So many white people are thinking this is somehow praising Hitler for stating “Murdering millions is bad when it happens to anyone or is done by anyone, we don’t see it talked about because it wasn’t to Europeans.”
Fuckin’ bizarre. Murder is bad. When European powers did it to Africa, no one remembers who did it because everyone did it. We know Hitler because he used the same imperialist justification on Europeans. “I will improve your lives and civilize you the German way.”
If Hitler did it to Africa, no one would have complained or had a leg to stand on without being hypocritical. Italy, France, England, Portugal, Denmark, all did the same heinous acts to who was justified towards.
Lest I go down a reading rabbit hole I don’t have time for today, what’s the TLDR on churchills evils? my history education was lackluster
I’ll probably (and rightly) get downvoted for asking this but was Churchill’s crime. Does it have to do with how he treated Ireland?
He caused massive famines across India just to fill coffers of the British empire. 6 million people at a conservative estimate
Destroyed Bengal and Bangladesh
Ask most Indians- Churchill and mother Theresa are two of the most hated people in our history
No, it’s because Hitler pretty much conquered Europe. None of the other people managed to do that.
Napoleon is not taboo last time I checked
Horray, we are the point of “actually, a lot of people were as bad as Hitler”.
No, you dickwads. The man murdered 11 million people in 12 years outside of combat action, most of them within the last 5 years of his terror. Thats not counting any of the victims of the war itself: You know, 900.00 People starving in Leningrad alone and so forth. Thats why he is vilified.
Dont know why this reflex to downplay his atrocities is always there.
Oh and i have plenty of hate for the other fucks on that list. And Stalin. And Mao. And Pol Pot. And Idi Amin. And Netanyahu. And Kissinger. Because some people actually managed to dislike genocide as a concept and not just when it hits the people who look like them.
Dont know why this reflex to downplay his atrocities is always there.
i don’t think that’s the thrust of the OP? they aren’t saying, “hey, c’mon mate, hitler wasn’t all that bad!”
they’re saying a lot of men did evil deeds, but only one of them is called out for it and their conjecture for why the others escaped scorn and scrutiny is because the skins of their victims had additional levels of pigmentation.
personally, as an indian, more of my countryfolk were killed by churchill than by hitler, but i still don’t see the austrian psycopath as a good person; i still don’t see him as better than churchill. all it means is that i have enough hatred in my heart for them both. and for the others of their kind.
yes, hitler may be the worst of them all by orders of magnitude, but that doesn’t mean the others are saints – and that’s the narrative which shouldn’t be lost.
Churchill caused the deaths of 6 million Indians at a conservative estimate
Leopold killed 20 million in the Congo. That’s pretty equivalent numbers
That doesn’t work for the narrative, so those deaths don’t count.
Who here is downplaying any atrocities?
Anyone who implies that all these people with astronomically lower body counts than Hitler are just as bad as him, like OOP.
Leopold was responsible for 1.5 to 13 million deaths. And a slave trade that effected many many more lives than that.
And every single one is due to Hitler? The Japanese men fighting American men was Hitler’s micromanagement?
No one is saying Hitler was less evil, we’re saying “No one cares about these people’s murder because it wasn’t to the normalized default of white people.”
