Research shows that worshipped World War 2 hero orchestrated Genocide

[woolfe9999]

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.

Fair enough, but the OP made a specific claim with a specific source. To me, the accuracy of that claim is paramount in the discussion. And there is a wider issue here that is parallel to the wider issue you raise - that so-called "myth busting" aka the debunking of "hero worship" has been a popular trade among fringe historians for many decades now, and often the scholarship is specious as the person in question has a political agenda or is just trying to attract attention and sell books by being controversial. You of all people should know that there has been some questionable scholarship on JFK and MLK, most of it politically motivated.

In the discipline of history, there is naturally pressure to publish as in any academic discipline, but you have to come up with a fresh take on historical events as at this point every major historical event has pretty much been covered exhaustively. That produces a situation where certain people are motivated to write against the grain, and will bend and stretch facts and interpretations to support a controversial thesis.

Just as there are people who will uncritically support a perceived "hero" such as Churchill, there are also people similarly motivated to tear down such people just for the sake of doing so. Many people fancy themselves above the masses, as having a somehow privileged pipeline to the truth that only they themselves know, and now they will enlighten the ignorant. This sort of conceat does not necessarily make for honest commentary. Sometimes in history, a banana really is a banana.

I will also add something particular to WWII. I have studied WWII at least as much as you have probably studied Kennedy, and I think trying to draw crude moral equivalencies between Churchill/Roosevelt and Hitler/Stalin, or between allied/axis are basically dishonest. The record of the western powers is far from unblemished in that epoch and no one was a truly messianic or redemptive figure. Good guy/bad guy dichotomies are bound to be oversimplified. However, this constant need to compare everyone on the planet to Adolf Hitler is getting really tiresome. The fact is, the expansionist goals of two countries are principally responsible for getting the world in that disastrous conflict. While there's a lot of hindsight about the tactics and methods used by the allies to end it, this basic fact is often forgotten.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

Sorry COW, but there's no evidence of intentional genocide like with Hitler. Countries at war often prioritize their armies over civilians. The Japanese were advancing. You would have to move resources away from those areas.

It's like the difference between Roosevelt putting Japanese in internment camps during peacetime and during wartime. It wasn't right in retrospect but it's not the same as bald genocide.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Of course interning Japanese Americans isn't the same as bald genocide - because the US didn't mass exterminate Japanese Americans. However, the US recognized its abuse of Japanese Americans and subsequently even gave these Americans reparations. The reparations even included apologies and even education programs to teach about this event in American history.

In fact, today we revile the men who basically lied and doctored evidence to justify the atrocity against Japanese Americans.

Has the UK ever given Indians reparations? Does it acknowledge this genocide? Probably not.

 

[Infohawk]

Of course interning Japanese Americans isn't the same as bald genocide - because the US didn't mass exterminate Japanese Americans. However, the US recognized its abuse of Japanese Americans and subsequently even gave these Americans reparations. The reparations even included apologies and even education programs to teach about this event in American history.

Has the UK ever given India reparations? Does it acknowledge this genocide? Probably not.

I don't think you know what genocide is. It has to be deliberate. This was under duress. If Churchill was as evil as you and cow want to believe, he could have just allied himself with hitler and started mass killings in the third world. Instead he fought against that and a lot of civilians died in the meantime in most countries except the US.

PS you didn't understand my analogy at all. I'm not saying internment = genocide.

 

[woolfe9999]

Sorry COW, but there's no evidence of intentional genocide like with Hitler. Countries at war often prioritize their armies over civilians. The Japanese were advancing. You would have to move resources away from those areas.

It's like the difference between Roosevelt putting Japanese in internment camps during peacetime and during wartime. It wasn't right in retrospect but it's not the same as bald genocide.

Agreed. There are actually varied definitions of the term "genocide" that are debated in academia. The Bengali famine doesn't meet any of them. The causes of that famine were a cyclone, Japanese military action, and private hoarding of food as an investment in times of perceived shortage. The controversial aspect is Britain's anemic relief efforts. However, it isn't a genocide under any accepted definition when the alleged perpetrator didn't even cause the events which resulted in the deaths. A comparison/contrast could be made with the "holodomor," where the Stalinist regime caused mass famine death in the Ukraine due to forced collectivisation of farms in the 1930's. There, the debate centers around whether it is a genocide if Stalin initiated the policies which caused the mass deaths but did not necessarily intend or foresee the deaths. That one is a close case or gray area. The Bengali famine isn't even close as the British did not cause the famine.

