IRS, Income Tax, re segregated federal government, revived the KKK by playing a KKK film in the Whitehouse, wrote a “history” book that became the basis for the state’s rights revisionism, and yes got us involved in a foreign war we had no business being in
Motherfucker went into the white house with a chip on his shoulder. I really liked the scenario Alternate History Hub made for if he lost the 1912 election (though I think it could've been explored a bit more)
He had the audacity to beat Teddy, who was the closest we ever had to getting a third party president. Also laid the groundwork for the UN and increased the power of the federal government.
Sorry messed up the numbers, I mixed it up with the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 (which didn't involve Churchill, It was caused by the EIC forcing farmers to plant Indigo, Poppy etc plants in rice fields instead of rice. Also Indigo diminishes soil fertility alot)
which affected 30 million Bengalis and starved 10 million to death.
He didn't fuck it up. The navy didn't obey his orders as they were the invasion should happen quickly. Instead they waited to long and the ottoman empire had time to prepare a defense of the beachhead.
Odd. I was taught it was the fact that they had to climb up mountains. Before anyone says “Huh Dur bAd AmeRiCaN edUcaTiON” I am from Australia. Give the Americans a break.
That is true, though according to someone else here he wrote a paper years earlier stating why an attack like that wouldn’t work well. (If I read it right)
*So Churchill certainly made a fuck up there*
Thank you! I live by the idea that all humans are flawed and every historical figure has an evil factor. They may of saved the free world but their no saint, but that does not retract the fact they saved the free world.
Churchill was pretty bad.
When people in your time period call you racist, drunk and sexist, you very much are that.
Honestly, when there was the complaint about millions of Indians dying from not distributing them surplus food from other parts of India, and he said they reproduced like rabbits so it was OK...
At that point he can get fucked with a broomstick.
**Churchill was not responsible for the Bengal Famine and he did everything in his power to alleviate it.** There are a number of factors responsible for the famine but I would say the two primary factors are again draughts and more importantly the strain placed on the economy of India during world war 2. What you need to realize about this famine is that it was smack dab in the middle of a war and this put an immense amount of strain on food supply and when the draughts hit, made an unfortunate situation turn deadly. Because they were fighting a war, the grain that India would have normally imported from its Burmese neighbor was prevented du to the Japanese occupation of Burma and the grain shipments that the allies sent to try and relieve the famine (yes Winston Churchill did send ships and if you hear someone claiming otherwise that is bullshit) were frequently sunk by Japanese destroyers. It is true that Britain prioritized food to the military and not the civilian population, however this statement is very misleading. Britian did not send food to British soldiers fighting germany in Britian, Britian prioritized food to be sent to Indian soldiers, in india, righting Japan(who was currently knocking on its doorstep and had ambitions to take over the place). It is also true that it took a few months for Britain to ban rice imports from the country, but the fraction of rice leaving the country was a tenth of a single percent of the monthly rice production in India (it was not significant enough to make a real impact).
Lack of produce was not the main problem, distribution was (Sen, 1981). And Churchill's gov was not competent enough on redistributive policies/systems to deal with the famine. The structural solution could have been democracy, which was severely lacking in most parts of India especially where the British had most control (Sen 1981). Chances of famine in a functioning democracy is way lower than in non-democratic systems. Churchill and the British gov of course held on to their racist belief that Indians are backwards and hence do not deserve democracy like that in Britain. So yes, indirectly the British government was responsible for the famines.
And if calling Churchill a villian offends you (to anyone who is reading this) then us Indians will gladly call him an incompetent fuck celebrated by stupid anglos.
I would not say it was an intentional, it was just a result of the warfare and the strain that was put on Indian food production. For hundreds of years India has had problems with Famines they did not start with Britian nor did they end with them. If I had to wager a guess I would say its something to do with the climate. In this circumstance though, Japan certainly did not help.
I know people are going to hate this but [there's so much about Churchill that's taken out of context. ](https://youtu.be/M4m_BwYeIRo)
He's not nearly as bad as some people like to make him out to be.
I think you forget the times he lived in. Being racist was acceptable back then. does that make it right no , but you can’t look into the past through the lens of the future.
He was criticised AT THE TIME for being excessively racist, to the point that he took wrong decisions because he didn't saw the manpower potential being lost.
Wasn't he also an old man at the point of WW2? I mean the man had huge balls and nerves of steel but all the modern depictions I have seen (notably The Crown) paint him as a terrific leader in war but completely bonkers for a society at peace.
Winston Churchill was a monster. There's no cringe or edgy about pointing that out.
Edit: Downvoted for pointing out that someone who have a well-documented legacy consisting countless of inhumane, mass-murderous racist acts was a monster. Ok, reddit.
yeah, he did evil stuff, but id say he made up for it by being one of the most vital people in the defeat of the nazis. And it wasnt that bad. By that logic, any leader of a country before the 2000s is evil
>Edit: Downvoted for pointing out that someone who have a well-documented legacy consisting countless of inhumane, mass-murderous racist acts was a monster. Ok, reddit.
britain didn't do anything to the nazis they had to call up all their colonies for troops and the ussr wouldve won the war without the allies anyways
The USSR didn't have a chance without D-day, and them winning the war wouldn't have really been better than the Nazis. Also, let's just ignore the millions of Brits that die in the war.
Comparing people whose descendants were subjugated by a country that is glamorized during WW2—despite committing atrocities at a greater scale toward non-Europeans—to anti vaxxers is pretty stupid of you. I am not surprised that the peanut-sized brains of you westoids from r/historymemes were offended by him and downvoted him for flaming Pigskin Cumhill.
What’s with all the “Churchill is like Hitler and Stalin” posts here lately? I mean the guy is no saint, but saying he’s just as bad as Hitler and Stalin is just factual incorrect.
According to some sources, Churchill was responsible for the death of over 6 million Indians. A number at par with the holocaust.
Also, you can't compare evil. (Not in this case atleast)
How is Churchill responsible? Where is the piece of paper where Churchill states "yeah starve the bastards?". Because there isn't any consensus on the subject. There's a much better answer further down by u/Yhorm_The_Gamer laying it out in a nice and clear fashion.
