Stalin vs. Queen Victoria

[Toppler]

Let's compare these two rulers...:

1. Oversaw an extensive industrialization campaign - yes, but the Stalin one took 10 years while the Victorian one 100 years.

2. Their rule saw disastrous famines - both, Irish Famine (1 million deaths), Indian famines (that killed around 60 million people by the way) and the 1932-33 USSR (5.5-6.5 million deaths) and the 1947 famine (1-1.5 million deaths).

3. Their industrialization campaign has caised a severe temporary depression of living and enviromental standards - Victorian Britain had "satanic mills", life expectancy of 17 in some extremely poor parts of London and omnipresent latent tuberculosis + famines in Ireland and India and 1930s Stalinist USSR had drab polluting factories, rationed food + famines in 1932-33 and 1947.
If you look at Gapminder.org data, you can see that the human development data for 1840 Britain and 1940 USSR are almost exactly the same, meaning that a Victorian labourer would probably feel "at home" (in the negative sense) in Stalinist USSR of the 1930s and vice versa.

4. Both leaders presented themselves as pinnacles of morality while their actions being the opposite - Victoria as in traditional morality, Stalin in claiming to be a "socialist" claiming to lead the masses for a better world.

5. Both leaders reigns were atrocious, but made possible the high standard of living later - post-Victorian Britain and post-1950 USSR.

6. Both of them employed horrible repression - Great Purge of Stalin and the brutal surpression of worker movements in Britain and even worse surpression of Indian uprisings.

7. Both of them made their nations true superpowers at the end of their reign (and that helped the rapid advance of living standards near the end of their reign and after them)

Differences:

- Stalin's industrialization campaign lasted 10 years, Victoria's almost 100 years, meaning Stalin's was about 10x less traumatic (plus for Stalin).
- Victoria's reign did not saw significant famines "at home" in England (plus for Victoria)
- Ideological justification - plus for neither.

So, Stalin was definitely not a socialist, but to say his crimes are somehow unique to him is false. He was a scumbag, but he was just your typical industrializing nation leader.

[caramelpence]

This is the second really shit thread you've started in the history forum. What makes you think these kinds of ahistorical comparisons are instructive?

[Imposter Marxist]

Trash this nonsense

[pranabjyoti]

Let's compare these two rulers...:

1. Oversaw an extensive industrialization campaign - yes, but the Stalin one took 10 years while the Victorian one 100 years.

2. Their rule saw disastrous famines - both, Irish Famine (1 million deaths), Indian famines (that killed around 60 million people by the way) and the 1932-33 USSR (5.5-6.5 million deaths) and the 1947 famine (1-1.5 million deaths).

3. Their industrialization campaign has caised a severe temporary depression of living and enviromental standards - Victorian Britain had "satanic mills", life expectancy of 17 in some extremely poor parts of London and omnipresent latent tuberculosis + famines in Ireland and India and 1930s Stalinist USSR had drab polluting factories, rationed food + famines in 1932-33 and 1947.
If you look at Gapminder.org data, you can see that the human development data for 1840 Britain and 1940 USSR are almost exactly the same, meaning that a Victorian labourer would probably feel "at home" (in the negative sense) in Stalinist USSR of the 1930s and vice versa.

4. Both leaders presented themselves as pinnacles of morality while their actions being the opposite - Victoria as in traditional morality, Stalin in claiming to be a "socialist" claiming to lead the masses for a better world.

5. Both leaders reigns were atrocious, but made possible the high standard of living later - post-Victorian Britain and post-1950 USSR.

6. Both of them employed horrible repression - Great Purge of Stalin and the brutal surpression of worker movements in Britain and even worse surpression of Indian uprisings.

7. Both of them made their nations true superpowers at the end of their reign (and that helped the rapid advance of living standards near the end of their reign and after them)

Differences:

- Stalin's industrialization campaign lasted 10 years, Victoria's almost 100 years, meaning Stalin's was about 10x less traumatic (plus for Stalin).
- Victoria's reign did not saw significant famines "at home" in England (plus for Victoria)
- Ideological justification - plus for neither.

