Research shows that worshipped World War 2 hero orchestrated Genocide

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Recent research provides more proof what many scholars have thought for quite some time: Winston Churchill orchestrated the Bengal famine, leading to the deaths of up to 4 million people. He orchestrated one of the worst genocides of the 20th century.

His own advisers claimed that they could not see the difference between Churchill and Hitler. They were both motivated by racial hatred.

Book blames Churchill for famine that killed millions

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h5THy9KhaMt9AwA8mFneq3F9n0Xg

British prime minister Winston Churchill deliberately let millions of Indians starve to death, the author of a new book has claimed, alleging he was motivated in part by racial hatred.

As many as three million people died in the Bengal famine of 1943 after Japan captured neighbouring Burma -- a major source of rice imports -- and British colonial rulers in India stockpiled food for soldiers and war workers.

Panic-buying of rice sent prices soaring, and distribution channels were wrecked when officials confiscated or destroyed most boats and bullock carts in Bengal to stop them falling into enemy hands if Japan invaded.

Rice suddenly became scarce in markets and, as worsening hunger spread through villages, Churchill repeatedly refused pleas for emergency food shipments.

Emaciated masses drifted into Kolkata, where eye-witnesses described men fighting over foul scraps and skeletal mothers dying in the streets as British and middle-class Indians ate large meals in their clubs or at home.

The "man-made" famine has long been one of the darkest chapters of the British Raj, but now Madhusree Mukerjee says she has uncovered evidence that Churchill was directly responsible for the appalling suffering.

Her book, "Churchill's Secret War", quotes previously unused papers that disprove his claim that no ships could be spared from the war and that show him brushing aside increasingly desperate requests from British officials in India.

Analysis of World War II cabinet meetings, forgotten ministry records and personal archives show that full grain ships from Australia were passing India on their way to the Mediterranean region, where huge stockpiles were building up.

"It wasn't a question of Churchill being inept: sending relief to Bengal was raised repeatedly and he and his close associates thwarted every effort," Mukerjee told AFP in a telephone interview.

"The United States and Australia offered to send help but couldn't because the war cabinet was not willing to release ships. And when the US offered to send grain on its own ships, that offer was not followed up by the British."

Churchill's record as a war leader against Nazi Germany has secured his place in history, but his attitude towards Indians attracts less admiration.

"He said awful things about Indians. He told his secretary he wished they could be bombed," Mukerjee said. "He was furious with Indians because he could see America would not let British rule in India continue."

Churchill derided Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi as a lawyer posing as a "half-naked" holy man, and replied to British officials in India who pleaded for food supplies by asking why Gandhi had not yet died.

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion," he told Leo Amery, the secretary of state for India. Another time he accused Indians of effectively causing the famine by "breeding like rabbits."

Amery once lost his temper after one rant by the prime minister, telling Churchill that he could not "see much difference between his outlook and Hitler's."

Amery wrote in his diary: "I am by no means sure whether on this subject of India he is really quite sane."

Mukerjee believes Churchill's views on India, where he served as a young army officer, came from his Victorian upbringing. Like his father, he saw India as the fundamental jewel in the crown of the British empire.

"Winston's racist hatred was due to his loving the empire in the way a jealous husband loves his trophy wife: he would rather destroy it than let it go," said Mukerjee.

Mukerjee's book has been hailed as a ground-breaking achievement which unearths new information despite the hundreds of volumes already written on Churchill's life.

Eminent British historian Max Hastings has described it as "significant -- and to British readers -- distressing."

Author Ramachandra Guha said it provided "for the first time, definitive evidence of how a great man?s prejudices contributed to one of the most deadly famines in modern history."

Mukerjee attributes the book's revelations to her training as a physicist.

"People suspected that something like this happened but no one really went through the evidence properly to find out what the ships were doing at the time, proving that grain could have been taken to India," she said.

"I didn't set out to target Churchill. I set out to understand the famine and I slowly discovered his part in it.

"The famine, you could argue, was partly a deliberate act. India was forced to export grain in the early years of war and in 1943 was exporting rice at Churchill's personal insistence. Britain ruthlessly exploited India during war and didn't let up even when famine started."

