|
|
|
|
|
by chrisco255
3193 days ago
|
|
I'm no fan of imperialism. However, I think trying to paint Churchill as an evil man rather than an elected PM who inherited a half-millenia of imperial legacy at one of the most pivotal moments in human history is a long shot at best. You can believe what you want about the predictability of WWII. From an armchair in 2017, it's easy to predict how things play out from 1919 onward. The difference between Churchill and Hitler is that Churchill didn't slaughter millions of people and subvert half the globe to totalitarian dictatorship. That supplies and shipments are limited under dire circumstances should come as no surprise to any student of historical warfare. |
|
He did precisely that. Britain has inflicted more damage to humanity, with its imperialistic policies than even a fraction of Nazism did. Britain was for all practical purposes was a far more evil force than Nazism would have ever been.
>>That supplies and shipments are limited under dire circumstances should come as no surprise to any student of historical warfare.
It comes as a surprise to us because Britain invaded India, stole and plundered the country.
If you don't want people to call you bad names, stop doing bad things.