Which Historical Figure was Most 'Sugar-Coated' Post Factum?

yup............ the africans were more wary of hitler then lets say their own US govt, or south african govt or the european colonial powers.martin luther started movement to oppose hitler, nelson mandela also went against injustices of hitler, gandhi made uprising against hitler as well. bring something new mate.

regards
 
Aug 2012
1,554
yup............ the africans were more wary of hitler then lets say their own US govt, or south african govt or the european colonial powers.martin luther started movement to oppose hitler, nelson mandela also went against injustices of hitler, gandhi made uprising against hitler as well. bring something new mate.

regards
My apologies, I am not being intentionally dense, but are you being sarcastic? If not, can you explain what you mean by Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King opposing Hitler?
 
Likes: sailorsam
Oct 2016
1,080
Merryland
Ehhh...let's be careful about that. Even if Hitler was courteous to Owens (Which I'm not sure of, this is the first I've heard of it.), let's not forget that he suppressed any elements of African American culture - from art to music - which he deemed degenerate.
Hitler viewed the USA in general as mongrel and degenerate.
Hitler refused to attend the medal awarding to Jesse Owens. some Submeister ov Sports und Kultur awarded.

one of the darkest spots on Churchill's record was the starving in India in WWII, especially in the Bengal area. I read somewhere that local (Indian) officials were mostly responsible, which is why neither London nor New Delhi cared to make the incident very public. cargo shipping was at a huge premium during the war and Churchill did not make India's food much of a priority. IIRC Wavell fixed things. not clear if Churchill knew how bad the situation was (local officials again).
 
Jun 2016
1,811
England, 200 yards from Wales
I haven't read all this thread (and can't at the moment) so maybe something like this has been suggested before.
What about 'outlaw heroes'?
As far as I recall people like Billy the Kid, John Wesley Hardin were not attractive characters (is psychopath going too far?), yet often in stories and songs they become righters of wrongs.
Probably the same happened much earlier with Robin Hood, the earliest ballads seem an intermediate stage, a good deal harsher and bloodier than later tales, and they're already at least a century after any original would have lived (if he did).
(PS I do have a probably ridiculous liking for Wild BIll Hickok)
 
Aug 2010
16,055
Welsh Marches
That certainly seems the case with Wild West heroes, they were more likely to shoot one another in the back over a gambling dispute while drunk than to face one another in proper shoot-outs!
 
May 2011
13,856
Navan, Ireland
I haven't read all this thread (and can't at the moment) so maybe something like this has been suggested before.
What about 'outlaw heroes'?
As far as I recall people like Billy the Kid, John Wesley Hardin were not attractive characters (is psychopath going too far?), yet often in stories and songs they become righters of wrongs.
Probably the same happened much earlier with Robin Hood, the earliest ballads seem an intermediate stage, a good deal harsher and bloodier than later tales, and they're already at least a century after any original would have lived (if he did).
(PS I do have a probably ridiculous liking for Wild BIll Hickok)
I think Ned Kelly very much comes into this idea
 
May 2011
13,856
Navan, Ireland
its not revisionism, its simply calling a guy for what he was,
I agree its not really revisionism but simply very poor and ill-informed history.


for indians and other colonial territories, the guy was a demon, im not sure how he was to europe, probably a freedom fighter?, so for analogy one's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. for instance hitler was a hero for many germans for a long time who believed what he preached, its only after he started losing wars and germans getting repercussions that germans turned against him.
But that's not what you claimed that Indian and other ex-colonial' countries my view Churchill differently but rather he was a 'fat demon' worse than Hitler which as I said eartlier shows a lack of knowledge regarding both men.

churchill did butcher millions of people, made them die of hunger, this is simply a historical fact, the guy instigated hindu muslim conflict, which is also a historical fact and millions died or displaced as a result of partition.
Its not a fact at all its your opinion and one that many people would disagree with,

"........Summary


There was a food availability problem, though its extent cannot be resolved with any accuracy. That there was a deficit may be inferred from informed commentary at the time, from the failure of the food drives and from the high incidence of forced land sales by starving peasants. In normal times Bengal might have been resilient enough to cope with the shortfall, but in 1943, given military requirements and war-related disruption to trade and communications, the consequences were disastrous.

Neither price movements nor the outcome of the food drives of the summer of 1943 support the case for excessive hoarding on a massive scale. Markets did ‘fail’ in another sense, however: the disruption of transport facilities led to huge increases in the price of rice in the east of the province. The problem in Bengal in 1943 was the failure of the imperial power to make good a harvest shortfall that would have been manageable in peacetime. HI......"


Cormac Ó Gráda is Professor of Economics at University College Dublin.

Demographic crisis: Revisiting the Bengal famine of 1943–4

And sorry Churchill came to be Prime Minster in 1940 and was voted out in 1945 ---- in that time I don't think he had the time (or the inclination) to introduce to British India the division between Hindus and Muslims.

i think europeans make him hero for liberating europe from nazis, but for indians and other british colonies he was worse than hitler, simply because hitler never killed them, churchill did. If europeans think that hitler would be hated the same in indian subcontinent as he was in europe, they are simply mistaken, if they think that churchil would be respected as ''Sir'' here then obviously they are delusional. for indians hitler was not bad, infact indians even say that if not for hitler, they would have had to endure british for longer periods, it was churchil who was bad. so you may say its also relative.
Again that's not what you claimed, why should the British expect Indians to view Churchil the same as themselves? why should a British war=time Prime Minister bejudged by how Indians view him?

If Indians don't think ill of Hitler then they know little of Hitler in fact said ".... If we took India, the Indians would certainly not be enthusiastic, and they'd not be slow to regret the good old days of English rule! ..."

i also dont think any african would denounce hitler, jessie owens even wrote how hitler treated him, hitler never treated him like how he would get treated in his own country USA.

regards
Yet Hitler thought Africans to be sub-human and treated them as such.

But are you now blaming Churchill for the discrimination of African Americans?
 
Likes: sailorsam
My apologies, I am not being intentionally dense, but are you being sarcastic? If not, can you explain what you mean by Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King opposing Hitler?
He is being sarcastic, because for some reason he is bothered by you pointing out that actually Africans and their cultures were considered inferior in Nazi Germany.
 
Likes: sailorsam

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,154
T'Republic of Yorkshire
The fact is that Churchill was pretty crazy in his attitude to India, as Amery said, but was on the side of the angels in opposing Hitler, it is only a pity that Hitler had to be defeated in alliance with Stalin, so that Eastern Europe didn't gain the same freedom as Western Europe as a result. He was altogether a complicated figure and is bound to be misunderstood if regarded as being altogether wonderful or as the devil; had a very long career moroever and often changed his views.

(Leopold Amery was not Churchill's secretary by the way, he was a politician who was Colonial Secretary at one stage, and later Secretary of State for India and Burma, these being offices of state; it was in the latter connection that he he came into conflict with Churchill over Indian affairs, even though it was Churchill who had appointed him. On European affairs he was broadly in agreement with Churchill and had admired his anti-appeasement line. Amery didn't regard Churchill as crazy, he thought that he held irrational and reactionary views on Indian matters, as was indeed the case. India and some aspects of colonial affairs were Churchill's weakest points.)
Mmm - was Amery influenced by his son being executed for treason?
 

Similar History Discussions