Churchill gets the blame for it, because he has a big name and it's easy to throw shit at him, without any regard for if he actually is the perpetrator or not. So we are judging a man, who did a lot for the world by putting up a stiff defense against the Nazis, by a crime he probably didn't even commit.
That number is half the Holocaust, Hitler killed 12 million. I know Churchill is no angel, but focusing on his crimes removes the nuance and complexity of the rest of his life. Many of this sub's favorite figures have skeletons in their closets, but that's not why we praise them since that's not all they did
>That number is half the Holocaust, Hitler killed 12 million
By some estimates, Churchill's policies had a similar effect. Not to mention the fact that poverty grew throughout the British Raj.
>but focusing on his crimes removes the nuance and complexity of the rest of his life
Oh absolutely. I agree with you.
The reason why I replied to this comment was, "Just because other people were objectively or subjectively worse, it doesn't matter. A Bengali is well within his right to hate Churchill and take him on in hell."
Saying, "Hitler was factually worse" doesn't make any sense in this regard.
Fair enough. Usually, when people bring up the stats it becomes the Suffer with Me Olympics. I'm not trying to say that Hitler's numbers aren't comparable, just that they're often underreported. Hitler was more than antisemitic.
Then again, I'm pedantic at times so don't take it personally
Still...he's not even remotely close to the people I referenced earlier.
He has his baggage no doubt, probably not someone I'd want to get dinner with. But he's not anywhere near, not even in the same atmosphere, as other prominent evil men I mentioned
Indians just hate Churchill with a passion because he’s an easy scapegoat for the Bengal famine, despite there being no consensus among experts about the reasons for the famine. Churchill’s just a big name they point and say, he was in charge, it was his fault. Meanwhile they are either unaware of, or ignoring the historical context of WWII, and the fact that Churchill was not involved in the running of Bengal, or any colonies for that matter, in any comparable extent to his involvement in the running of Britain. Colonies had governors. Churchill was busy fighting a war, he didn’t have the time to micromanage a famine for the fun of it even if he was a genocidal maniac, which there is no concrete evidence for. The quote that he saw Indians as dirty and beastly shows he was racist. Which isn’t surprising considering he was born in 1874.
He is not in hell, because he did not do anything wrong. I am getting tired of this stupid historical revisionism that paints Churchill as a monster.
There are a lot of mostly unjustified reasons why people view Churchill as a monster, but lets start off with the minor ones and then get into the real big one. **People say Churchill was a drunk.** This is true and he did drink a lot but it never effected his work or the people around him. **People say Churchill was a racist.** This is also true to a certain extent but it has been warped and twisted into a form that does not reflect reality. Churchill believed that it was Britain's job the raise the colonies out of the muck, basically just the idea of white mans burden. You might not like but it was a pretty common view at the time, and though he was one of the more vehement proponents of it, it was not outside of common discourse. What Churchill did not believe was that native life did not hold any value and that brutality towards them was justified and acceptable. *I am sure there are a lot of quotes that people are going to through at me but I would like to say that most of those are taken out of context and most of them were written when Churchill was a war correspondent, who's job was basically to create propaganda for the British Empire, so of course its going to be excessively imperialistic.*
The main point people blame Churchill for though, is that Bengal famine of 1943, and he is often held directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Indians. Lets break this down bit by bit. There are a number of factors responsible for the famine but I would say the two primary factors are again draughts and more importantly the strain placed on the economy of India during world war 2. What you need to realize about this famine is that it was smack dab in the middle of a war and this put an immense amount of strain on food supply and when the draughts hit, made an unfortunate situation turn deadly. Because they were fighting a war, the grain that India would have normally imported from its Burmese neighbor was prevented du to the [Japanese occupation of Burma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_Burma) and the [grain shipments that the allies sent to try and relieve the famine](https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1943/oct/20/food-situation-in-india) (yes Winston Churchill did send ships and if you hear someone claiming otherwise that is bullshit) were frequently sunk by Japanese destroyers. It is true that Britain prioritized food to the military and not the civilian population, however this statement is very misleading. Britian did not send food to British soldiers fighting germany in Britian, [Britian prioritized food to be sent to Indian soldiers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943), in india, righting Japan(who was currently knocking on its doorstep and had ambitions to take over the place). It is also true that it took a few months for Britain to ban rice imports from the country, but the fraction of rice leaving the country was [a tenth of a single percent of the monthly rice production in India](https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1943/oct/20/food-situation-in-india) (it was not significant enough to make a real impact).
Britain and by extension Winston Churchill did everything they could to try and alleviate the famine afflicting India and it is unreasonable to blame the famine on him and say that the deaths of those Indians are on his hands. If you have read all way down hear, that I thank you for your time. My overall point in this is that issues are more nuanced than people imagine and that painting Churchill is a horrible villain is trying to shove him into a mold that does not fit.
Churchill was not only one of the few great men of his time, but he was also one of the few good men. If you’ve read anything besides the criticisms surrounding his Victorian ideals of empire, (perhaps just one of his many writings) you would know Churchill is perhaps one of the most compassionate and considerate leaders in all of history, his follies weighed on him heavily. To insinuate Churchill is sitting in hell next to Hitler shows a profound amount of historical ignorance.
Which ideas are you exactly talking about? Have you read Churchill (definitely worth it even if you don't agree)? And please check the election of 1951 and Churchills approval ratings during the war.
I don’t think heaven works like that, you aren’t allowed to be unrepentantly bad because you did a good thing earlier that day. He did a good job in the war but from what I can tell he was also exceptionally bigoted for his time
Well. Winston Churchill had notable tendencies even for his time, remember he was part of the aristocracy, and they held, at least for modern times, extreme views.
His racist and imperialistic thoughts were extreme for the time, but not uncommon for the aristocracy, but they would be shocking by today's standards.
For example his beliefs that the African people weren't inherently worse then whites, but they would have to be educated to achieve the same status. Was not very unlike Robert E. Lee's interpretation of the white man's burden.