Mukerjee, a 49-year-old Bengali who now lives in Frankfurt with her German husband, believes the Bengal famine has also been air-brushed from Indian history books.

"I was never taught about it in school and my parents never mentioned it," she said. "There's middle-class guilt as they were employed in professions that meant they received rations. But villagers were considered dispensable."

Seven years of working on the book, and of hearing gruelling tales from famine survivors whom she tracked down in remote villages, have left Mukerjee with a harsh opinion of Churchill.

"He is often criticised for bombing German cities but has never before been held directly responsible for the deaths of so many people as in the Bengal famine. It was the greatest stain on his career."

"I find it very hard to be open-minded about him now," she said. "After all, he would have thought that I am not worth the food I eat."
Hopefully this book will be required reading in British schools. It's quite distressing that Churchill is considered in many circles in the UK to be the greatest Briton ever. It's like Germans voting that Hitler was the greatest German ever.

It's also disturbing that a bust of Churchill was in the Oval Office before Obama returned it to the British. Obviously Obama has an intense dislike of Churchill which led to him returning the bust (Churchill held power during the time he commanded British soldiers to torture Obama's grandfather, specifically mutilating his testicles).

Hopefully this will finally prevent the veneration of Churchill as a hero. The British, as well as others, need to recognize that Churchill was a monster. It is likely that more civilians were slaughtered under Churchill's command than any of his contemporaries, including Hitler.
 
Last edited:

LtPage1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2004
6,311
2
0
Holy shit. I'm going to have to read this.

edit: I read your post. I think this shows the complexity of people, more than anything. It's important to not forget history, no matter where it leads us. It's just as important to recognize Churchill's contributions to the British war effort (arguably, without Churchill, we'd all be speaking German) as it is to acknowledge this new evidence. The point of studying history isn't to separate out the good guys from the bad, demonizing those you decide to hate, and deifying those with whom you empathize.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
That aint shit. The Mughal Muslim empire actively (learn the difference) killed that many a month. Not to mention in 1971 when Pakistan invaded and killed 3 million. I saw it on TV,

PS starvation is an excellent tactic, we should be using it in Afghanistan to get them to sue for peace and conform. Props to Churchill gettin it done, again. Nazi's or others he got shit done. RIP.
 
Last edited:

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Hopefully this will finally prevent the veneration of Churchill as a hero. The British, as well as others, need to recognize that Churchill was a monster. It is likely that more civilians were slaughtered under Churchill's command than any of his contemporaries, including Hitler.

Odd. Stalin topped Hitler in mass death several times, did he not? Churchill was no more a monster than Roosevelt or Stalin.

On a side note, why does everyone always try to pull down heroes and leaders? The book looks like an interesting read, but keep in mind that every great leader has skeletons in their closets. Owing in no small part to Churchill's leadership, the Allies won World War 2, don't forget that. Not so sure it would be a better world today had the Axis powers been victorious.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact (General Betrayus), non-Westerners (OP) never do.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
cry me a river India

As they all want to move here. Speaking of which why are these economic refuges talking shit about our greats? Go the fuck back we need no usurpers on the greatest civilizations world has ever seen.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
I wasn't aware that anyone thought of Churchill as a hero. He was just a politician. All he did was tell people what he wanted, then other people would make it happen. Montgomery could be called a hero, Eisenhower could be called a hero, Patton could be called a hero, Zhukov could be call a hero, but I don't think anyone would call the politicians heroes. Even Romil is a hero, and he was the enemy.


arguably, without Churchill, we'd all be speaking German
Not exactly. The Germans were doomed from the start because their top commander was a retard. Generals warned about invading USSR too late in the season; Hitler said go ahead with the invasion. They had no plans for winter fighting. They had no winter clothes. Their equipment was not properly lubricated for winter, so things like heavy artillery and tanks didn't even work half the time. In the first year of fighting against USSR, more Germans died from cold and starvation than from actual bullets. The entire eastern front lacked fuel, so they couldn't launch proper attacks or advance quickly. Hitler insisted on occupying Stalingrad instead of just surrounding it and starving it to death. When generals brought attention to how weak the flanks were at Stalingrad, Hitler ignored it and said to keep focus on this one city. Because of Hitler's fuck up in that city, about a 1/3 of a million German soldiers were surrounded and wiped out.