So, Stalin was definitely not a socialist, but to say his crimes are somehow unique to him is false. He was a scumbag, but he was just your typical industrializing nation leader.
One BIG difference you just forgot. Stalin had faced and prevented continuous attacks from world imperialist syndicate. In fact, most of the deaths you have mentioned for Stalin, is actually act of imperialist attack and internal sabotage by counterrevolutionaries.
MOREOVER, HE SAVED BILLIONS OF LIVES BY DEFEATING NAZI GERMANY. Otherwise, I am pretty sure most of us (including you) wouldn't be here to write trash in revleft, instead most probably we would world in concentration camps to empower the GREAT GERMANY.

[Per Levy]

MOREOVER, HE SAVED BILLIONS OF LIVES BY DEFEATING NAZI GERMANY.

yes he all alone:rolleyes:


One BIG difference you just forgot. Stalin had faced and prevented continuous attacks from world imperialist syndicate

lenin and the bolshevik party had more attacks to face and yet they didnt go to the extremes of the stalin era.


In fact, most of the deaths you have mentioned for Stalin, is actually act of imperialist attack and internal sabotage by counterrevolutionaries.

yes, all the purges were done by counterrevolutionaries and outsiders and what not, stalin and his clique had nothing to do with that, of course.

[red cat]

yes he all alone:rolleyes:


Yes, just like he alone was responsible for all the faults of the USSR. :rolleyes:


lenin and the bolshevik party had more attacks to face and yet they didnt go to the extremes of the stalin era.

Some comparisons of the attacks, please ?

[Red Future]

Yes, just like he alone was responsible for all the faults of the USSR. :rolleyes:


Some comparisons of the attacks, please ?

The emphaisis on the individual is one of the great pitfalls of the Bourgeois analysis of Stalin.

[dernier combat]

HE SAVED BILLIONS OF LIVES
The world population in 1945 was just over 2 billion. You used the plural form of billion in your post, implying he saved greater than or equal to 2 billion lives. Do you honestly think that, without Stalin, the world's population would have been decimated to just a few hundred million?

[dernier combat]

Yes, just like he alone was responsible for all the faults of the USSR. :rolleyes:
I don't think anyone actually believes that. Unfortunately, MLs don't have that same defense when they have in their ranks the likes of pranabjyoti who claims Stalin saved almost the entire human population of the Earth.

[red cat]

I don't think anyone actually believes that. Unfortunately, MLs don't have that same defense when they have in their ranks the likes of pranabjyoti who claims Stalin saved almost the entire human population of the Earth.

Most of the attacks on Stalin try to indicate that. Comrade Pranabjyoti's response was somewhat biased by the extreme anti-Stalin nature of the post he was replying to. I am sure that he will rectify the mistakes that he made.

[pranabjyoti]

The world population in 1945 was just over 2 billion. You used the plural form of billion in your post, implying he saved greater than or equal to 2 billion lives. Do you honestly think that, without Stalin, the world's population would have been decimated to just a few hundred million?
Not really! The whole world would be suffered if Nazi Germany won and that means condition worse than death, at least by present day standard, to most of the population of the world. So, at least by saying billions, I amn't wrong.

[pranabjyoti]

lenin and the bolshevik party had more attacks to face and yet they didnt go to the extremes of the stalin era.
Well, if you have some idea about the scenario of the time of "Lenin and the Bolshevik party" were going in the same direction. Stalin actually followed the pathway that Lenin just showed.

[Geiseric]

Of course Stalin fought Nazi Germany... They invaded, and threatened his hegemony over the people he ruled... Lol what was he supposed to do? Is Winston Churchill a great person because he also fought Nazi germany?

[pranabjyoti]

Of course Stalin fought Nazi Germany... They invaded, and threatened his hegemony over the people he ruled... Lol what was he supposed to do? Is Winston Churchill a great person because he also fought Nazi germany?
Wonderful explanation from a left(!) liberal. With the ferocity, with which Germany attacked USSR was just incomparable with the attack on Britain. Moreover, UK had the tactical advantage of having a good navy, that Germany lacks. If it was part of mainland Europe, then I am it would fall like France. Whereas, the common people of USSR fought with Germany with the last drops of blood just the protect Stalin's "hegemony". So far, this is most irrational, idiotic remark I have ever read in this regard.

[CleverTitle]

Let's compare these two rulers...
Uh... Why?