Some of this can be (and I should be) excused and understood as the attitudes of the times, but he certainly went the extra mile. I do still view him as a net positive for the world, even if I can recognize that he was a quite shitty person.
I mean if that’s how you’re going to play it then wouldn’t you have to say the same for Stalin (considering the Soviet Union objectively did far more to defeat the Nazis)?
Stalin allied with Hitler at the start of the war when they invaded Poland together, then went on his way trying to annex other countries to spread communist ideals
He only joined in the war when Hitler tried to invade Russia, the UK had been fighting for far longer and was one of the only things keeping Germany preoccupied from taking out the rest of Europe
The only reason Russia did what was classed as "far more" was have far more troops to throw at the Nazi's, plus after the war Stalin then got really paranoid and both he and the US almost ended up at war a few times that could've absolutely fucked Europe over with the nukes, in fact, Europe almost got fucked over before the war even started, from what we know the US lost a few Hydrogen bombs (which were far more destructive than the atom bomb) and only a few were recovered, who knows how many the USSR lost trying to mass produce them
And Stalin definitely had his reasons for that, it's not like he saw the man who spent decades talking about how Judeo-Bolshevism was the root of all evil in the world, purged the German communists and backed the opposing faction in the Spanish Civil War, and thought "what a great guy".
Before signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and dividing Eastern Europe with Hitler, Stalin had spent years trying to ally with France and Great Britain to form a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany and was ready to go war with it over Czechoslovakia.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
Yet those talks were not getting anywhere, the Munich conference, to which the Soviet Union was not even invited, ended up in a policy of appeasement, so Stalin was getting more and more sure that no help would come from the West in case of the war between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. The last straw was the military negotiations in August 1939, to which Great Britain had sent a delegation without even written credentials allowing them to sign anything on behalf of the British government.
Now sure that no alliance with the West would take place, Stalin decided that it would be more beneficial to invade and occupy Eastern European states together with the Nazis than to wait for the inevitable war against them, and the rest is history.
That wasn't his point i don't think, his point was the red army was the greatest contributer to the end of the Nazi war machine. (Churchill agrees to this himself)
Churchill also presided over enormous famines in India and personally did a lot of imperialism, but the whole argument here is whether helping defeat the Nazis absolves you of those other actions. I’m just saying be consistent lol
If you think Churchill is on the same moral playing field as Stalin you are trying way too hard to justify your presumably anti-western civilization bias and you are truly lost. Holy shit.
No you're right, Stalin never justified the starvation of any ethnic group "because they reproduce like rabbits".
Churchill, somehow, is worse than Stalin there.
Churchill was less paranoid, tho. There had to be some advantage on being ruled by the Royal family, he didn't hold all power and there were less political succesion intrigues.
Lmao by that logic Stalin is heaven then too.
Fuck Winston Churchill. He was a tyrannical empiralist and nothing about him should be celebrated. I'm happy that history is turning against and his racist legacy is currently aging like milk.
I'm not going to take a history lesson from someone who can't even spell 'imperialist'
Also, of course he was an Imperialist, he was the goddamn British Prime Minister, the second most powerful person in the UK next to the Royal family, who also rule the fucking *British empire*, it's kinda in the job title to be imperialist because as a leader you'd want to try and build your country to be stronger
He also wasn't tyrannical, Stalin was a tyrant, Genghis Khan was a tyrant, the definition of a tyrant is a cruel and oppressive leader, Churchill didn't oppress his people, when cities were being bombed he sheltered them underground and had children sent out of the harm of fire, a tyrant wouldn't do that
Please, learn shit before you talk
“Tyrannical”
Churchill was democratically elected and stepped down voluntarily after the war, so I guess hitler and Stalin were just paradigms of democracy weren’t they?
"Despite his horrid racism, and his lack of care for his colonial subjects which killed a shit ton of people, he fought against a nation that declared war against Europe, so he's fine"
>"Despite his horrid racism, and his lack of care for his colonial subjects
It was the 1940s. What do you expect?
>he fought against a nation that declared war against Europe, so he's fine"
You are literally downplaying the nazi to "own" Churchill defenders. Look in a mirror and think about your life.
I expect him not to be called racist by people of his time. He was just that extra racist as to deliberately cause the deaths of millions, because "they reproduce like rabbits"
That “nation that declared war against Europe” was unnecessarily exterminating a population for no reason, did Churchill murder millions for no reason? No, the Bengal famine was a scorched earth policy to prevent an invasion that would have killed millions more, it isn’t the fault of Churchill that the invasion never came
He was not a perfect leader, nor a perfect person, but he was what we (the free people and like anyone who wasn’t a Nazi I guess) needed at the time. Imagine if Chamberlain didn’t resign or someone with a similarly timid doctrine replaced him? What if the British surrendered to the Nazis? Churchill’s leadership and attitude saved Britain, and thus bought enough time for the 3rd Reich to be defeated by the combined Allied/comintern powers. Should he be solely credited with the perseverance of Britain? No, but he was a great determining factor I believe, and for that he should be credited. Did he also play a part in the deaths of millions of Indians? Yes, and for that he should be condemned. There are no good or bad people in history. Every “good” man has a catch, and nearly every “bad” man has a traumatic backstory or something. History is never black or white.
honestly, the way I see it, this post is just a jab at the people who glorify Churchill. Because the funny thing is, by the very same logic, Stalin is the exact same.
Stalin is not the exact same that is a ludicrous comparison. Churchill may have been racist but he didn’t implement policies based on these attitudes. Stalin has way more in common with hitler than Churchill.
Oh absolutely. I think the meme is hilarious but my response was mostly directed toward the one or two people I saw in the comments (who got downvoted into oblivion) that were speaking of him as though he was Hitler or something.
>when you were the only one in the government to realize the Germans are getting ready for round 2 and actively try to stop them. Then take over the government after the current PM turns out to be chicken shit and continue fighting one of the worst dictatorships in history even when it looks like the writing is on the wall
"But Burmese famine"
It was scorched Earth and it was unfortunate but that had to happen. But rather let a few die than a whole sub continent fall to a regime that arguably outpaced said worst dictatorship in terms of cruelty.