- wolf

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't think you know what genocide is. It has to be deliberate. This was under duress. If Churchill was as evil as you and cow want to believe, he could have just allied himself with hitler and started mass killings in the third world. Instead he fought against that and a lot of civilians died in the meantime in most countries except the US.

I'm not sure if he was as evil as Hitler. I'm not saying that. However, what I do believe is that he was fine with the mass murder and genocide of Indians, who he clearly hated and was racist against.

Churchill didn't fight for the third world or civilians in the third world. He couldn't have cared less for them. The man was pretty despicable and would have sacrificed a million 'filthy' brown people to save 10 British people.

 

[PokerGuy]

Some moron writes a book and somehow those are facts now?

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not sure if he was as evil as Hitler. I'm not saying that. However, what I do believe is that he was fine with the mass murder and genocide of Indians, who he clearly hated and was racist against.

Churchill didn't fight for the third world or civilians in the third world. He couldn't have cared less for them. The man was pretty despicable and would have sacrificed a million 'filthy' brown people to save 10 British people.

Racism and indifference is not the same as genocide or murder. Again, intent is key to genocide and murder.

And let's not forget that WW2 rationing in western European countries likely caused premature deaths. Nobody claims these people were murdered. They were civilian wartime casualties.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Racism and indifference is not the same as genocide or murder. Again, intent is key to genocide and murder.

And let's not forget that WW2 rationing in western European countries likely caused premature deaths. Nobody claims these people were murdered. They were civilian wartime casualties.

Just another way of excusing British atrocities. These were civilian wartime casualties - casualties that the British inflicted upon their slaves due to their horrendous policies inspired from their simple racial hatred.

Ultimately, the British education system should be teaching their children about this event. The UK needs to be offering reparations to those involved. The US did it for its fundamental atrocity of WW2. We gave up monetary reparations. We apologized. We set up educational programs.

However, the British act like the Japanese, where they deny deny and deny their horrendous past.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Agreed. There are actually varied definitions of the term "genocide" that are debated in academia. The Bengali famine doesn't meet any of them. The causes of that famine were a cyclone, Japanese military action, and private hoarding of food as an investment in times of perceived shortage. The controversial aspect is Britain's anemic relief efforts. However, it isn't a genocide under any accepted definition when the alleged perpetrator didn't even cause the events which resulted in the deaths. A comparison/contrast could be made with the "holodomor," where the Stalinist regime caused mass famine death in the Ukraine due to forced collectivisation of farms in the 1930's. There, the debate centers around whether it is a genocide if Stalin initiated the policies which caused the mass deaths but did not necessarily intend or foresee the deaths. That one is a close case or gray area. The Bengali famine isn't even close as the British did not cause the famine.

- wolf

Semantics are important. Terms like genocide are invoked for shock value. After all who wouldn't be against that? When examined, policies which lead to massive deaths should only be considered as genocidal if they have the intent behind them. That's why when I brought up the chain of events Churchill initiated I didn't call him a "terrorist supporter" That would have been nonsense, nevertheless in calculating as he did he brought about the conditions which led to today's ME world, at least in large part.

Now does that mean that acting irresponsibly in a way that harms other indirectly is to be ignored? By no means, however it is qualitatively different.

BTW, I agree with your analysis. If storms hadn't ruined crops the outcome would have been different, and then if genocide had been the intent, then Churchill would have to find another means to bring it about. There isn't much in history to suggest that was his agenda.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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's more like, why do people here something latch on to it and not bother looking any further into it? People here what they want to hear and damn the facts. How else do you think an unknown, unproven, nobody became president?

 

[Infohawk]

Just another way of excusing British atrocities. These were civilian wartime casualties - casualties that the British inflicted upon their slaves due to their horrendous policies inspired from their simple racial hatred.

Ultimately, the British education system should be teaching their children about this event. The UK needs to be offering reparations to those involved. The US did it for its fundamental atrocity of WW2. We gave up monetary reparations. We apologized. We set up educational programs.

However, the British act like the Japanese, where they deny deny and deny their horrendous past.

This topic is not about British atrocities in general. Nobody is excusing colonialism. This is about calling out your and COW's inappropriate use of the words genocide and murder. It's not applicable. Read Hayabusa's post. You're exagerrating the wrongs and it weakens your position.