[Andropov]

Of course Stalin fought Nazi Germany... They invaded, and threatened his hegemony over the people he ruled... Lol what was he supposed to do? Is Winston Churchill a great person because he also fought Nazi germany?
If it really was just of personal interest to Stalin and not his opposition to Facism on ideological grounds would he not have just become a puppet ruler of the NAZI's? They had numerous puppet figureheads who did not want to risk their own personal hegemonys with open conflict with a very efficient military force, surely a more rational plan of action than actually fighting the NAZI's in open conflict?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

lenin and the bolshevik party had more attacks to face and yet they didnt go to the extremes of the stalin era.
You clearly need to do more reading on the Russian Civil War then

[Omsk]

Of course Stalin fought Nazi Germany... They invaded, and threatened his hegemony over the people he ruled... Lol what was he supposed to do? Is Winston Churchill a great person because he also fought Nazi germany?

He was threatened?Every Soviet citizen was threatened.

The entire Soviet Union had to fight,not because of Stalin,or communism,or socialist,but because of simple survival.And he led them trough that struggle,and in the end,they crushed those who wanted to exterminate them.

It was the Western appeasers who really supported Hitler and made pacts with him,trying to continue their own rule.


Lenin and the bolshevik party had more attacks to face and yet they didnt go to the extremes of the stalin era.

But they did.

They also faced great perils and dangers,but not to the extent of the Nazi/Fascist alliance that went against the SU.
The Russian Civil War was basically won before it even started,the main problem is that is was a political war,and the Bolshevik commanders were politicians,and the White commanders were mere generals.

Do not try to undermine the dangers that the SU faced in The Great Patriotic War and before the conflict.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Of course Stalin fought Nazi Germany... They invaded, and threatened his hegemony over the people he ruled... Lol what was he supposed to do? Is Winston Churchill a great person because he also fought Nazi germany?
Churchill was a Nazi himself and was best friends with them until 1939. It was only after the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact cleverly tricked them into spectacularly biting the hand that fed them that Churchill turned against them. And even then he just sat on his arse for four years while Soviet people were being massacred in their millions until it became clear that the Red Army was going to win

[Ismail]

1. Oversaw an extensive industrialization campaign - yes, but the Stalin one took 10 years while the Victorian one 100 years.Probably because the Victorian one was more or less 'natural' capitalist development whereas the "Stalinist" one was based on the fear that the USSR was going to be attacked or economically encircled into oblivion. This is a nonsensical comparison.


2. Their rule saw disastrous famines - both, Irish Famine (1 million deaths), Indian famines (that killed around 60 million people by the way) and the 1932-33 USSR (5.5-6.5 million deaths) and the 1947 famine (1-1.5 million deaths)."Candid observers of the Russian mujik... agree in the testimony that as an agriculturist he has hitherto been, either per head or per hectare, the least productive of all the peasantries of Europe... [and] failed to grow enough food, taking bad years with good, even to maintain his own family in full health and strength... In the 20 years from 1891 to 1910, there were only 4 good harvests, with 13 poor harvests and 2 famine years." (Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation? Vol. I, p. 236.)

China also suffered from terrible famines. Both Russia and China suffered from them, however, due to the backwardness of agricultural methods used and an overall lack of oversight, allocation of surplus, etc. I don't think people would say much of the same for the Irish famine.


3. Their industrialization campaign has caised a severe temporary depression of living and enviromental standards - Victorian Britain had "satanic mills", life expectancy of 17 in some extremely poor parts of London and omnipresent latent tuberculosis + famines in Ireland and India and 1930s Stalinist USSR had drab polluting factories, rationed food + famines in 1932-33 and 1947.Yes, that's what happens when you industrialize a country. Good work. I guess those "drab" factories should have been discarded. Clearly the USSR didn't need them. I also guess industrialization didn't bring anything to anyone. The building up of the economy apparently didn't factor into improved education, telecommunications, or pave the way for a future rising of living standards in general.

Also I don't see why you reiterate there were famines. I don't recall Queen Victoria's collectivization campaign.


If you look at Gapminder.org data, you can see that the human development data for 1840 Britain and 1940 USSR are almost exactly the same, meaning that a Victorian labourer would probably feel "at home" (in the negative sense) in Stalinist USSR of the 1930s and vice versa.As opposed to... what? Tsarist Russia and Victorian England were not the same in development.


4. Both leaders presented themselves as pinnacles of morality while their actions being the opposite - Victoria as in traditional morality, Stalin in claiming to be a "socialist" claiming to lead the masses for a better world.Yes, much like HITLER. And Mussolini. And Margaret Thatcher. And Barack Obama.

