I’m not sure why people are struggling with this one. The reason Hitler is at the top of the evil ruler foodchain is because of his ideology and specific intent.
He wasn’t some common racist who thought his own race was superior and others were inferior. He specifically believed that Jews (as well as Roma people, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities and mental illnesses) were vermin. Worse than insects. He openly made it his goal the complete annihilation of all these peoples who he hated with all the virulent, vitriolic, frothing-at-the-mouth passion he could possibly muster. He engineered the industrial killing of over 11 million people.
There is no other person more deserving of the label “enemy of humanity” than Hitler. There is absolutely nothing for which any decent person can relate to him, never mind understand him.
The saddest part is what Hitler thought/did was commonplace throughout human history. People have been genociding and exterminating people they deem lesser since the beginning.
He’s only seen as this abhorrent in modern times.
Are you sure it isn’t because of who has influence in media in the West? Last I checked Zimbabwean blacks don’t have significant influence in media in the US.
Cecil Rhodes would threaten to chop off your children’s arms if you didn’t work harder. Don’t pretend Hitler has a monopoly on unreliability.
The actual reason is the industrial killing. Only the nazis searched for the cheapest and most efficient way to kill as many people as possible
I kinda feel like the rationing of bullets and redemption exclusively for severed human hands in would count as trying to find greatest efficiency.
In reference to King Leopold’s reign in the Congo. It was… Unbelievably brutal and quite modern in their pursuit of “efficiency”.
Nah Leopold and Churchill both did it too
In the case of Churchill, it is more agriculture killing.
I think you’re right. It also wouldn’t be unfair to say that, if you’re in a european/western world country that is likely going to be mostly white and also happens to have taken a big part in WW2, that of course it will be a big part of your history. For the US, it’s our history in Europe, but we don’t seem to claim or learn much about European history elsewhere, like Leopold or Churchill’s Bengal Famine.
I think many people are familiar with at least a few mass killers. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, maybe the Red Terror, Christopher Columbus, you could even count Khan as one of the biggest, but we might view that as a bloody past and the result of Khan’s conquest of other peoples rather than a internal conflict killing millions of a specific group. Columbus’ mass murder was partly out of ignorance when the European diseases spread in the New World, but Europeans didn’t have too much of a problem with killing natives otherwise.
Hitler, OTOH, as you said, turned mass murder into a pointless, cold, indiscriminate killing machine in a way that no other ruler did. People were warehoused until fed to the machine. The Soviets/Russians and Pol Pot (influenced heavily by Stalin) are a pretty close second, they rounded up people and shipped them off to gulags or prisons and worked them to death if they weren’t just outright killed.
Leopold was rightfully viewed as a monster by his racist contemporaries. I don’t think anybody sane is lionizing that guy.
Edit: They do and did lionize Henry Morton Stanley who helped set up Leopold’s death machine. And his contemporaries made him persona non grata over it as well, even though history somewhat gave him a pass and made movies about him.
I’ll probably (and rightly) get downvoted for asking this but was Churchill’s crime. Does it have to do with how he treated Ireland?
Instituted policies that led to mass famine / genocide in South Asia.
He caused massive famines across India just to fill coffers of the British empire. 6 million people at a conservative estimate
Destroyed Bengal and Bangladesh
Ask most Indians- Churchill and mother Theresa are two of the most hated people in our history
I mean, I disagree with Hitler’s views too, but his views aren’t really what makes us hate him universally, it was his actions.
Churchill fought with the Spanish trying to crush the independence movement in Cuba in the 1895 Cuban War of Independence.
He wanted to fight against the Pashtun Mohmand tribe in north-west India, but was assigned a position as a journalist rather than a combat position.
He also fought for the British army against the Boer republics in the Second Boer War.
It’s not like this guy was just idly opining about race and imperialism, he was enthusiastically engaging in the violent wars as a soldier to further those imperialist conquests. I’m sure as a politician he played an important role in preserving those power dynamics as well (alas I’m no expert on Churchill and I’m only reading about him because of this post).