 

[werepossum]

Sorry COW, but there's no evidence of intentional genocide like with Hitler. Countries at war often prioritize their armies over civilians. The Japanese were advancing. You would have to move resources away from those areas.

It's like the difference between Roosevelt putting Japanese in internment camps during peacetime and during wartime. It wasn't right in retrospect but it's not the same as bald genocide.

I don't think you know what genocide is. It has to be deliberate. This was under duress. If Churchill was as evil as you and cow want to believe, he could have just allied himself with hitler and started mass killings in the third world. Instead he fought against that and a lot of civilians died in the meantime in most countries except the US.

PS you didn't understand my analogy at all. I'm not saying internment = genocide.

Two very well reasoned posts, thanks. Personally I do consider Churchill as a great hero, but whether or not this information is true the man certainly did some very bad things in India and elsewhere. Only been one perfect man and you see what we did to HIM. And Hayabusa is correct that the failings of even the best leaders come from hubris, as the best leaders are more susceptible to thinking that everything they want is therefore right.

It's amusing that the attributed quote assigns America as not allowing British rule over India to continue. While America was definitely in favor of Indian freedom, we had zero to do with actually establishing it. The Indian people threw off the British boot. Indian troops also fought bravely (albeit under British general officers) - if memory serves the Indian 4th Division was considered together with the New Zealand 1st as the best Allied divisions of the war - and India certainly deserved its freedom long before World War II.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This topic is not about British atrocities in general. Nobody is excusing colonialism. This is about calling out your and COW's inappropriate use of the words genocide and murder. It's not applicable. Read Hayabusa's post. You're exagerrating the wrongs and it weakens your position.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Moreover, the position cannot be further weakened when people simply refuse to even acknowledge British atrocities.

 

[woolfe9999]

Semantics are important. Terms like genocide are invoked for shock value. After all who wouldn't be against that? When examined, policies which lead to massive deaths should only be considered as genocidal if they have the intent behind them. That's why when I brought up the chain of events Churchill initiated I didn't call him a "terrorist supporter" That would have been nonsense, nevertheless in calculating as he did he brought about the conditions which led to today's ME world, at least in large part.

Now does that mean that acting irresponsibly in a way that harms other indirectly is to be ignored? By no means, however it is qualitatively different.

BTW, I agree with your analysis. If storms hadn't ruined crops the outcome would have been different, and then if genocide had been the intent, then Churchill would have to find another means to bring it about. There isn't much in history to suggest that was his agenda.

Yes, you're spot on about "genocide" being over-used for shock value. I don't know if "intent" is required, however, or perhaps it is. I raised the question of the holodomor. Suppose you cause mass death through what amounts to criminal neglect? In that case, the neglect is that of serious malfeasance, whereas with the British in Bengal, at most it was nonfeasance (i.e. the failure to act to relieve a situation you did not create). I guess in the end I lean toward you narrower definition of genocide as requiring intent as it becomes too broad a term if not limited in that way, but it's at least debatable.

- wolf

 

[Vonkhan]

Better for a few million brownskins to die rather than a tommy loose a few pounds, ey?

 

[PokerGuy]

people simply refuse to even acknowledge British atrocities.

Evidence?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Evidence?

This forum.

 

[OCGuy]

lol

 

[PokerGuy]

This forum.

The intelligence level of your posts does qualify as an atrocity against forum readers, I don't believe you are British, so it doesn't qualify as evidence of British atrocities.

 

[CitizenKain]

How else do you think an unknown, unproven, nobody became president?

Because he's a better person then the people who ran against him.

 

[IronWing]

The British exported food from Ireland throughout the potato famine so that would intentionally starve people in India should surprise no-one.

 

[lupi]

all I know is that the local US presence in the UK was sending reports to FDR detailing that the island had only weeks worth of supplies on hand so i'd tend to think shipping was a concern for most of the war.

 

[CanOWorms]

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.

It's not a blog. It's an article on Google News. It's from Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the largest news agencies in the world (with AP and Reuters).

In addition, the research is based on actual papers and correspondence from actors involved. Much of the work has been reviewed by others, including Max Hastings and Mike Davis.

 

[feralkid]

PS starvation is an excellent tactic, we should be using it in Afghanistan to get them to sue for peace and conform.

Do you have even the faintest clue what our mission there is?