Research shows that worshipped World War 2 hero orchestrated Genocide

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
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

You can be a nasty little holocaust denier if you want to be one.

However, the scholarship has been consistent that the famine was man-made primarily due to British policies. A Nobel Prize in Economics was partly awarded to one of the most prominent academics in the world partly due to his research on the issue. Many academics have suspected what this new writer has discovered, but there was no hard proof on Churchill's motivations. Now this author has discovered actual correspondence and papers that were previously unused.

It is not possible to dispute now without being a revisionist.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
The Bengali famine isn't even close as the British did not cause the famine.

Yes, they did. There is ample research on this issue. There is an academic consensus that their policies created the famine. This has been well-settled for decades now.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
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'm not surprised you're trying to deny a genocide.

Of course it was intentional. Churchill refused pleas for emergency assistance, refused aid from other countries, etc. due to racial prejudice.

It's like claiming that Hitler had to prioritize armies over civilians, too. So he chose to enslave many based on their race. Churchill did the same.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
It's like claiming that Hitler had to prioritize armies over civilians, too. So he chose to enslave many based on their race. Churchill did the same.

Huh? Hitler started his war. Churchill didn't.

Anyway, I think it's shameful you're writing in English. It's the language of colonial slave masters and genocidal maniacs. You should really consider writing in another language to fully express your disgust with Western civilization.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
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.

It's interesting that people can feel this way. I wonder what your reaction would be if someone stated that Hitler was a great hero despite his participation in such horrific atrocities.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Huh? Hitler started his war. Churchill didn't.

Why would it matter if one started or didn't start a war? Your theory of prioritization would still be there and they both acted the same way. Even his own adviser stated that he could see no difference between Churchill and Hitler regarding the issue.

Anyway, I think it's shameful you're writing in English. It's the language of colonial slave masters and genocidal maniacs. You should really consider writing in another language to fully express your disgust with Western civilization.
I think that it's shameful that you're trying to justify a genocide.
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Why would it matter if one started or didn't start a war? Your theory of prioritization would still be there and they both acted the same way.



I think that it's shameful that you're trying to justify a genocide.

It's not a genocide. There is no intent. At most it's negligence. Hitler had a distinct goal to kill millions of Jews. The most you've shown is that Churchill was racist. You haven't shown he intended to kill millions of south Asians.

Honestly, have you thought about posting in a different language? How can you be taken seriously if you're using the language of your oppressors?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
You can be a nasty little holocaust denier if you want to be one.

However, the scholarship has been consistent that the famine was man-made primarily due to British policies. A Nobel Prize in Economics was partly awarded to one of the most prominent academics in the world partly due to his research on the issue. Many academics have suspected what this new writer has discovered, but there was no hard proof on Churchill's motivations. Now this author has discovered actual correspondence and papers that were previously unused.

It is not possible to dispute now without being a revisionist.

Please explain which historians agree with the thesis of this author who you cited in your OP, the thesis being that this was a genocide committed by Churchill. Names please.

Funny you call me a Holocaust denier. Holocaust deniers eat up any sort of historical revisionism that paints the allied powers in a bad light. You want a bet that this article you link can be found on neo-nazi and holocaust denial websites? I bet I can find a link in less than 5 minutes.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,270
0
0
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.

times are kinda changin' round here buddy.. if you knew any indians you'd know that too..lol.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
It's not a genocide. There is no intent. At most it's negligence. Hitler had a distinct goal to kill millions of Jews. The most you've shown is that Churchill was racist. You haven't shown he intended to kill millions of south Asians.

Of course I haven't. The author of the book proved it. It's not a question of whether he was inept or negligent. He and his staff actively thwarted efforts to prevent the disaster due to his racial prejudice.

Honestly, have you thought about posting in a different language? How can you be taken seriously if you're using the language of your oppressors

America destroyed the British and received independence. They were not our oppressors for too long.

Honestly, have you thought about posting on another forum? How can you be taken seriously if you're on a website started by an Indian person yet be extremely racist?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Of course I haven't. The author of the book proved it. It's not a question of whether he was inept or negligent. He and his staff actively thwarted efforts to prevent the disaster due to his racial prejudice.



