[kamaal]

>>The difference between Churchill and Hitler is that Churchill didn't slaughter millions of people and subvert half the globe to totalitarian dictatorship.

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.

[eropple]

It is certainly and unambiguously possible to charge Britain with imperialist policies without claiming that they're worse than the Nazis were. Like, there is a difference of kind in there that I feel you're eliding.

[chrisco255]

Given the choice of living under British colonialism or Nazis...you would choose Nazis? I reckon you should study fascism a little more closely. The closest parallel we have today of what a Nazi regime would be like is North Korea.

[kamaal]

>>Given the choice of living under British colonialism or Nazis...you would choose Nazis?

I would chose neither. Why are you assuming the Indian people chose a european power over them?