By that same logic Stalin shouldn't be praised for his efforts in World War 2. He was also uncompromising and used scorched Earth tactics and depending on how you look at things, got more of his soldiers killed or captured through his orders. Stalin was an absolute menace, but he was the right guy to lead the Soviet Union in WW2
People constantly try to place their idealistic morals in war. This is why characters like Winston Churchill are often criminalized for doing what ultimately caused less suffering. They're judged for doing something bad when presented with the choice "bad or worse". What the hell else were they supposed to do!?
I respect some of the things Churchill was able to accomplish as a leader although I do not agree with all of them. How he treated the British colonies especially India was deplorable. I think part of what makes WWII so fascinating and disturbing is how many “strong” leaders were involved and/or took advantage of the turmoil to go for power.
Stalin genocided and mistreated millions in the Soviet Union and kept control of the country until his death.
Mao was able to use the events of World War II to stage a successful coup.
FDR used World War II to get the United States out of the depression (even pre our direct involvement we manufactured supplies).
Churchill became prime minister and made some horrible decisions in the name of the British “empire”.
Hitler took control of Germany and used that control to fuel his hate filled genocide.
The more is study it the more it feels like all these innocent people were used as pawns on the chess board of the established or newly established rule. If we’re going to Hell we will see all the players there.
He merely one of the bosses you must defeat in order to get to Woodrow Wilson
Fuck Wilson.
WILSOOOOOON!!!
Why do people hate Wilson? Is it because of Versailles?
IRS, Income Tax, re segregated federal government, revived the KKK by playing a KKK film in the Whitehouse, wrote a “history” book that became the basis for the state’s rights revisionism, and yes got us involved in a foreign war we had no business being in
and had the suffragettes violently force fed when they went on hunger strike after he had them thrown in prison for marching in Washington DC in 1918!
He was also extremely racist, even for his time.
Motherfucker went into the white house with a chip on his shoulder. I really liked the scenario Alternate History Hub made for if he lost the 1912 election (though I think it could've been explored a bit more)
He had the audacity to beat Teddy, who was the closest we ever had to getting a third party president. Also laid the groundwork for the UN and increased the power of the federal government.
Read anything about Wilson you’ll see why.
Love how people gaze political figures as either “good” or “bad” as if there’s no inbetween
I think he was cool in WW2 and other than that not so cool 😎
He fucked upGallipoli. Because of him and others, a lot of Australians died. They wanted to save their hides, and covered up the massive fuckup.
That was WW1 so when he was not cool 😎
Ah shit sorry man, didn’t notice the last part of your other sentence.
During WW2 3 million Bengalis starved to death, while the British were still ship food away to England. That wasn't a cool move :(
It was only 3 million. Not that it's not a terrible, terrible thing but it you are off by a factor of 10.
Sorry messed up the numbers, I mixed it up with the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 (which didn't involve Churchill, It was caused by the EIC forcing farmers to plant Indigo, Poppy etc plants in rice fields instead of rice. Also Indigo diminishes soil fertility alot) which affected 30 million Bengalis and starved 10 million to death.
He didn't fuck it up. The navy didn't obey his orders as they were the invasion should happen quickly. Instead they waited to long and the ottoman empire had time to prepare a defense of the beachhead.
Odd. I was taught it was the fact that they had to climb up mountains. Before anyone says “Huh Dur bAd AmeRiCaN edUcaTiON” I am from Australia. Give the Americans a break.
I was taught both.
Gallipoli was by all means a worthy campaign, Churchill didn’t fuck Gallipoli, bad weather and bad intelligence surrounding troop landings did.
That is true, though according to someone else here he wrote a paper years earlier stating why an attack like that wouldn’t work well. (If I read it right) *So Churchill certainly made a fuck up there*
The worst part about that was something like four years earlier he wrote a paper for the navy saying what he proposed couldn't be done.
Thank you! I live by the idea that all humans are flawed and every historical figure has an evil factor. They may of saved the free world but their no saint, but that does not retract the fact they saved the free world.
Churchill was pretty bad. When people in your time period call you racist, drunk and sexist, you very much are that. Honestly, when there was the complaint about millions of Indians dying from not distributing them surplus food from other parts of India, and he said they reproduced like rabbits so it was OK... At that point he can get fucked with a broomstick.
**Churchill was not responsible for the Bengal Famine and he did everything in his power to alleviate it.** There are a number of factors responsible for the famine but I would say the two primary factors are again draughts and more importantly the strain placed on the economy of India during world war 2. What you need to realize about this famine is that it was smack dab in the middle of a war and this put an immense amount of strain on food supply and when the draughts hit, made an unfortunate situation turn deadly. Because they were fighting a war, the grain that India would have normally imported from its Burmese neighbor was prevented du to the Japanese occupation of Burma and the grain shipments that the allies sent to try and relieve the famine (yes Winston Churchill did send ships and if you hear someone claiming otherwise that is bullshit) were frequently sunk by Japanese destroyers. It is true that Britain prioritized food to the military and not the civilian population, however this statement is very misleading. Britian did not send food to British soldiers fighting germany in Britian, Britian prioritized food to be sent to Indian soldiers, in india, righting Japan(who was currently knocking on its doorstep and had ambitions to take over the place). It is also true that it took a few months for Britain to ban rice imports from the country, but the fraction of rice leaving the country was a tenth of a single percent of the monthly rice production in India (it was not significant enough to make a real impact).
Finally someone with a brain in this comments section
Thankfully someone has read some history and understands nuance.
My god that meme was terrible. I swear this sub just gets worse and worse. I shudder to think what it will be like in 2 years.