What's your point? Stalin should have considered himself a horrible person and denounced socialism? Are you saying Stalin's rationale for considering himself a good communist was the same for Queen Victoria's rationale for considering herself a good queen? Why do you persist in making such broad and ridiculous comparisons?


5. Both leaders reigns were atrocious, but made possible the high standard of living later - post-Victorian Britain and post-1950 USSR.But then that pretty much invalidates what you just said earlier, talking about the "drab" factories and suchlike.

Also I'm pretty sure a good portion of Britain's rise in living standards had to do with, you know, the British Empire.


6. Both of them employed horrible repression - Great Purge of Stalin and the brutal surpression of worker movements in Britain and even worse surpression of Indian uprisings.I must admit I never ever entertained this comparison before. Well, I have decided to entertain it: it's stupid. Britain suppressed colonial rebellions to preserve its empire and suppressed workers strikes because it was a bourgeois state. The Great Purge targeted managers, bureaucrats, senior party officials and others because they were viewed as spies of foreign intelligence services or as working in conspiracies to wreck the economy of the country.


7. Both of them made their nations true superpowers at the end of their reign (and that helped the rapid advance of living standards near the end of their reign and after them)Mundane observation. Next.


- Victoria's reign did not saw significant famines "at home" in England (plus for Victoria)Stupid. The Irish and Indian famines were because of colonial indifference to these peoples, if not actually encouraged by the British. The Soviet collectivization campaign was designed to prevent future famines and to bring the interests of the peasantry in line with that of the proletariat. Also comparing 19th century English agriculture with early 20th century Russian agriculture is more than a little strange.


So, Stalin was definitely not a socialist,.Funny how Stalin and everyone who worked with him (and most all who met him), including Khrushchev and others who later denounced him for his "crimes," would disagree with you.

You have a terrible and non-Marxist analysis of history.

[Rooster]

The comparison in the original post is about as scientific as The Deadliest Warrior.

[pranabjyoti]

Comrade(!) Toppler just forgot that famines were routine in a large section of the world even in the 20th century. Queen Victoria's UK was actually responsible for much more famines and deaths, but actually they just successfully pushed it beyond the border of UK. So far, even the worst "critics(!)" of Stalin hadn't mentioned that he was responsible for famines in other part of the world.
ANOTHER BIG DIFFERENCE.:laugh:

[Per Levy]

They also faced great perils and dangers,but not to the extent of the Nazi/Fascist alliance that went against the SU.

i said the stalin era and the stalin era was much more then the 4 years of the WWII. so why the extreme oppression when the su was at peace and quite stable? the bolsheviks during the civil war, had to face the white troops wich threatend them quite dearly + several invasions from outside, like the usa, france, the uk, germany and japan just to name some and still they wernt that extreme as stalin.


The Russian Civil War was basically won before it even started

last time i checked the russian civil war cost the lifes several million people, tell them that "the civil war was won before it started", and also i recall that the bolsheviks had quite a hard time in the civil war as well and it "kinda" distroyed a lot of russia. so "won before it actually started"?


Do not try to undermine the dangers that the SU faced in The Great Patriotic War and before the conflict.

im not underminng it at all, but all the extreme opression was not nessesary at all and actually was hindering the war efforts more then it did help.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

i said the stalin era and the stalin era was much more then the 4 years of the WWII. so why the extreme oppression when the su was at peace and quite stable? the bolsheviks during the civil war, had to face the white troops wich threatend them quite dearly + several invasions from outside, like the usa, france, the uk, germany and japan just to name some and still they wernt that extreme as stalin.

Uh, the Nazis came to power in 1933, and countries like Italy, Japan and Poland were around nearly all throughout the Stalin era. And if you do some reading, you'll find the Bolsheviks were indeed pretty fucking brutal during the Civil War.

[Omsk]

last time i checked the russian civil war cost the lifes several million people, tell them that "the civil war was won before it started", and also i recall that the bolsheviks had quite a hard time in the civil war as well and it "kinda" distroyed a lot of russia. so "won before it actually started"?