That said, the original post was only pointing out that Churchill would be taboo if his racism and imperialism victimized Europeans, and I would agree that this is more likely to make him taboo. We see this kind of logic with how the conflicts in Syria are treated differently than the conflicts in Ukraine. I think people are willing to overlook imperialism and racist violence when it doesn’t impact white people.
Horray, we are the point of “actually, a lot of people were as bad as Hitler”.
No, you dickwads. The man murdered 11 million people in 12 years outside of combat action, most of them within the last 5 years of his terror. Thats not counting any of the victims of the war itself: You know, 900.00 People starving in Leningrad alone and so forth. Thats why he is vilified.
Dont know why this reflex to downplay his atrocities is always there.
Oh and i have plenty of hate for the other fucks on that list. And Stalin. And Mao. And Pol Pot. And Idi Amin. And Netanyahu. And Kissinger. Because some people actually managed to dislike genocide as a concept and not just when it hits the people who look like them.
Churchill caused the deaths of 6 million Indians at a conservative estimate
Leopold killed 20 million in the Congo. That’s pretty equivalent numbers
Who here is downplaying any atrocities?
Anyone who implies that all these people with astronomically lower body counts than Hitler are just as bad as him, like OOP.
Leopold was responsible for 1.5 to 13 million deaths. And a slave trade that effected many many more lives than that.
And every single one is due to Hitler? The Japanese men fighting American men was Hitler’s micromanagement?
No one is saying Hitler was less evil, we’re saying “No one cares about these people’s murder because it wasn’t to the normalized default of white people.”
Did you read the article? Does it say that every one of those is due to Hitler? Did I say that? Do you have the most basic reading comorehension that is required to function as a human being? The answer to all these questions is the same.
It’s not that people don’t care because the victims aren’t white. They don’t care as much because to an american/European audience the deaths are less geopolitically relevant.
Millions die in Africa? Ok, how does that impact the US at all, apart from immigration? Meanwhile Pol Pot and Mao Zedong are household names because there is a clear geopolitical connection which kept those people in the news and history books.
So?
White people hardly mention Leopold at all.
Also he lost the war
So many white people are thinking this is somehow praising Hitler for stating “Murdering millions is bad when it happens to anyone or is done by anyone, we don’t see it talked about because it wasn’t to Europeans.”
Fuckin’ bizarre. Murder is bad. When European powers did it to Africa, no one remembers who did it because everyone did it. We know Hitler because he used the same imperialist justification on Europeans. “I will improve your lives and civilize you the German way.”
If Hitler did it to Africa, no one would have complained or had a leg to stand on without being hypocritical. Italy, France, England, Portugal, Denmark, all did the same heinous acts to who was justified towards.
Good time to remind everyone that the Nazis were inspired by Jim Crow laws and the poor treatment of African Americans that was prevalent for the time, especially in the southern US.
And that the British were one of the first to run national concentration camps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps
I guess Mao and Pol Pot aren’t mainstream?
No, because the Nazis are the biggest losers in History.
Their claim that their people and army were superior, while not even being able to win a single war made them so.
That is absolutely true. It’s also amazing how many people are even unaware of their horrific crimes.
Lest I go down a reading rabbit hole I don’t have time for today, what’s the TLDR on churchills evils? my history education was lackluster
During WW2, the Bengal region of India was suffering from a poor harvest. Despite having reserves, the British did not release those thinking they may be needed for the war (they were not).
The British also did not acknowledge any famine and provided no relief.
The resulting famine killed somewhere between 800k to 3.8m (according to Wikipedia).
The difference being that one was an act of cruel apathy, their lives were valued less than the war effort (one could even argue that the British hoped to ultimately save lives), while the other actively reveled in and advanced the industrialised mass murder of entire peoples.
Please, do not compare these two. One is cruel and wrong, the other is unfathomable evil.
Edit: King Leopold is for some reason still respected in some places I am told, which is disgusting. But I repeat, one was done to make a profit (at the cost of inconceivable suffering) while the other wasn’t even done for profit - suffering WAS the goal.
Churchills attitude and comments about it suggests otherwise. He was hailed as an evil cruel racist, not in retrospect, but during the war. Churchill wasn’t well liked, as people think he was during his time. The people that think Churchill was one of Britain best PMs have only a basic understanding of British history. Churchill was immediately voted out as soon as elections resumed. When he got back in a PM his party had less votes than the opposition.
