In 1947, as India’s partition unfolded, Winston Churchill, then a leading opposition Conservative, sharply criticized the Indian National Congress (INC) government’s push for princely states like Junagadh(territory surrounded by Indian territories on all sides who had seceded to Pakistan) and other states which wanted to remain independent to accede to India, comparing their rhetoric to Adolf Hitler’s aggressive language before the 1938 annexation of Austria. Churchill, a staunch imperialist, saw the INC’s pressure on semi-autonomous princely states—whose rulers had treaties with the British Crown—as coercive and a betrayal of Britain’s obligations to its allies. His provocative comparison, equating the INC’s tactics to Nazi authoritarianism, was a rhetorical jab to discredit India’s independence movement and rally opposition to Lord Mountbatten’s rapid decolonization policies, reflecting his broader dismay at the British Empire’s unraveling.
Clockwork9385 on
Wasn’t a big part of why he lost the first election after the war because he just couldn’t stop talking about war and equating things to it, instead of focusing on post-war plans for the British people?
Clement Attlee and the Labour Party at least showed that they had goals, Churchill and the Conservatives just focused on ending the war with Japan above all else
maliciousprime101 on
Churchill’s whole grey matter at this point was solely hardwired to war, even though the war had almost ended. It is no surprise he lost instantly in the next election
omnipotentsandwich on
There were a few independence activists who supported Hitler and Imperial Japan. In fact, one guy wanted Japan to take over India, not realizing that Japan likely would’ve killed and brutalized millions. Luckily that never happened.
Mountain_Ad_4890 on
Annexation of Junagadh probably is more controversial topic… As Mountbatten advised it to accede to India and overall british position was to push princely states for accession of either India or Pakistan. However, had no ultimate jurisdiction unlike in Raj.
While uniting, it dramatically increased tensions between newly independent governments. And in case of Junagadh, it was no more different to Bangladesh in terms of being an exclave.
MeNameSRB on
The symbol of the INC is wrong (at that time it was spinning wheel on tricolour) the symbol u used came about in the 80s, meme hella accurate though
koshka91 on
You guys realize that any nationalism (including Indian or Zionist) is similar to Naziism. Similar doesn’t mean the same moral category.
8 Comments
In 1947, as India’s partition unfolded, Winston Churchill, then a leading opposition Conservative, sharply criticized the Indian National Congress (INC) government’s push for princely states like Junagadh(territory surrounded by Indian territories on all sides who had seceded to Pakistan) and other states which wanted to remain independent to accede to India, comparing their rhetoric to Adolf Hitler’s aggressive language before the 1938 annexation of Austria. Churchill, a staunch imperialist, saw the INC’s pressure on semi-autonomous princely states—whose rulers had treaties with the British Crown—as coercive and a betrayal of Britain’s obligations to its allies. His provocative comparison, equating the INC’s tactics to Nazi authoritarianism, was a rhetorical jab to discredit India’s independence movement and rally opposition to Lord Mountbatten’s rapid decolonization policies, reflecting his broader dismay at the British Empire’s unraveling.
Wasn’t a big part of why he lost the first election after the war because he just couldn’t stop talking about war and equating things to it, instead of focusing on post-war plans for the British people?
Clement Attlee and the Labour Party at least showed that they had goals, Churchill and the Conservatives just focused on ending the war with Japan above all else
Churchill’s whole grey matter at this point was solely hardwired to war, even though the war had almost ended. It is no surprise he lost instantly in the next election
There were a few independence activists who supported Hitler and Imperial Japan. In fact, one guy wanted Japan to take over India, not realizing that Japan likely would’ve killed and brutalized millions. Luckily that never happened.
Annexation of Junagadh probably is more controversial topic… As Mountbatten advised it to accede to India and overall british position was to push princely states for accession of either India or Pakistan. However, had no ultimate jurisdiction unlike in Raj.
While uniting, it dramatically increased tensions between newly independent governments. And in case of Junagadh, it was no more different to Bangladesh in terms of being an exclave.
The symbol of the INC is wrong (at that time it was spinning wheel on tricolour) the symbol u used came about in the 80s, meme hella accurate though
You guys realize that any nationalism (including Indian or Zionist) is similar to Naziism. Similar doesn’t mean the same moral category.
He is India’s Hitler.