It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Churchill and Hitler both believed in white supremacy.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Hitler / the Nazis are demonized for their views and beliefs on the so called "aryan master race"... and that of Jews being an inferior race.

Churchill is often portrayed as the "good guy" in WW2. Yet, its very clear that he too had views similar to that of Hitler regarding racial supremacy.

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

Imagine the outrage if a modern politician were to say that on national TV.

Is Churchill somehow less racist because he said nothing negative about Jews?
Why should only Hitler and the Nazi insignia be symbolic of white supremacy and racism, when Churchills also held similar views? Why has history swept Churchills racism under the carpet?

I honestly see no real difference between Churchill and Hitler with regard to their views on race.

Discuss.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
They were both scum. History has proven time and time again that the most "advanced" species on this planet is certainly not the "best" species on the planet. Human beings all over the Earth throughout history seem to be a terrible animal that is hell bent on destruction.

I would like to see someone point me in the direction of any one other creature on this planet that is as destructive and chaotic as we humans are.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Anundeniabletruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Most white people were white supremacists back then. Not all started a holocaust though, which is what HItler is demonized for.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Nobody fought Germany because of their views on Jews or whites being the master race.

In fact, anti-semitism was widespread, and the US officially commended Hitler for his sterilization of the Jews(not easy to find anything about this online, but I guarantee it's true).

Nations only fought Germany when they started invading all of Europe.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Yeah, the Nazis got their idea of eugenics from the USA.


Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.


hnn.us...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I think the main difference between Hitler's racism and Churchill's racism was that Hitler killed upwards of 10,000,000 people in order to racially, physically, mentally and sexually purify the world while Churchill didn't do anything like that.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


History is written by the victor.
I guess we're lucky we can find out the truth if we really look hard, or take advanced history classes.

People just really need to know that everything they're taught in grade school history is BS.
Heck, even the whole "no taxation without representation" thing is horribly portrayed. Taxes were actually extremely low at the time of the revolution. That slogan "no taxation without representation" heavily stressed the representation part in actuality. But we're taught the stress was on the taxation aspect.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I understand where you are coming from, although I think there is a difference between beliefs and actions. Actions carry much more weight in my opinion. It is true that beliefs may lead to actions, but there must be that step in between. In all actuality though, what was done to say the Natives of America was not much different from what Hitler did in Germany during WWII. The main difference though is that the Indians were hostile to an extent, which hurt them severely in their relations with the European settlers and those who came after them.

The main thing that Hitler had that others with similar beliefs did not have is dictatorial, or total, control. Hitler was able to do this without the majority of the population knowing, because propaganda was used effectively. So while I agree that if this is what Churchill believed, then he was racist, by definition. But he was not guilty of genocide, as was Hitler. I agree that the Holocaust happened, and was horrible, although I do not subscribe to some of the widely held beliefs, such as there were gas chambers, etc. The evidence contradicts statements like that. Anyway, I get what you're saying though.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


This is why I look at those who worship Churchill with suspicion. You will notice that only Brits and White Americans have ever said anything kind about him.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


This is why I look at those who worship Churchill with suspicion. You will notice that only Brits and White Americans have ever said anything kind about him.


Had it not been for Churchill, Britain would have been taken by the nazis and we would be conducting these messages in German.

Not saying he didn't believe in white supremacy. But he was the man for the job at the time.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Hitler was not, repeat, was not a'white supremacist'.

Hitler believed the Germans were the supreme race.

Not a 'white supremacist'. How simple.

edit- Cool op though.
edit on 18-1-2013 by HenryNorris because: (no reason given)


edit- and I get what you mean and I am amybe being pedantic but Hitler was all about the Germans. And he didnt hate other races. The Nazi party liked muslims for example. It was better for a black person to live in Germany before the war than in racist America.

All the stuff about Hitler is nonsense. Did Hitler snub Owens? No. Read about it. But that is just an accepted fact. No snub. Owens was snubbed by his own President though.
edit on 18-1-2013 by HenryNorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by HenryNorris
 


It would appear that my sources on the subject and your sources on the subject are in total disagreement.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join