SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Sixcess said:
Wars are not fought by saints - it's a nasty, brutal business and if we did bad things we did so because the alternative was much much worse.
Which is exactly the point I am making.
No, the point you were making was that there was no difference between Churchill and Hitler - or to put it a different way, that there's no difference between killing enemy soldiers in combat and killing civilians in concentration camps.
EDIT: Just an example of what a fucking nutjob Churchill was: after the second world war he said that if one day England found itself in an economic slump simular to the one Germany found themselves in before Hitler took over, he would want a man like Hitler to lead Britain. Lovely.
By which he meant that Hitler presided over perhaps the most spectacular economic recovery of any nation, ever. Which he did. In the 20s and 30s, in no small part due to the crippling conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was in a terrible state - which paved the way for Hitler to take power in the first place. And in less than a decade he took this ruined, bankrupt nation and made it a global superpower.
The mass of people did not support Hitler in the 30s because he wanted to start a world war and kill jews. They supported him because he gave them food, jobs, security, and restored the pride of the nation.
In retrospect it could never last - but in the short term Hitler did good as well as evil, and that is what Churchill meant.