It was a hard fought war,but the people were tired of the Tsar,and it was only a matter of time when his reign would fall.His lackeys soon followed.



i said the stalin era and the stalin era was much more then the 4 years of the WWII. so why the extreme oppression when the su was at peace and quite stable? the bolsheviks during the civil war, had to face the white troops wich threatend them quite dearly + several invasions from outside, like the usa, france, the uk, germany and japan just to name some and still they wernt that extreme as stalin.

Stalins SU faced danger at all times,weather it was from inside,or from some other country.


im not underminng it at all, but all the extreme opression was not nessesary at all and actually was hindering the war efforts more then it did help.

Stalin had to keep order during the war,the SU would be easy pray if the discipline and loyallity were not at high levels,

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Here's something for all you guys who think prior to Stalin the USSR was all live-and-let-live sweet liberalism :rolleyes:

At these times, there were numerous reports that Cheka interrogators utilized torture methods which, according to Orlando Figes, "was matched only by the Spanish Inquisition."[27] At Odessa the Cheka tied White officers to planks and slowly fed them into furnaces or tanks of boiling water; In Kharkiv, scalpings and hand-flayings were commonplace: the skin was peeled off victims' hands to produce "gloves"; The Voronezh Cheka rolled naked people around in barrels studded internally with nails; victims were crucified or stoned to death at Dnipropetrovsk; the Cheka at Kremenchuk impaled members of the clergy and buried alive rebelling peasants; in Orel, water was poured on naked prisoners bound in the winter streets until they became living ice statues; in Kiev, Chinese Cheka detachments placed rats in iron tubes sealed at one end with wire netting and the other placed against the body of a prisoner, with the tubes being heated until the rats gnawed through the victim's guts in an effort to escape.[28]

Executions took place in prison cellars or courtyards, or occasionally on the outskirts of town, during the Red Terror and Russian civil war. After the condemned were stripped of their clothing and other belongings, which were shared among the Cheka executioners, they were either machine-gunned in batches or dispatched individually with a revolver. Those killed in prison were usually shot in the back of the neck as they entered the execution cellar, which became littered with corpses and soaked with blood. Victims killed outside the town were conveyed by lorry, bound and gagged, to their place of execution, where they sometimes were made to dig their own graves.[29]

According to Edvard Radzinsky, "it became a common practice to take a husband hostage and wait for his wife to come and purchase his life with her body".[3] During Decossackization, there were massacres, according to historian Robert Gellately, "on an unheard of scale." The Pyatigorsk Cheka organized a "day of Red Terror" to execute 300 people in one day, and took quotas from each part of town. According to the Chekist Karl Lander, the Cheka in Kislovodsk, "for lack of a better idea," killed all the patients in the hospital. In October 1920 alone more than 6,000 people were executed. Gellately adds that Communist leaders "sought to justify their ethnic-based massacres by incorporating them into the rubric of the 'class struggle.'"[30]

Members of the clergy were subjected to particularly brutal abuse. According to documents cited by the late Alexander Yakovlev, then head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, given Communion with melted lead and drowned in holes in the ice.[31] An estimated 3,000 were put to death in 1918 alone.[31]

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Churchill was a Nazi himself and was best friends with them until 1939. It was only after the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact cleverly tricked them into spectacularly biting the hand that fed them that Churchill turned against them. And even then he just sat on his arse for four years while Soviet people were being massacred in their millions until it became clear that the Red Army was going to win

What are you talking about? Churchill was an anti-Nazi before the other major political figures in Britain, even though he may have been sympathetic to other fascist governments due to their anti-communist sentiments. On the contrary, he saw German rearmament as a bigger threat than the USSR well before 1939. Certainly, while world communist parties had ceased criticizing Hitler thanks to Soviet pressure after the M-R pact, the UK and France were the only two countries in the world at war with Germany.


Speaking in the House of Commons in 1937, Churchill said "I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between communism and Nazism, I would choose communism".[117] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#cite_note-116)IMO, Churchill should be criticized for doing things he actually did like starving the Bengalis and supporting Imperialism. It's patently false that he was pro-Nazi until 1939, however, and that is an unfair accusation. Certainly, Churchill did enough to bolster Imperialism and international Capitalism for people to find legitimate criticisms of his time in power instead of just making stuff up.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Churchill on Hitler -

In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he (‘the former corporal and house-painter’) has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War ... the vanquished are in process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished ... whatever else may be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.

....and the achievement by which the tables have been turned upon the complacent, feckless and purblind victors deserves to be reckoned a prodigy in the history of the world and a prodigy which is inseparable from the personal exertions of life of a single man ...

