Drawing Winston Churchill And Hitler (Speedart)

"Nobody with any sense could believe that we could teach the Second World War - a statutory requirement - without covering Winston Churchill and Hitler," he added.

Churchill And Hitler

Next year’s mayoral battle is not between Churchill and Hitler, and neither is it a struggle between good and evil: it is a democratic contest between a refined Tory reformer who says ‘piffle’, and a fossilised Socialist who says ‘shit’.

Churchill versus Hitler book Introduction page 1 - Bennion Kearny

It is reported that Churchill and Hitler nearly met in a Munich hotel in the 1930s "Any advantages that so craven a treaty might have produced would have been marginal, prohibitively expensive and probably also very short-lived," he writes. It would also have allowed an earlier attack on Russia, giving Hitler total mastery of Europe. And he cites John Strawson, author of Churchill and Hitler: In Victory and Defeat, wondering whether, from a position of strength, Hitler would "really have left Britain alone?" Unlikely.

Churchill and Hitler Archival inktjet, wood 80 x 175 x 10 cm

Churchill was responsible for starvation of 7 millions of Indian people, while British rule is responsible for genocide that resulted one billion of Indian lives lost. Churchill was unashamed racist, was in favor of use of poison gas on "uncivilized tribes" (Hitler used Zyklon B on Jews, and British used mustard gas on Iraqi women and children). British invented concentration camps in the Boer war, killing women and children. Hitler imitated British in every way, but racist theories and policies, implemented by Churchill in during and after WWI, and in WWII are of British origin. Hitler spared what he hoped to be his potential allies in Dunkirk, but Churchill believed higher race are British, not all Germanic people. He killed millions in firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin and many other cities. Both Churchill and Hitler were in favor of eugenics.

Churchill and Hitler: Two of a Kind - History of Old

John Lukacs chose the period when two such distinctively different personalities in Churchill and Hitler might be compared, 1940-1941. Comparison is possible because then they were "head to head" before Churchill receded to a joint and ultimately subordinate role in an allied combination that included Stalin and Roosevelt.

"It's a simple choice between good and evil – I don't think it's been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler… The people that don't vote for me will be weighed in the balance, come Judgement Day. The Archangel Gabriel will say, 'You didn't vote for Ken Livingston in 2012. Oh dear, burn forever. Your skin flayed for all eternity.'… I'll come round with a serious pitch nearer the time."
And he also gave his take on the News International relationship with politicians:France was the first concern for Churchill because Hitler was already in place in the Rhineland, capable of destroying the country with one order. Churchill tried as hard as he could to keep France in the war, but his brave offer of the Act of Union was denied and France surrendered to Germany without a fight. Britain was now alone and almost unarmed. At this point, almost any leader would have seen defeat, but Churchill would not let this happen. The safety of Britain all depended on a few of her best fighter pilots. Churchill did not plan or direct the Battle of Britain on which the future of mankind depended, but it was he who encouraged and deployed indomitable strength behind the British pilots whose odds of victory were slim. Despite bad odds, the British pilots prevailed and drove the German planes away. The country rallied behind the leadership of Churchill and hoped that he would to lead them to victory.