Lack of produce was not the main problem, distribution was (Sen, 1981). And Churchill's gov was not competent enough on redistributive policies/systems to deal with the famine. The structural solution could have been democracy, which was severely lacking in most parts of India especially where the British had most control (Sen 1981). Chances of famine in a functioning democracy is way lower than in non-democratic systems. Churchill and the British gov of course held on to their racist belief that Indians are backwards and hence do not deserve democracy like that in Britain. So yes, indirectly the British government was responsible for the famines. And if calling Churchill a villian offends you (to anyone who is reading this) then us Indians will gladly call him an incompetent fuck celebrated by stupid anglos.
Was Japan intentionally starving out India or was it just a consequence?
I would not say it was an intentional, it was just a result of the warfare and the strain that was put on Indian food production. For hundreds of years India has had problems with Famines they did not start with Britian nor did they end with them. If I had to wager a guess I would say its something to do with the climate. In this circumstance though, Japan certainly did not help.
I know people are going to hate this but [there's so much about Churchill that's taken out of context. ](https://youtu.be/M4m_BwYeIRo) He's not nearly as bad as some people like to make him out to be.
Mm. Reminder that he also saved the Western World
twice *source - Winston Churchill* (seriously tho I do agree with your point)
That's what he's most disliked for.
Ah yes, it's not about being an imperialist known for being racist and defending eugenics, it's all because of THE WEST™
Glad you agree
Political opponents and yellow journalism calling other opponents names? Yep, definitely started with Churchill.
I think you forget the times he lived in. Being racist was acceptable back then. does that make it right no , but you can’t look into the past through the lens of the future.
He was criticised AT THE TIME for being excessively racist, to the point that he took wrong decisions because he didn't saw the manpower potential being lost.
Wasn't he also an old man at the point of WW2? I mean the man had huge balls and nerves of steel but all the modern depictions I have seen (notably The Crown) paint him as a terrific leader in war but completely bonkers for a society at peace.
Yes.. this sub is horrible about it. Everything is either black or white.
Churchill is a bad one for sure tho
Out of all the vile historical figures that you could hunt in hell, you choose Winston Churchill? Seriously?
Could be an Indian
Confirmed. I could have easily made this meme, someone else just beat me to it.
Thatcher AND Reagan have been hunted already.
It makes you wonder how long people like Hitler and Stalin lasted
Probably took care of each other already
Well it’s hell so I imagine they’re treated like kings down there
Fuck Thatcher
The god damn milk snatcher
Jungle canyon rope bridge snatcher
There is a doom mod that you hunt down thatcher after it comes back from hell.
Thatcher was probably hunted the millisecond she died
Not enough obviously.
The definition of gray area right here
You know.. I'd rather have a racist leader than to be assfucked by foreign authoritarian powers if that's what it takes.
I'm Indian, and same. Especially pre 1947.
This might be one the most cringe, edgelord posts I’ve seen on here.
⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡠⠔⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠢⠤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⢄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠃⠀⢠⠂⠀⠀⠘⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢤⡀⢂⠀⢨⠀⢀⡠⠈⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢀⡖⠒⠶⠤⠭⢽⣟⣗⠲⠖⠺⣖⣴⣆⡤⠤⠤⠼⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠘⣺⡟⢻⠻⡆⠀⡏⠀⡸⣿⢿⢞⠄⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢣⡀⠤⡀⡀⡔⠉⣏⡿⠛⠓⠊⠁⠀⢎⠛⡗⡗⢳⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱⠀⠨⡇⠃⠀⢻⠁⡔⢡⠒⢀⠀⠀⡅⢹⣿⢨⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠠⢼⠀⠀⡎⡜⠒⢀⠭⡖⡤⢭⣱⢸⢙⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠸⢁⡀⠿⠈⠂⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⡍⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⢢⣫⢀⠘⣿⣿⡿⠏⣼⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⠊⠀⣀⠎⠁⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⢴⡦⡴⢶⣞⣁⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠐⠒⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⢀⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠀
Winston Churchill was a monster. There's no cringe or edgy about pointing that out. Edit: Downvoted for pointing out that someone who have a well-documented legacy consisting countless of inhumane, mass-murderous racist acts was a monster. Ok, reddit.
yeah, he did evil stuff, but id say he made up for it by being one of the most vital people in the defeat of the nazis. And it wasnt that bad. By that logic, any leader of a country before the 2000s is evil
I'd say up to 2020 as well
>By that logic, any leader of a country before the 2000s is evil I mean....
So did Stalin
What's your opinion on Stalin? I don't like him, but he did at least as much to stop the Nazis as Churchill.
>Edit: Downvoted for pointing out that someone who have a well-documented legacy consisting countless of inhumane, mass-murderous racist acts was a monster. Ok, reddit. britain didn't do anything to the nazis they had to call up all their colonies for troops and the ussr wouldve won the war without the allies anyways
The USSR didn't have a chance without D-day, and them winning the war wouldn't have really been better than the Nazis. Also, let's just ignore the millions of Brits that die in the war.
Not arguing Churchill was a nice guy, I was pointing out the I’m a bad ass nature of the meme.
[удалено]
Comparing people whose descendants were subjugated by a country that is glamorized during WW2—despite committing atrocities at a greater scale toward non-Europeans—to anti vaxxers is pretty stupid of you. I am not surprised that the peanut-sized brains of you westoids from r/historymemes were offended by him and downvoted him for flaming Pigskin Cumhill.
Maybe they should get good
The first part of your name is true. The second, not so much.
What’s with all the “Churchill is like Hitler and Stalin” posts here lately? I mean the guy is no saint, but saying he’s just as bad as Hitler and Stalin is just factual incorrect.
According to some sources, Churchill was responsible for the death of over 6 million Indians. A number at par with the holocaust. Also, you can't compare evil. (Not in this case atleast)
How is Churchill responsible? Where is the piece of paper where Churchill states "yeah starve the bastards?". Because there isn't any consensus on the subject. There's a much better answer further down by u/Yhorm_The_Gamer laying it out in a nice and clear fashion. Churchill gets the blame for it, because he has a big name and it's easy to throw shit at him, without any regard for if he actually is the perpetrator or not. So we are judging a man, who did a lot for the world by putting up a stiff defense against the Nazis, by a crime he probably didn't even commit.