The difference being that one was an act of cruel apathy, their lives were valued less than the war effort (one could even argue that the British hoped to ultimately save lives), while the other actively reveled in and advanced the industrialised mass murder of entire peoples.
I think this is letting Churchill off a bit too easily.
At the time, India was under British rule. Both the British government, and the Crown knew what was going on in Bengal, and chose inaction. Churchill himself openly held anti-Indian sentiment calling them “a beastly people with a beastly religion” and that any sort of relief sent would accomplish little to nothing as as Indians are “breeding like rabbits.”
This man actively chose to let people under his rule starve.
It’s also worth pointing out that India was a significant presence during WWII, “By the end of the war, it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945”, and a significant contributor to the state of things is how hard the British colonial rule pressed the local industries for the sake of the war. The military sucked up a lot of produce leaving scraps for the domestic market, which was significantly upcharged so only the rich classes could afford anything.
In the system that the British Government used to procure goods through the Government of India, industries were left in private ownership rather than facing outright requisitioning of their productive capacity. Firms were required to sell goods to the military on credit and at fixed, low prices. However, firms were left free to charge any price they desired in their domestic market for whatever they had left over.
Further, the British government censored media, forbidding them from reporting on the famine. Things didn’t really take a turn until The Statesman published photos of the famine, which made it around the world and the British government stood there with egg on their face.
Churchill on the other hand, ate well.
You’re absolutely right. I was trying to be concise and in turn made it sound pretty accusatory.
There has been a number of investigations by both the British and Indian governments since the famine. The general consensus is that it was caused by bad management and unresolved socio-economic issues over any purposeful acts of cruelty.
I personally don’t think Churchill actively encouraged the famine in India, but he was an ardent supporter of maintaining the empire by any means necessary.
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong have all committed atrocities far worse. And I do agree that Leopold belongs on that list too.
Sorry, I just noticed it sounds like I was accusing you of comparing them. Thank you for the explanation!
You could make that same argument for stalin and the holodomor which is often used as the main proof of his evilness. Same with mao, most of the deaths attributed to them are from failed policies that caused mass famines. Do you think Churchill is on the same level as them? Because most of the west views the first two as mass murdering tyrants and Churchill as a hero.
You could say there worse because they ran oppressive authoritarian states, but the British empire was just as authoritarian to anyone who wasn’t white.
Churchill was nevertheless a PoS. For example he was also responsible for the Greek civil war post-ww2
And Gallipoli. He resigned after the bloodiest failure of WW1. Disaster or Debacle, it was bad.
That’s a bit less than half of the people “exterminated” (murdered) in the holocaust according to common estimates. The holocaust also does not include all of the evils committed. It doesn’t include civilian slavs dragged out of their home and shot into mass graves, without ever making it to a camp for instance. I understand that there’s other things Churchill did, but I think it’s hard to do the level of damage hitler did without the belief that the damage was good for its own sake. I think Churchill did some bad stuff of course, but there are differences in magnitude and intent. If Churchill had meant to do the damage hitler had meant to, we’d probably have seen tens of millions of dead Indian people.
There was poor information and the magnitude of the situation wasn’t known till afterwards. Also there was ww2 on the go and the whole empire was on the way out from India itself to the UK, Singapore and China.
The British reduced famines, massively increased food production and increased GDP per capita in a very fast growing country. Boom and bust famines have been a big part of India history even before British rule. But somehow none of that is important.
hitler did to europe what europe had done to the rest of the world for centuries
Hitler did to Europe’s poor and downtrodden what Europe’s rich and priveleged had done for centuries.
Yes, this is why we all adore the Japanese Empire. /s
It’s fucking ridiculous that we’re trying to “EVERYONE ELSE WAS JUST AS BAD” Hitler now.
“I literally see no difference between the Nazis and the anti-Nazis” - words of the fucking deranged.
I agree with the other commenters that Hitler was extra, super “special” evil. But Black Autonomist has a point. Popular history is a bit selective sometimes.