Those who have met Hitler face to face in public, business, or on social terms, have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a discerning smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism. Nor is this impression merely the dazzle of power. He exerted it on his companions at every stage in his struggle, even when his fortunes were in the lowest depths .... One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among th nations.

There must not be lacking in our leadership something of that spirit of the Austrian corporal who, when all had fallen into ruins about him, and when Germany seemed to have fallen forever into chaos, did not hesitate to march forth against the vast array of victorious nations and has already turned the tables so decisively upon them."
He also expressed the wish that Hitler would -

go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the great Germanic nation and brought it back serene, helpful and strong to the forefront of the European family circle
Churchill on Mussolini and fascism in general -

What a man! I have lost my heart!... I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini's gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. Secondly, anyone could see that he thought of nothing but the lasting good, as he understood it, of the Italian people, and that no lesser interest was of the slightest consequence to him. If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or a working class leader has been that of being undermined by someone more extreme than he. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilised society. She has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism."
On the Jewish Communist menace threatening the world -

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.
Churchill on racial purity -

The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.
Rationalising his massacre of the Palestinians -

"I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race has come in and taken its place."
He supported the Japanese in China as well. He only started actually fighting Hitler when Germany attacked France. Prior to that Britain and France had just been dropping leaflets on the Germans in Poland kindly asking them to stop. As soon as fascism was defeated in the Balkans he went about actively reviving it slaughtering partisans in Greece, even giving the go ahead for former Nazi troops to fight alongside the British soldiers, and to let fascist collaborators loose on the people of Greece to set up a new fascist regime. Clearly Churchill was a total fascist who on top of that shared Hitler's views on racial purity, master races and such. Yup, he was a Nazi.

[Omsk]

Well,it is quite clear who the Western capitalists and resurrected imperialists supported in the first years of the rise of Hitler and Nazism/Fascism.

They saw that as a perfect chance to 'remove' the menace of communism.In the end,Hitler tricked and slaughtered them,and than they suddenly supported their "Great Soviet allies" .

[Ismail]

Churchill was a fair bit more anti-Hitler than Chamberlain and his faction. In The Great Conspiracy: The Secret War Against Soviet Russia (written by a CPUSA member and Soviet agent, Albert E. Kahn) this is noted (http://www.shunpiking.com/books/GC/GC-AK-MS-chapter22.htm):

The British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, the hero of appeasement, said collective security would divide Europe into "two armed camps."

The Nazi newspaper Nachtausgabe declared in February 1938: -

We know now that the English Premier, like ourselves, regards Collective Security as nothing but nonsense.

Speaking in Manchester on May 10, 1938, Winston Churchill replied: -

We are told that we must not divide Europe into two armed camps. Is there then to be only one armed camp? - the Dictators' armed camp and a rabble of outlying peoples, wandering around its outskirts, wondering which of them is going to be taken first and whether they are going to be subjugated or merely exploited?

Churchill was called a "war-monger."...

[....]

In April 1939, a poll of British public opinion showed that 87 per cent of the English people were in favor of an Anglo-Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany. Churchill saw the Anglo-Soviet rapprochement as "a matter of life or death." In a speech on May 27, Churchill sharply declared: -

If His Majesty's government, having neglected our defenses, having thrown away Czechoslovakia with all that Czechoslovakia means in military power, having committed us to the defense of Poland and Roumania, now rejects and casts away the indispensable aid of Russia, and so leads in the worst of ways into the worst of wars, they will have ill deserved the generosity with which they have been treated by their fellow countrymen.


On July 29 David Lloyd George backed up Churchill's pleas with these words: -

Mr. Chamberlain negotiated directly with Hitler. He went to Germany to see him. He and Lord Halifax made visits to Rome. They went to Rome, drank Mussolini's health and told him what a fine fellow he was. But whom have they sent to Russia? They have not even sent the lowest in rank of a Cabinet minister; they have sent a clerk in the Foreign Office. It is an insult... They have no sense of the proportion or of the gravity of the whole situation when the world is trembling on the brink of a great precipice...


The voices of the British people and of English statesmen like Churchill and Lloyd George went unheeded.Churchill was a reactionary, but to portray him as someone who wasn't against Nazi Germany prior to 1939 is wrong.