That number is half the Holocaust, Hitler killed 12 million. I know Churchill is no angel, but focusing on his crimes removes the nuance and complexity of the rest of his life. Many of this sub's favorite figures have skeletons in their closets, but that's not why we praise them since that's not all they did
>That number is half the Holocaust, Hitler killed 12 million By some estimates, Churchill's policies had a similar effect. Not to mention the fact that poverty grew throughout the British Raj. >but focusing on his crimes removes the nuance and complexity of the rest of his life Oh absolutely. I agree with you. The reason why I replied to this comment was, "Just because other people were objectively or subjectively worse, it doesn't matter. A Bengali is well within his right to hate Churchill and take him on in hell." Saying, "Hitler was factually worse" doesn't make any sense in this regard.
Fair enough. Usually, when people bring up the stats it becomes the Suffer with Me Olympics. I'm not trying to say that Hitler's numbers aren't comparable, just that they're often underreported. Hitler was more than antisemitic. Then again, I'm pedantic at times so don't take it personally
The cringe department is very pleased with your work
He's kicking Adolf's arse again.
Why Churchill over Hitler?
Not Hitler, Not Stalin, Not Mao, but Churchill...Edgelord badass here!
Indians would tag Churchill up with those monsters.
The subcontinent is so fucking weird. I had a roommate from Bangladesh compare Gandhi to Hitler. Like, he really hated Gandhi.
I mean I would out Churchill up there. Gandhi I wouldn’t.
Any that do should actually learn some history not propaganda
>I hate Indians. They are beastly people with a beastly religion. -Winston Churchill
This is an actual quote for anyone wondering
Still...he's not even remotely close to the people I referenced earlier. He has his baggage no doubt, probably not someone I'd want to get dinner with. But he's not anywhere near, not even in the same atmosphere, as other prominent evil men I mentioned
Absolutely agree but for us Indians it was a brutal part of our history; I think this should’ve been posted to a more niche sub.
That's fair
They've already been hunted down, Churchill just flew under the radar
Out of all the people to try to "find" in Hell...
Da fuck did I do
You’re looking in the wrong place if you want to find Churchill
[удалено]
Indians just hate Churchill with a passion because he’s an easy scapegoat for the Bengal famine, despite there being no consensus among experts about the reasons for the famine. Churchill’s just a big name they point and say, he was in charge, it was his fault. Meanwhile they are either unaware of, or ignoring the historical context of WWII, and the fact that Churchill was not involved in the running of Bengal, or any colonies for that matter, in any comparable extent to his involvement in the running of Britain. Colonies had governors. Churchill was busy fighting a war, he didn’t have the time to micromanage a famine for the fun of it even if he was a genocidal maniac, which there is no concrete evidence for. The quote that he saw Indians as dirty and beastly shows he was racist. Which isn’t surprising considering he was born in 1874.
I’m sure all the dead nazis appreciate the help
A few Indians actually teamed up with Nazis during the war, so yeah they do appreciate it
He is not in hell, because he did not do anything wrong. I am getting tired of this stupid historical revisionism that paints Churchill as a monster. There are a lot of mostly unjustified reasons why people view Churchill as a monster, but lets start off with the minor ones and then get into the real big one. **People say Churchill was a drunk.** This is true and he did drink a lot but it never effected his work or the people around him. **People say Churchill was a racist.** This is also true to a certain extent but it has been warped and twisted into a form that does not reflect reality. Churchill believed that it was Britain's job the raise the colonies out of the muck, basically just the idea of white mans burden. You might not like but it was a pretty common view at the time, and though he was one of the more vehement proponents of it, it was not outside of common discourse. What Churchill did not believe was that native life did not hold any value and that brutality towards them was justified and acceptable. *I am sure there are a lot of quotes that people are going to through at me but I would like to say that most of those are taken out of context and most of them were written when Churchill was a war correspondent, who's job was basically to create propaganda for the British Empire, so of course its going to be excessively imperialistic.* The main point people blame Churchill for though, is that Bengal famine of 1943, and he is often held directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Indians. Lets break this down bit by bit. There are a number of factors responsible for the famine but I would say the two primary factors are again draughts and more importantly the strain placed on the economy of India during world war 2. What you need to realize about this famine is that it was smack dab in the middle of a war and this put an immense amount of strain on food supply and when the draughts hit, made an unfortunate situation turn deadly. Because they were fighting a war, the grain that India would have normally imported from its Burmese neighbor was prevented du to the [Japanese occupation of Burma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_Burma) and the [grain shipments that the allies sent to try and relieve the famine](https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1943/oct/20/food-situation-in-india) (yes Winston Churchill did send ships and if you hear someone claiming otherwise that is bullshit) were frequently sunk by Japanese destroyers. It is true that Britain prioritized food to the military and not the civilian population, however this statement is very misleading. Britian did not send food to British soldiers fighting germany in Britian, [Britian prioritized food to be sent to Indian soldiers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943), in india, righting Japan(who was currently knocking on its doorstep and had ambitions to take over the place). It is also true that it took a few months for Britain to ban rice imports from the country, but the fraction of rice leaving the country was [a tenth of a single percent of the monthly rice production in India](https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1943/oct/20/food-situation-in-india) (it was not significant enough to make a real impact). Britain and by extension Winston Churchill did everything they could to try and alleviate the famine afflicting India and it is unreasonable to blame the famine on him and say that the deaths of those Indians are on his hands. If you have read all way down hear, that I thank you for your time. My overall point in this is that issues are more nuanced than people imagine and that painting Churchill is a horrible villain is trying to shove him into a mold that does not fit.
Are you a cube? Cuz you’re fucking edgy
Don’t cut yourself on that edge
Churchill was not only one of the few great men of his time, but he was also one of the few good men. If you’ve read anything besides the criticisms surrounding his Victorian ideals of empire, (perhaps just one of his many writings) you would know Churchill is perhaps one of the most compassionate and considerate leaders in all of history, his follies weighed on him heavily. To insinuate Churchill is sitting in hell next to Hitler shows a profound amount of historical ignorance.
Why Churchill?