No, it’s because Hitler pretty much conquered Europe. None of the other people managed to do that.
Napoleon is not taboo last time I checked
Napoleon was from a time when monarchies were still the mainstream. Hitler is post 1848 revolutions and series of reforms that gradually changed perceptions and general education of the populace.
Though Napoleon’s wars caused a large amount of destruction and received appropriate criticism, it was still considered pretty much the norm at that time of imperial dominance.
Hitler on the other hand acted when democracy and civil rights were heading towards full growth. The people’s thoughts and general knowledge were very different from Napoleon’s era.
As a side note, France before and during Napoleon lost most of its foreign colonies. So his wars in large majority had European victims. Yet that wasn’t enough to make him taboo, which means having European victims isn’t the main issue that caused Hitler to be taboo.
Nonsense. Hitler is taboo in EU and US because of the atrocities he committed towards Europeans. Not because they “conquered democratic Europeans”. Americans have done and are doing the same and more towards latin america, asia and middle east without anything close to that condemnation. It’s not about the conquest, it’s about westerners being OK with imperialist atrocity as long as it’s done against the “other”.
That’s bullshit and you should know it. No powerful nation reached its status without oppressing and exploiting the weak, no matter the direction of the compass you’re watching. And the more ambitious, the greater the horrors committed.
You think the US isn’t being condemned? Have you been on the internet? It’s been and being condemned every day from the start. They just don’t give a fuck because they’re the foremost global military power.
Please. Out of sight, out of mind is a general human condition. Don’t excuse all others by making it an exclusive trait of a certain group you happen to dislike.
Well, as long as other nations do it too, I suppose it’s ok.
Not exactly. Hitler is taboo in EU because he did to the Europeans what they were doing to the rest of the world until then. But he’s certainly not taboo in a lot of the colonies, which see him as the unlikely anti-hero which pretty much destroyed the colonial powers which were oppressing them until then.
And no, the US is not nearly as condemned as Nazi Germany, except by radical leftists which are the ones making memes like these.
The point of this meme is to point out the European hypocrisy, and I don’t get your urgent need to discount that.
Iranians greeted the german national team with the hitler salute. In 2004. Not because he “destroyed the colonial powers that oppressed them”. But because he killed people who werent Iranian. And half of them were Jewish.
You know, the people werent considered to be European in the 40s and who still arent considered European by the right.
Every continent, every region ignores the atrocities of those who did not kill them, lol.
Here’s the thing, Europe has about 40-50 countries depending on where you look and who you ask. Of those, only 13 had at least a colony, with UK being top dog in this and Germany being in the middle of the pack.
So let’s say that a third of the states in Europe might have at any point in history been able to abuse their colonial powers. Some of those that did are repentant nowadays, others not so much.
The problem with this is you say Europe, but it’s actually 1/3 of it. By doing this, you confirm my “out of sight, out of mind” remark as obviously few people would seem to care about the rest 2/3 of Europe having little to no say in the matter because you know, they’ve been rolled over and over across the centuries by the higher military powers at the times simply not giving a fuck.
The US waged a cultural propaganda war, won and is now in a superior position allowing it to somewhat maintain the illusion. Only time might allow that general perception to change.
As for European hypocrisy, it’s just general hypocrisy where politicians smile at the public and exchange benefits. The backstabbing exists as much as everywhere else and the unity exists out of need. Without the different types of pressure from Russia, China, US and such, there would be no EU because there’s too much bad history in between.
I’m going off rails… Anyway, my “urgent need” isn’t really urgent, I just caught the post in an empty period of time i have nothing better to fill with. And the meme is warping a state of things we can only comment on long after the facts in order to generate spite.
You say Europeans. I ask which ones.
You say all of them. I say we’re not that united. It’s more of a love-hate polyamory.
You instead say the ones the matter. I say if only some matter, then why hate on the rest as well?
This is true. I’ve met plenty of people that haven’t ever even heard of Hitler. He’s not as big of a deal outside of the Euro/Western sphere as he is within it.
There are plenty of people who are viewed differently depending on the cultural context. Mother Theresa for example is painted as a saint here in the west, but is considered quite monstruous in the areas she “helped.”