The biggest mistake ever was to declare war against the 2 most powerful countries in the entire world. USA and the Soviet Union. At the same time. On 3 different fronts (only 2 fronts if Britain were captured). Soviets are attacking from the east, Americans and Brits bombing from the west, and Americans and Brits invading from the south. There's no way the Germans could have won this.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Oh please, some book by some dolt "writer" named mukerjee, and a blog hosted on google are supposed to mean something? Come back when you have something credible.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
I wasn't aware that anyone thought of Churchill as a hero. He was just a politician. All he did was tell people what he wanted, then other people would make it happen.

Churchill galvanized a demoralized Great Britain and rallied them to continue resisting the German advance. He also had a WW1 career, but I'm not familiar enough with it to comment.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
Oh please, some book by some dolt "writer" named mukerjee, and a blog hosted on google are supposed to mean something? Come back when you have something credible.

Because white people are the only people in the world with credibility.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Churchill galvanized a demoralized Great Britain and rallied them to continue resisting the German advance. He also had a WW1 career, but I'm not familiar enough with it to comment.

I'm reading his wiki page right now. His history is quite interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
key points:
he became associated with a faction of the Conservative Party led by Lord Hugh Cecil; the Hughligans. During his first parliamentary session, he opposed the government's military expenditure[51] and Joseph Chamberlain's proposal of extensive tariffs, which were intended to protect Britain's economic dominance
.......
After the Whitsun recess in 1904 he crossed the floor to sit as a member of the Liberal Party. As a Liberal, he continued to campaign for free trade.
.....
As President of the Board of Trade he joined newly appointed Chancellor Lloyd George in opposing First Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna's proposed huge expenditure for the construction of Navy dreadnought warships, and in supporting the Liberal reforms.[54] In 1908, he introduced the Trade Boards Bill setting up the first minimum wages in Britain,[55] In 1909, he set up Labour Exchanges to help unemployed people find work.[56] He helped draft the first unemployment pension legislation, the National Insurance Act of 1911.
......
Churchill also assisted in passing the People's Budget[58] becoming President of the Budget League, an organisation set up in response to the opposition's "Budget Protest League".[59] The budget included the introduction of new taxes on the wealthy to allow for the creation of new social welfare programmes. After the budget bill was sent to the Commons in 1909 and passed, it went to the House of Lords, where it was vetoed. The Liberals then fought and won two general elections in January and December 1910 to gain a mandate for their reforms. The budget was then passed following the Parliament Act 1911 for which he also campaigned.
......
Churchill's proposed solution to the suffragette issue was a referendum on the issue, but this found no favour with Herbert Henry Asquith and women's suffrage remained unresolved until after the First World War
......
In 1911, Churchill was transferred to the office of the First Lord of the Admiralty, a post he held into the First World War. He gave impetus to several reform efforts, including development of naval aviation (he undertook flying lessons himself),[64] the construction of new and larger warships, the development of tanks, and the switch from coal to oil in the Royal Navy
.....
Churchill was involved with the development of the tank, which was financed from naval research funds.[68] He then headed the Landships Committee which was responsible for creating the first tank corps and, although a decade later development of the battle tank would be seen as a tactical victory, at the time it was seen as misappropriation of funds.[68] In 1915, he was one of the political and military engineers of the disastrous Gallipoli landings on the Dardanelles during the First World War
......
A major preoccupation of his tenure in the War Office was the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Churchill was a staunch advocate of foreign intervention, declaring that Bolshevism must be "strangled in its cradle".[76] He secured, from a divided and loosely organised Cabinet, intensification and prolongation of the British involvement beyond the wishes of any major group in Parliament or the nation—and in the face of the bitter hostility of Labour. In 1920, after the last British forces had been withdrawn, Churchill was instrumental in having arms sent to the Poles when they invaded Ukraine
.....
Churchill advocated the use of tear gas on Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq,[78] Though the British did consider the use of poison gas in putting down Kurdish rebellions, it was not used, as conventional bombing was considered effective
......
Churchill was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924 under Stanley Baldwin and oversaw Britain's disastrous return to the Gold Standard, which resulted in deflation, unemployment, and the miners' strike that led to the General Strike of 1926
....
[Churchill's] decision prompted [John Maynard Keynes] to write "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill", arguing that the return to the gold standard at the pre-war parity in 1925 (£1=$4.86) would lead to a world depression. However, the decision was generally popular and seen as 'sound economics' although it was opposed by Lord Beaverbrook and the Federation of British Industries.[82] Churchill later regarded [returning to the gold standard] as the greatest mistake of his life
....
[Churchill] argued that "either the country will break the General Strike, or the General Strike will break the country" and claimed that the fascism of Benito Mussolini had "rendered a service to the whole world," showing, as it had, "a way to combat subversive forces"—that is, he considered the regime to be a bulwark against the perceived threat of Communist revolution. At one point, Churchill went as far as to call Mussolini the "Roman genius... the greatest lawgiver among men
....
Churchill opposed Mohandas Gandhi's peaceful disobedience revolt and the Indian Independence movement in the 1930s, arguing that the Round Table Conference "was a frightful prospect".[91] Later reports indicate that Churchill favoured letting Gandhi die if he went on a hunger strike.
......
the fall of Burma to the Japanese, which cut off India’s main supply of rice imports when domestic sources fell short .......In response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, and Viceroy of India, Wavell, to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn’t died yet." ( :awe: )
......
Beginning in 1932, when he opposed those who advocated giving Germany the right to military parity with France, Churchill spoke often of the dangers of Germany's rearmament
......
In contemporary newspaper articles he referred to the Spanish Republican government as a Communist front, and Franco's [fascist] army as the "Anti-red movement".[110] He supported the Hoare-Laval Pact and continued up until 1937 to praise Benito Mussolini
.......
Churchill was a fierce critic of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler[134] and in a speech to the House of Commons, he bluntly and prophetically stated, "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war."
......
Churchill advocated the pre-emptive occupation of the neutral Norwegian iron-ore port of Narvik and the iron mines in Kiruna, Sweden, early in the war. However, Chamberlain and the rest of the War Cabinet disagreed, and the operation was delayed until the successful German invasion of Norway.
.......
Although there was an element of British public and political sentiment favouring negotiated peace with a clearly ascendant Germany, among them the Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, Churchill nonetheless refused to consider an armistice with Hitler's Germany.[139] His use of rhetoric hardened public opinion against a peaceful resolution and prepared the British for a long war.[140] Coining the general term for the upcoming battle, Churchill stated in his "finest hour" speech to the House of Commons on 18 June 1940, "I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin."[141] By refusing an armistice with Germany, Churchill kept resistance alive in the British Empire and created the basis for the later Allied counter-attacks of 1942–45, with Britain serving as a platform for the supply of Soviet Union and the liberation of Western Europe.
.....
Churchill's good relationship with Franklin D. Roosevelt secured vital food, oil and munitions via the North Atlantic shipping routes.[149] It was for this reason that Churchill was relieved when Roosevelt was re-elected in 1940. Upon re-election, Roosevelt immediately set about implementing a new method of providing military hardware and shipping to Britain without the need for monetary payment. Put simply, Roosevelt persuaded Congress that repayment for this immensely costly service would take the form of defending the US; and so Lend-lease was born
......
Between 13–15 February 1945, British and US bombers attacked the German city of Dresden, which was crowded with German wounded and refugees.[165] Because of the cultural importance of the city, and of the number of civilian casualties close to the end of the war, this remains one of the most controversial Western Allied actions of the war. Following the bombing Churchill stated in a top secret telegram:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed... I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive
.....
As Europe celebrated peace at the end of six years of war, Churchill was concerning on the possibility that the celebrations would soon be brutally interrupted.[175] He concluded that the UK and the US must prepare for the Red Army ignoring previously agreed frontiers and agreements in Europe, and prepare to "impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire."[176] According to the Operation Unthinkable plan ordered by Churchill and developed by the British Armed Forces, the Third World War could have started on 1 July 1945 with a sudden attack against the allied Soviet troops. The plan was rejected by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible.
......
Churchill also argued strongly for British independence from the European Coal and Steel Community, which he saw as a Franco-German project. He saw Britain's place as separate from the continent, much more in-line with the countries of the Commonwealth and the Empire and with the United States, the so-called Anglosphere.
......
Being a strong proponent of Britain as an international power, Churchill would often meet such moments with direct action. One example was his dispatch of British troops to Kenya to deal with the Mau Mau rebellion.[183] Trying to retain what he could of the Empire, he once stated that, "I will not preside over a dismemberment."