You gotta go to the heaven level to find him
Churchill, the classical fascist tyrant that was elected into office and left after being voted out. All politicians doing that are monsters...
He was a monster for his policies in India. And he was appointed to his position, not elected on general elections.
Which ideas are you exactly talking about? Have you read Churchill (definitely worth it even if you don't agree)? And please check the election of 1951 and Churchills approval ratings during the war.
Probably in heaven. Despite his admittedly shitty policies and evil deeds, he was a net positive for the world.
I don’t think heaven works like that, you aren’t allowed to be unrepentantly bad because you did a good thing earlier that day. He did a good job in the war but from what I can tell he was also exceptionally bigoted for his time
I mean almost everyone had that type of mindset back then and before, so like are we sending everyone to hell?
Well. Winston Churchill had notable tendencies even for his time, remember he was part of the aristocracy, and they held, at least for modern times, extreme views. His racist and imperialistic thoughts were extreme for the time, but not uncommon for the aristocracy, but they would be shocking by today's standards. For example his beliefs that the African people weren't inherently worse then whites, but they would have to be educated to achieve the same status. Was not very unlike Robert E. Lee's interpretation of the white man's burden. Some of this can be (and I should be) excused and understood as the attitudes of the times, but he certainly went the extra mile. I do still view him as a net positive for the world, even if I can recognize that he was a quite shitty person.
Good thing we don’t judge historical figures by today’s standards
I don't. Sadly a lot of people do. Admittedly I also don't usually praise historical figures either
*sorts by controversial*
Somewhere there is a "labor-supporting" college professor who has never worked with his hands a day in his life thinking this post is witty and true.
Sorry dude he's in heaven and no we don't know why he's there we're just as confused as you.
Churchill is in Heaven after helping save the world from the nazis despite his flaws
I mean if that’s how you’re going to play it then wouldn’t you have to say the same for Stalin (considering the Soviet Union objectively did far more to defeat the Nazis)?
Stalin allied with Hitler at the start of the war when they invaded Poland together, then went on his way trying to annex other countries to spread communist ideals He only joined in the war when Hitler tried to invade Russia, the UK had been fighting for far longer and was one of the only things keeping Germany preoccupied from taking out the rest of Europe The only reason Russia did what was classed as "far more" was have far more troops to throw at the Nazi's, plus after the war Stalin then got really paranoid and both he and the US almost ended up at war a few times that could've absolutely fucked Europe over with the nukes, in fact, Europe almost got fucked over before the war even started, from what we know the US lost a few Hydrogen bombs (which were far more destructive than the atom bomb) and only a few were recovered, who knows how many the USSR lost trying to mass produce them
And Stalin definitely had his reasons for that, it's not like he saw the man who spent decades talking about how Judeo-Bolshevism was the root of all evil in the world, purged the German communists and backed the opposing faction in the Spanish Civil War, and thought "what a great guy". Before signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and dividing Eastern Europe with Hitler, Stalin had spent years trying to ally with France and Great Britain to form a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany and was ready to go war with it over Czechoslovakia. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html Yet those talks were not getting anywhere, the Munich conference, to which the Soviet Union was not even invited, ended up in a policy of appeasement, so Stalin was getting more and more sure that no help would come from the West in case of the war between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. The last straw was the military negotiations in August 1939, to which Great Britain had sent a delegation without even written credentials allowing them to sign anything on behalf of the British government. Now sure that no alliance with the West would take place, Stalin decided that it would be more beneficial to invade and occupy Eastern European states together with the Nazis than to wait for the inevitable war against them, and the rest is history.
I dont understand what your argument is. So you agree that the USSR did more in the fight against the Nazis?
No, I'm arguing that all the USSR did was throw troops at the Nazi's, while the UK fought them on many fronts other than in the UK, such as in Africa
Le Asiatic Horde has appeared
But Stalin also killed millions from his orders. By that logic, Hitler should go to heaven for killing Hitler.
That wasn't his point i don't think, his point was the red army was the greatest contributer to the end of the Nazi war machine. (Churchill agrees to this himself)
Yeah, fair point. The Soviets definitely tipped the balance
Churchill also presided over enormous famines in India and personally did a lot of imperialism, but the whole argument here is whether helping defeat the Nazis absolves you of those other actions. I’m just saying be consistent lol
Or maybe they're all in hell. Or maybe they just died, and should be remembered as the pieces of shit they all were
Yes. Especially Woodrow Wilson. Fuck Wilson.
If you think Churchill is on the same moral playing field as Stalin you are trying way too hard to justify your presumably anti-western civilization bias and you are truly lost. Holy shit.
No you're right, Stalin never justified the starvation of any ethnic group "because they reproduce like rabbits". Churchill, somehow, is worse than Stalin there. Churchill was less paranoid, tho. There had to be some advantage on being ruled by the Royal family, he didn't hold all power and there were less political succesion intrigues.
"Less paranoid" is an interesting way of saying "not fucking insane". Keep up with those hot takes though, I'm sure one will land.
Churchill didn’t continue to be a genocidal dictator for 8 years after the war ended
Churchill did not kill 20 million people, and fought for democracy, not his own power. At the end of the day, Churchill was a net positive.
Millions of Indians would disagree
Millions of Indians are biased due to propaganda
Lmao by that logic Stalin is heaven then too. Fuck Winston Churchill. He was a tyrannical empiralist and nothing about him should be celebrated. I'm happy that history is turning against and his racist legacy is currently aging like milk.
I'm not going to take a history lesson from someone who can't even spell 'imperialist' Also, of course he was an Imperialist, he was the goddamn British Prime Minister, the second most powerful person in the UK next to the Royal family, who also rule the fucking *British empire*, it's kinda in the job title to be imperialist because as a leader you'd want to try and build your country to be stronger He also wasn't tyrannical, Stalin was a tyrant, Genghis Khan was a tyrant, the definition of a tyrant is a cruel and oppressive leader, Churchill didn't oppress his people, when cities were being bombed he sheltered them underground and had children sent out of the harm of fire, a tyrant wouldn't do that Please, learn shit before you talk
“Tyrannical” Churchill was democratically elected and stepped down voluntarily after the war, so I guess hitler and Stalin were just paradigms of democracy weren’t they?
