Was Winston Churchill more racist than Hitler?

[Debaser11]

^Villifying viewpoints on a priori grounds impresses no one. You seem to think (or act as you should be able to) say what you wish on the subject of Jews and gassings without scrutiny. Too bad.

[Grumpy Cat]

Hitler lost.

If the Nazis had won, we'd be learning about how racist Winston Churchill was and how evil and genocidal the allies were.

[Joe McCarthy]

This comes down to an analysis of words versus deeds. Churchill may have spoken of gassing a group of people he didn't like, but Hitler actually did so. From what I know about Churchill (I have a relatively negative-neutral opinion of him) and from the quotes Joe posted, I can't say it's clear that Churchill would've administered any sort of extermination program had he been able to do so. That said, I can't see how his racism compares to Hitler's.

Ah, but Churchill DID gas Iraqis:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH18Ak02.html

Churchill argued that the military use of gas was a "scientific expedient" and it "should not be prevented by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly". Whole villages were bombed and gassed. There was wholesale slaughter of civilians. Men, women and children fleeing from gassed villages in panic were mercilessly machine-gunned by low-flying British planes.

Then compare what Churchill said about Islam to what Hitler said.

Churchill:

“Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”

Hitler:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22268

“Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

“Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious," Hitler told his inner crowd in August 1942, "then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world." Hitler told Mr. Speer that Islam is "perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament." If the Muslims had won in Tours, the whole of Europe would have become Muslim in the 8th century; and "the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of [Europe]. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."

Notice the difference?

[Joe McCarthy]

The usual mistake is to assume that Hitler was somehow an abberation, or that his views were extraordinary for his time and background.

Same largely goes for Churchill.

I'd say both Hitler and Churchill were exceptionally 'racist' even for their time. Comparable leaders like FDR, Stalin, Blum (a Jew), and even Mussolini do not rate with either of them in my opinion. Moreover, there WAS opposition among other Brits to his use of gas in Iraq, as his mention of 'squeamishness' makes clear.

There was a difference between the paternalistic 'racism' often associated with early Victorianism and the more fierce 'Social Darwinism' of the period roughly between Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species and WW2. Churchill was a staunch 'Social Darwinist', believed that war was noble and the mover of history, and unlike other Brits, opposed the independence of India to the bitter end.

[Loki]

In 1919, as Colonial Secretary Churchill advocated the use of chemical weapons on the "uncooperative Arabs" in the puppet state of Iraq. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes."

Now I'm a bit less bothered by youths pissing on Churchill's statue in London.

[Debaser11]

^Seems fitting that foreign "youths" would be the ones pissing on the statue of the man who's largely responsible for destroying the West. It's pretty much vultures picking at a carcus fashioned in the likeness of one of its destroyers. How's that Germanicus?

[Adalwolf]

Churchill was a scumbag to the highest degree and cared little about his own country besides profiteering from the war. Hitler actually wanted Britain as an ally which was evident by his lenience at Dunkirk. He let the British army retreat which was basically like offering a truce.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Adalwolf
Churchill was a scumbag to the highest degree and cared little about his own country besides profiteering from the war.

The historical record indicates otherwise. Churchill opposed Hitler because he passionately loved the Empire and saw Germany as a threat to it. No stauncher imperialist has ever lived.

Hitler actually wanted Britain as an ally which was evident by his lenience at Dunkirk.

The usual Nazi apologia. One wonders if Nazi apologists ever bother to ask WHY the British refused that alliance offer. If they did, they'd see how silly Hitler's idea was from a British perspective.

[Murphy]

[YOUTUBE]isNOQ3zQ2F0[/YOUTUBE]

[Adalwolf]

The historical record indicates otherwise. Churchill opposed Hitler because he passionately loved the Empire and saw Germany as a threat to it. No stauncher imperialist has ever lived.

Which records are you referring to, your high school history text book? Churchill and the allies had no reason to interfere with Germany and Poland's little conflict. Hitler considered Britain a formidable ally and a ''brotherly'' people. He had no intention for hostile activity towards them. It's just a shame that Winston was a greedy shyster who entered the war because anyone with half a brain knows of the money to be made.

The usual Nazi apologia. One wonders if Nazi apologists ever bother to ask WHY the British refused that alliance offer. If they did, they'd see how silly Hitler's idea was from a British perspective.

It's not ''Nazi'' apologia, it is a valid historical reference. The British didn't have to necessarily become allies with Germany, it was just a neutrality pact that would have benefited both countries. Looking back on it, if Hitler would have slaughtered their army at Dunkirk, the war on the western front could have took a different direction.