grateful to Hitler about anything. Let alone "delivering independence to the third world". That is something bringing to mind Simon Bolivar and people like him, the complete antithesis of the likes of Hitler.

so called 'independence heroes' are indeed idealized as the complete anti-thesis, but even when the ideal might not really be hundred percent fulfilled, we can safely assert they could not be further away from hitler. first action of latin american independence 'revolutionaries' was to deliver slaves from their ignominious chains & abolish the spanish 'caste' system.

now, usually independence movements do take into account external conditions - venezuela & argentina triggered the south american independence race when the spanish king was captured by napoleon, for example- but bottomline, the deal is that you need to act. 'independence' wont fall out from the heavens due to external factors, except under extremely curious corner scenarios.

external factors only play a role when you seize the situation for the advantage of your movement.

starstrike · May 28, 2025

Bolivar fought a war of liberation and directly liberated multiple countries. Gandhi's non-violent efforts, though inspiring, never achieved the desired effect.

Dave Evans · May 28, 2025

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt said:
Holocaust was a deliberate scientific systematic genocide. When did I claim otherwise. I claimed originally they wanted Jews out of Europe and as it became impossible they moved towards extermination.

I think you are practically flirting with denialism and imperialism, the fact you chose to challenge me on someone who is dead, as opposed to jump in and .... on Churchill and his Empire when their supporters are on and about freely.

Poor Nazis, forced to revert to genocide, when all they wanted to do was ...

No idea what the second paragraph is on about.

Search

Search

Was Churchill really any better than Hitler or Talaat Pasha?

HackneyedScribe

WITSEND

Chandragupta Maurya

Leftyhunter

Chandragupta Maurya

Chandragupta Maurya

Leftyhunter

JoanOfArc007

starstrike

Chandragupta Maurya

starstrike

starstrike

Knapf

Avi Shlaim Falsifies Iraqi Jewish History

Solidaire

At Each Kilometer

starstrike

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

charlie ia

starstrike

Dave Evans

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions