Have you even read the book you have cited you moron, or did you just read an article you picked up on google? Did any of those people writing "plugs" for this book endorse the extreme claim of Churchill committing genocide? Are you even aware of the particular evidence cited by your author?
Yet here you are, denying a holocaust.As for my so-called "brethren" on neo-nazi websites, you can shove that comment right up your pathetic ass. I spent the better part of three years combatting neo-nazis and holocaust deniers on the web.
Sorry, but the British Empire killed HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people. It was worse than the Nazis. It lasted for centuries. However, that does not cancel the Holocaust.What have you done about it? Spouted a bunch of nazi-apologetic crap by arguing the moral equivalency of allied and nazi behavior? The nazis love that kind of crap. It's the other half of holocaust denial. No the nazis weren't that bad, and anyway, the allies were just as bad or worse.
You are a manic Eurosupremacist, trying to deny a holocaust simply because you feel "connected" to Churchill. You are a sick, nasty, little bigot.And your Euro-phobia doesn't exactly bespeak a terribly enlightened view. Don't even bother arguing that you are only critical of state actors in Europe. Your so-called "critiques" of European culture and society on this board are well known trollery. You're a manic Euro-hater, for reasons that are undoubtely highly personal to you, and quite pathological.
- wolf
As for my so-called "brethren" on neo-nazi websites, you can shove that comment right up your pathetic ass. I spent the better part of three years combatting neo-nazis and holocaust deniers on the web. What have you done about it? Spouted a bunch of nazi-apologetic crap by arguing the moral equivalency of allied and nazi behavior? The nazis love that kind of crap. It's the other half of holocaust denial. No the nazis weren't that bad, and anyway, the allies were just as bad or worse.
Hmmm, so the Brits brought civilization and technology to India, and they end up kicking out the "evil imperialists" and end up with a savage socialist hell-hole and they expected the British to help them? haha. Fucking fail.
They actually prevented industrialization in many of their colonies, so I'm not sure how you can say they brought civilization and technology, especially since they enslaved so many of their colonies.
Insightful. Also, I would add that CanOWorms is playing into neo-nazi fears that white people are under siege by his constant singling out of Europeans.
Western presence in any form improves the condition of any savage colony.
You are a manic Eurosupremacist, trying to deny a holocaust simply because you feel "connected" to Churchill. You are a sick, nasty, little bigot.
Interesting. Are you claiming that you have these same Neo-Nazi concerns? That would explain so much.
Deny, deny!In London, Churchill's beloved advisor, the physicist Frederick Alexander Lindemann (Lord Cherwell), was unmoved. A firm believer in Malthusian population theory, he blamed Indian philoprogenitiveness for the famine – sending more food would worsen the situation by encouraging Indians to breed more. The prime minister was of the same opinion and expressed himself so colourfully that Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India, exploded at him, comparing his attitudes to Hitler's.
The Churchill industry has always denied that their idol could have done anything to relieve the Bengal famine. Shipping, they claim, was scarce and it just wasn't possible to send food to Bengal. Mukerjee nails those "terminological inexactitudes" with precision. There was a shipping glut in summer and autumn 1943, thanks to the US transferring cargo ships to British control. Churchill, Lindemann and their close associates simply did not consider Indian lives worth saving.
How do you expect to have any credibility when you spout lies like that? I disagree with Woolfe all the time but I have never seen anything close to him being bigoted. (If anything he is over the line into political correctness.) It comes off as though you're just saying that because he disagrees with you.
Churchill's Secret War
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...secret-war-by-madhusree-mukerjee-2068698.html
Deny, deny!
Do you think that Holocaust deniers are not bigoted?
I don't have neo-nazi concerns. I think their view of race is silly.
You said you don't hate all English people. Do you hate any of them?
Also, do you believe that Europeans deny their crimes more than any other peoples?
Genocide not found. Stop overplaying your cards.
As woolfe said, this is not comparable to the Holocaust. Get back to me when you have records that Churchill was putting Indians into ovens.
Weird, I see it.
Even if it's not there, do you think that there was no crime? Should Churchill still be venerated or should be be despised?
There would never be a 1:1 copy for any atrocity. However, he is denying an atrocity just as Holocuast deniers do. His actions are comparable to a Holocaust denier.
In addition, the Holocuast and Bengal Famine were motivated in part by racial prejudice. Those that deny the Holocaust tend to be Anti-Semitic. I wonder if he has bigotry against Bengali people.
There very well could have been reckless disregard for the Indians. Churchill should be treated objectively like any other historical figure. I'm fine with Britannica having a section on this incident next to all his accomplishments.
Do you think such a level of reckless disregard is not a crime? The evidence provided by the author suggests something much more, but even if you wish to deny it, do you think it is something less?
I'm sure many WW2 leaders were bigoted. Only Hitler sent people to their deaths on an industrial level.
From what I understand, Woolfe was just denying your hyperbole. In that sense, he is nowhere near a Holocaust denier. I don't think he disputes all of the facts in the article, but he can speak for himself.
PS Do you claim that Europeans deny their crimes more than others do? Do you hate any English people?
I didn't say it wasn't a crime. All I know is that its not a good deed and it isn't genocide.
Churchill seems to have done it on a ruthless level as well. It could not be done on an industrial level as in Europe because of the population dynamics. You cannot expect a 1:1 copy.
Do you think that the actions of Hitler and Churchill were acceptable back then among world leaders?
There's always a struggle to called a Genocide a Genocide. Unfortunately, he is on the side of the killers. Many people go through this. The Japanese deny their atrocities in Asia, Turkey denies its atrocities against Armenians, etc.
He, and you, should accept the truth.
I already answered this.
Again you're equating Churchill and Hitler when there nowhere near the same level.
Sure, but Churchill didn't just not send food to people. He created the situation, knew what was happening due to this actions and policies, knew how to fix it, had the capability and resources to fix it, but did not because he believed that fixing it would cause the birth of more people of a people he despised. Are you saying that is a trivial thing?Shoving people into ovens is much worse than not sending food to people.
So if you aren't sure if Europeans deny their crimes more than anyone else, why do you single them out all the time?
I don't know. What proportion of genocides throughout history do you deny?You said you don't hate all English people. What proportion of English people do you hate?
By situation I mean the economic and political decisions creating the Bengal Famine. The destruction of boats, etc. Who attacked first is irrelevant in this analysis.Churchill didn't create the situation. Japan attacked Great Britain first.
Yes, they are "near the same level." They were both leaders endorsing policies eradicating millions of people, motivated by prejudice.
Sure, but Churchill didn't just not send food to people. He created the situation, knew what was happening due to this actions and policies, knew how to fix it, had the capability and resources to fix it, but did not because he believed that fixing it would cause the birth of more people of a people he despised. Are you saying that is a trivial thing?
First of all, I don't single them out. They are just the majority of posts. In addition, I've already answered this question.
It's interesting that you can even ask since you do the same with all sorts of groups: Hispanics, Muslims, Indians, etc.
I don't know. What proportion of genocides throughout history do you deny?
By situation I mean the economic and political decisions creating the Bengal Famine. The destruction of boats, etc. Who attacked first is irrelevant in this analysis.
Do you think that the British could have killed as many people as they wanted to because they were attacked in lands they themselves enslaved and attacked?
Facebook
Twitter