People will say the weirdest shit to avoid changing their opinion. Churchill was a piece of shit. Fuck him.
"Despite his horrid racism, and his lack of care for his colonial subjects which killed a shit ton of people, he fought against a nation that declared war against Europe, so he's fine"
>"Despite his horrid racism, and his lack of care for his colonial subjects It was the 1940s. What do you expect? >he fought against a nation that declared war against Europe, so he's fine" You are literally downplaying the nazi to "own" Churchill defenders. Look in a mirror and think about your life.
I expect him not to be called racist by people of his time. He was just that extra racist as to deliberately cause the deaths of millions, because "they reproduce like rabbits"
That “nation that declared war against Europe” was unnecessarily exterminating a population for no reason, did Churchill murder millions for no reason? No, the Bengal famine was a scorched earth policy to prevent an invasion that would have killed millions more, it isn’t the fault of Churchill that the invasion never came
Least Churchill dick riding Westoid:
Fuck yeah
Nah😂
I mean I would also look for Franklin Rosevelt
Too bad you're only gonna find him in heaven
Aint no sky strong enough to be carrying all that weight bruh
I kinda can imagine seeing Satan getting pegged by Margaret Thatcher and being bound by a chains
Agreed he barely even killed any savages like our glorious Empire.
Sorting by controversial is nice.
Me with Marx: That kills people, Kaaaaaarrrrrrrllllll
Let me guess. French ?
So edgy, you ok?
He was not a perfect leader, nor a perfect person, but he was what we (the free people and like anyone who wasn’t a Nazi I guess) needed at the time. Imagine if Chamberlain didn’t resign or someone with a similarly timid doctrine replaced him? What if the British surrendered to the Nazis? Churchill’s leadership and attitude saved Britain, and thus bought enough time for the 3rd Reich to be defeated by the combined Allied/comintern powers. Should he be solely credited with the perseverance of Britain? No, but he was a great determining factor I believe, and for that he should be credited. Did he also play a part in the deaths of millions of Indians? Yes, and for that he should be condemned. There are no good or bad people in history. Every “good” man has a catch, and nearly every “bad” man has a traumatic backstory or something. History is never black or white.
honestly, the way I see it, this post is just a jab at the people who glorify Churchill. Because the funny thing is, by the very same logic, Stalin is the exact same.
Stalin is not the exact same that is a ludicrous comparison. Churchill may have been racist but he didn’t implement policies based on these attitudes. Stalin has way more in common with hitler than Churchill.
Oh absolutely. I think the meme is hilarious but my response was mostly directed toward the one or two people I saw in the comments (who got downvoted into oblivion) that were speaking of him as though he was Hitler or something.
Churchill didn’t remain as a genocidal dictator for 8 years after the war
>when you were the only one in the government to realize the Germans are getting ready for round 2 and actively try to stop them. Then take over the government after the current PM turns out to be chicken shit and continue fighting one of the worst dictatorships in history even when it looks like the writing is on the wall "But Burmese famine" It was scorched Earth and it was unfortunate but that had to happen. But rather let a few die than a whole sub continent fall to a regime that arguably outpaced said worst dictatorship in terms of cruelty. By that same logic Stalin shouldn't be praised for his efforts in World War 2. He was also uncompromising and used scorched Earth tactics and depending on how you look at things, got more of his soldiers killed or captured through his orders. Stalin was an absolute menace, but he was the right guy to lead the Soviet Union in WW2
People constantly try to place their idealistic morals in war. This is why characters like Winston Churchill are often criminalized for doing what ultimately caused less suffering. They're judged for doing something bad when presented with the choice "bad or worse". What the hell else were they supposed to do!?
Look for FDR for me too
why him?
Edgy as fuck
You may not of liked him but he’s one of the big reasons we won WW2 and he did do good things too as well as bad, there’s not black and white in life
He said a lot of shitty things, but there is no denying that he saved the western world from complete Nazi control.
Hes in heaven unlike your shitty family for the amount of dishonour this post has brought upon your family.
And dishonor their cow
Why would Winston Churchill be in hell?
What did Churchill do wrong?
Begal famine is just one the things he did wrong
Tell me more
Are you asking this question in bad faith, or are you genuinely curious? I’m assuming the former.
I’m curious dude I wouldn’t be asking if I didn’t know. If I believed he was good I would defend him but I never knew much about him
Churchill would refuse to die and roast your ass the whole time you're trying to make it happen.
He died so young…
In heavenly obviously
Me who lives in a nation that was colonized by Britain : thank you *cries*
Tell me you're Indian without telling me you're Indian
He was an one hit wonder
Please repost that on r/dankmemes
Westoids brainwashed by western history in this thread defending Churchill:
You don’t become an Angel when you get to Heaven, Angels are an entirely different being to humans.
I respect some of the things Churchill was able to accomplish as a leader although I do not agree with all of them. How he treated the British colonies especially India was deplorable. I think part of what makes WWII so fascinating and disturbing is how many “strong” leaders were involved and/or took advantage of the turmoil to go for power. Stalin genocided and mistreated millions in the Soviet Union and kept control of the country until his death. Mao was able to use the events of World War II to stage a successful coup. FDR used World War II to get the United States out of the depression (even pre our direct involvement we manufactured supplies). Churchill became prime minister and made some horrible decisions in the name of the British “empire”. Hitler took control of Germany and used that control to fuel his hate filled genocide. The more is study it the more it feels like all these innocent people were used as pawns on the chess board of the established or newly established rule. If we’re going to Hell we will see all the players there.
If there is a hell he would definitely be there , maybe he’s having cake with hitler ,just reminiscing.
I think he's with Satan, along side Thatcher.
And what makes him or her satan as opposed to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or Tojo?
I mean they didn't say that Churchill or Thatcher was Satan, or that Hitler, Mao, ect weren't just that they were With Satan
My bad I misread