Sounds a lot like the republicans who try to maintain the US empire and take action before a crisis happens. He would probably vote for McCain in the last election. Attacking Iran is something he would do.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Odd. Stalin topped Hitler in mass death several times, did he not? Churchill was no more a monster than Roosevelt or Stalin.

On a side note, why does everyone always try to pull down heroes and leaders? The book looks like an interesting read, but keep in mind that every great leader has skeletons in their closets. Owing in no small part to Churchill's leadership, the Allies won World War 2, don't forget that. Not so sure it would be a better world today had the Axis powers been victorious.

Oh, come on. While there are some who 'try to pull down heroes', why is it that sychophants and apologists 'always try to attack any truths not fitting their worship'?

People throw up 'but he helped win WWII' as a defense for wrong as if it is one - not realizing the same 'defense' would excuse Hitler for the Holocaust if he'd won WWII.

It doesn't excuse the wrongs. But some people simply cannot hear the truth and pick their fantasy instead.

You don't hear a lot of 'but but but' defense of Histler when his crimes are laid out, but you do with others, seemingly only because the people are slaves to 'popular history'.

Look, I think one of our best presidents was John Kennedy - and yet I can also recognize that I'm not at all sure he and Robert didn't murder Marilyn Monroe, that there's a good case to be made he wrongly put the world at high risk for nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis unnecessarily, that he sponsored terrorism in Cuba.

I can look at Stalin as the murderer of tens of millions - and sympathize with his position that FDR and Churchill drug their feet on D-Day letting Russian civilians pay with their blood.

The 'but he was important in winning WWII' defense of the charges above is morally criminal and disgusting. I guess winning a big war is license to kill millions, if he did.

I'm disgusted with blind defenders from Germany of Hitler, from Japan of their war leaders, from Russia of Stalin, and of the US and England of our own wrongs.

Much good and bad can be found in Churchill, and the seduction of the fantasy - his stirring war radio speeches (some read by an actor) - doesn't justify apologizing for wrong.

About 'tearing down heroes' - I'm for building them up when justified, which is all too little with modern leaders. Bernie Sanders is a hero, for example. The question is the truth.

There's a difference between 'attacking heroes' and 'exposing heroes'. George Washington did lie, and not understanding that could lead people to bad policies on worship.

That's part of learning history - that these myths are created for a reason, which is often harmful to people, and that it's more complicated than the popular version quite a bit.

Today, Kennedy is widely viewed both as a great president and a sexual fiend; had this been exposed at the time, it'd have brought down his presidency. Should it have?

Why couldn't the public at the time have said 'we disapprove of his personal sexual behavior but want him as a great president'? They'd have been better off if they could.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Churchill galvanized a demoralized Great Britain and rallied them to continue resisting the German advance. He also had a WW1 career, but I'm not familiar enough with it to comment.

Check out something pretty ugly called Gallipoli, after which Churchill was relieved of his position as first lord of the admiralty, and even helped bring down the government.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/gallipoli.htm

It was a blunder causing hundreds of thousands of allied casualties.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
The problem with being a leader is that you have the power to make changes and once you have the One Ring a lot of damage gets done as a result. For those who have the need for heroes I can see why Churchill might be on the list, but he is responsible in large part for stonings in Iran and 9/11.

