As part of his assault on Churchill's reputation, Buchanan claims a moral equivalence between Churchill and Hitler. Buchanan suggests that there is no moral difference between Churchill's support for the compulsory sterilisation and segregation of the mentally unfit before 1914, and the Nazi program. Likewise, Buchanan argues that the views that Churchill expressed about in his 1920 article "Zionism and Bolshevism" seem not markedly different from Hitler's views about "Judo-Bolshevism" in . Buchanan attacks Churchill as the man who brought in the in 1919, in which British defence spending was based on the assumption that there would be no major war for the next ten years, making Churchill the man who disarmed Britain in the 1920s. Buchanan attacks Churchill as a deeply inept military leader who caused successive military debacles such as the in 1914, the , the of 1940, the , and the of 1942.
If you analyse four key leaders of the last century - Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King - to discover whether they have any traits in common as leaders, a profound difference emerges between those leaders who were charismatic - Hitler and Kennedy - and those who were genuinely inspirational - Churchill and Martin Luther King. A comparison between Churchill and Hitler, and between true inspiration and mere charisma, gives a useful insight into this difference, and may help in the analysis of what leadership entails.
Churchill versus Hitler War of Words | Book
Churchill was following the news coming from Germany in detail and remained unconvinced. On October 19, 1930, he met with Prince Bismarck at the German Embassy to discuss current events. When the topic of Hitler and the Nazi Party arose, Churchill acknowledged Hitler’s declarations that he had no intention of waging a war of aggression, however, as the Prince noted, Churchill “was convinced that Hitler or his followers would seize the first available opportunity to resort to armed force.”