Now how the heck can Churchill be blamed for that?

Churchill was the reason for Operation Ajax, which caused a democratically elected leader to go "poof". He was replaced by a selected dictator which in turn caused people to revolt. That was led by a radical group of Muslims who in turn established the government in Iran today.

Bin Laden is a product of the society that Churchill helped establish as well.

But but, how could he have forseen this? He couldn't have forseen today, but he could have reasonably understood the results of political assassination would be tragic.

Did he think of it at all? No, but he saw Britain in the form of BP suffering loss, and that was all he effectively cared about.

That's the Achilles heel of leaders. Hubris.

That's also why I distrust people with virtually unrestrained power. They'll most likely use it.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,826
3,776
136
Odd. Stalin topped Hitler in mass death several times, did he not? Churchill was no more a monster than Roosevelt or Stalin.

On a side note, why does everyone always try to pull down heroes and leaders? The book looks like an interesting read, but keep in mind that every great leader has skeletons in their closets. Owing in no small part to Churchill's leadership, the Allies won World War 2, don't forget that. Not so sure it would be a better world today had the Axis powers been victorious.

It's not about "pulling down leaders", it's about exposing truth (which is what academics is supposed to be). Just because you think someone's great, doesn't mean we're not allowed to talk about horrible things they did. Besides:

A. The Allies probably would have won anyway. In fact, Hitler was such a horrible tactician, it's tough to come up with a conceivable scenario where Germany would win.

B. Even assuming Churchill was a major factor in Allied victory, starving millions of poor villagers to death had nothing to do with that victory. It was just a dick move.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
It's not about "pulling down leaders", it's about exposing truth (which is what academics is supposed to be). Just because you think someone's great, doesn't mean we're not allowed to talk about horrible things they did. Besides:

A. The Allies probably would have won anyway. In fact, Hitler was such a horrible tactician, it's tough to come up with a conceivable scenario where Germany would win.

B. Even assuming Churchill was a major factor in Allied victory, starving millions of poor villagers to death had nothing to do with that victory. It was just a dick move.

The only thing Churchhill saved was their own territory (or most of it).

America woulda bombed the shit out of the Axis anyway.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Oh, come on. While there are some who 'try to pull down heroes', why is it that sychophants and apologists 'always try to attack any truths not fitting their worship'?

People throw up 'but he helped win WWII' as a defense for wrong as if it is one - not realizing the same 'defense' would excuse Hitler for the Holocaust if he'd won WWII.

It doesn't excuse the wrongs. But some people simply cannot hear the truth and pick their fantasy instead.

You don't hear a lot of 'but but but' defense of Histler when his crimes are laid out, but you do with others, seemingly only because the people are slaves to 'popular history'.

Look, I think one of our best presidents was John Kennedy - and yet I can also recognize that I'm not at all sure he and Robert didn't murder Marilyn Monroe, that there's a good case to be made he wrongly put the world at high risk for nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis unnecessarily, that he sponsored terrorism in Cuba.

I can look at Stalin as the murderer of tens of millions - and sympathize with his position that FDR and Churchill drug their feet on D-Day letting Russian civilians pay with their blood.

The 'but he was important in winning WWII' defense of the charges above is morally criminal and disgusting. I guess winning a big war is license to kill millions, if he did.

I'm disgusted with blind defenders from Germany of Hitler, from Japan of their war leaders, from Russia of Stalin, and of the US and England of our own wrongs.

Much good and bad can be found in Churchill, and the seduction of the fantasy - his stirring war radio speeches (some read by an actor) - doesn't justify apologizing for wrong.

About 'tearing down heroes' - I'm for building them up when justified, which is all too little with modern leaders. Bernie Sanders is a hero, for example. The question is the truth.

There's a difference between 'attacking heroes' and 'exposing heroes'. George Washington did lie, and not understanding that could lead people to bad policies on worship.

That's part of learning history - that these myths are created for a reason, which is often harmful to people, and that it's more complicated than the popular version quite a bit.

Today, Kennedy is widely viewed both as a great president and a sexual fiend; had this been exposed at the time, it'd have brought down his presidency. Should it have?

Why couldn't the public at the time have said 'we disapprove of his personal sexual behavior but want him as a great president'? They'd have been better off if they could.


It appears you are uncritically accepting the source provided by the OP, which is not consistent with other scholarship on the Bengali famine. The fact is there was a cyclone there which destroyed many of the rice crops. In the food market, people hoarded rice as a result of the cyclone as an investment because they perceived a shortage which actually did not exist, but the hoarding caused a de facto shortage. The Bengali government then incompetently failed to halt the exportation of rice. It appears that the origin of this famine was multi-causal. The author cited by the OP, who I have never heard, appears to be alone in calling it a genocide, let alone blaming it on Churchill.

I wouldn't prop up Churchill or anyone else as a hero and excuse any bad conduct. But you have to be wary of "historical revisionism" by those who have some kind of an agenda, or just want to attract attention with a controversial thesis that goes against the grain. Busting myths is great, but I smell bullshit here.

- wolf
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,603
13,982
146
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion," he told Leo Amery, the secretary of state for India. Another time he accused Indians of effectively causing the famine by "breeding like rabbits."

Well, Churchill was certainly right about that...Hard to blame someone else for a lack of food when you can't control your population...Can't feed more people? Stop making babies.

(that's the argument here for families...especially welfare families)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
It appears you are uncritically accepting the source provided by the OP, which is not consistent with other scholarship on the Bengali famine. The fact is there was a cyclone there which destroyed many of the rice crops. In the food market, people hoarded rice as a result of the cyclone as an investment because they perceived a shortage which actually did not exist, but the hoarding caused a de facto shortage. The Bengali government then incompetently failed to halt the exportation of rice. It appears that the origin of this famine was multi-causal. The author cited by the OP, who I have never heard, appears to be alone in calling it a genocide, let alone blaming it on Churchill.

I wouldn't prop up Churchill or anyone else as a hero and excuse any bad conduct. But you have to be wary of "historical revisionism" by those who have some kind of an agenda, or just want to attract attention with a controversial thesis that goes against the grain. Busting myths is great, but I smell bullshit here.

- wolf

No, I'm discussing the issue 'assuming the issue is true', discussing the responses' logic.

If someone posts 'George Washington secretly supported the massacre of all Native Americans men, women, and children', and someone responded with "I support a more powerful society committing genodcide against any weaker society, it's social darwinism and good for the human race", I'll respond to that second post even if the allegations about Washington are false, because it has wrongs needing to be righted.

I did not comment on the accuracy of the Churchill allegations, and specifically included a couple of 'if he did' type qualifiers just for that reason, obviously missed by you.

I could have said more to make that clear that I was not discussing the accuracy of the reports - I don't have the facts to say much on that - but it should be clear.

In this case I think it was more important to discuss the apologists who would react wrongly if the reports are accurate before getting to the accuracy of them.
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Well, Churchill was certainly right about that...Hard to blame someone else for a lack of food when you can't control your population...Can't feed more people? Stop making babies.

Churchill is not in a position to complain about India. Both Britain and Germany at the time were not able to feed their own people without imports. Britain's strong reliance on imports is why they've always insisted on having the strongest navy; it was so no country could ever cause a blockade and starve them to death.

Germany's story is a bit more interesting. It didn't happen in WW2, but it happened in WW1. They couldn't get imports from the west because they were fighting Britain and France. They couldn't get imports from the east because they were fighting Russia. They couldn't get imports from the south because Austria-Hungary had its own food problems and would jack any food coming through. They couldn't get imports from the sea because Britain had completely blocked Germany's ports. For the bulk of the war, Germany was under very tight food rationing. There just wasn't enough food to eat as much as you wanted.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,299
740
126
Damn and we are still 1.2 bil strong! we might have surpassed China if it didnt happen
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
India should return the favor to the UK. At the rate things are going, they could probably do it within 20 years.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,011
9,113
136
Just goes to show, don't ever allow your nation to be subjugated to the will of another. Support your own sovereignty and you won't have foreigner leaders telling you to starve to death.