America destroyed the British and received independence. They were not our oppressors for too long.

Honestly, have you thought about posting on another forum? How can you be taken seriously if you're on a website started by an Indian person yet be extremely racist?

The author of the book didn't prove shit. You saying something is true doesn't make it so. Japan had just invaded the neighboring area. Why would he sent supplies that they could steal?

I have no problems with Indian people or any other race so your premise fails. Please answer the question about English instead of deflecting.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
The only thing Churchhill saved was their own territory (or most of it).

America woulda bombed the shit out of the Axis anyway.

The vast majority of German casualties were on the eastern front.

The U.S. would've had a very long and unpopular fight against germany and likely would've had to go nuclear on mainland europe to win. I would consider that a much worse scenario.

Stalin won the war for the allied powers.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Please explain which historians agree with the thesis of this author who you cited in your OP, the thesis being that this was a genocide committed by Churchill. Names please.

Read the article. It's not that difficult.

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."
In addition, the research has the endorsement of Mike Davis and John Horgan.

Now please give me some citations for your claims, which are completely against Amartya Sen's Nobel Prize winning research.

Funny you call me a Holocaust denier. Holocaust deniers eat up any sort of historical revisionism that paints the allied powers in a bad light. You want a bet that this article you link can be found on neo-nazi and holocaust denial websites? I bet I can find a link in less than 5 minutes.

- wolf
It seems that you're the one doing the revisionism. I'm sure you can find brethren at those same neo-nazi websites.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
The author of the book didn't prove shit. You saying something is true doesn't make it so.

The author of the book found correspondence and papers from the era proving it. Are you claiming that the documentation was fabricated?

Japan had just invaded the neighboring area. Why would he sent supplies that they could steal?
There was a bumper crop so it's not as if supplies would be required in a normal situation. Supplies were needed because the implemented British policies created an abnormal situation, the genocide.

They eventually sent supplies, so any ridiculous concerns about supplies getting stolen is stupid.

Would it have been ok if they killed all of the local population if the land was threatened by Japan? If not, why is it ok to starve the people and kill them that way?

I have no problems with Indian people or any other race so your premise fails. Please answer the question about English instead of deflecting.
I have no problem with the English language. Your entire statement is based on the belief that I'm not an American. Americans were subjugated by the British and then threw them off. I'm writing in English probably because of the same reason you are.
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
The author of the book found correspondence and papers from the era proving it. Are you claiming that the documentation was fabricated?

There was a bumper crop so it's not as if supplies would be required in a normal situation. Supplies were needed because the implemented British policies created an abnormal situation, the genocide.

They eventually sent supplies, so any ridiculous concerns about supplies getting stolen is stupid.

I have no problem with the English language. Your entire statement is based on the belief that I'm not an American. Americans were subjugated by the British and then threw them off. I'm writing in English probably because of the same reason you are.

I'm saying the documentation doesn't show intent like you say it does. Of course they eventually sent supplies. The fronts were shifting. It doesn't matter if there was surplus. You don't want to have your enemy have supplies.

I didn't say you weren't American. But I don't hate English people like you do so there isn't an issue with me speaking English. Just remember you are still speaking the language of your hated oppressors.

Btw, how do you explain that Europeans are more evil than everyone else in the world?
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
I'm saying the documentation doesn't show intent like you say it does. Of course they eventually sent supplies. The fronts were shifting. It doesn't matter if there was surplus. You don't want to have your enemy have supplies.

The documentation shows his racist motivation and his active involvement in delaying relief and solving the situation.

Would it have been ok if they killed all of the local population if the land was threatened by Japan? If not, why is it ok to starve the people and kill them that way?

I didn't say you weren't American. But I don't hate English people like you do so there isn't an issue with me speaking English. Just remember you are still speaking the language of your hated oppressors.
You implied it. I don't hate all English people; I hate the British government's actions. Language is created by people, not governments.

Btw, how do you explain that Europeans are more evil than everyone else in the world?
How can I explain an opinion that I don't believe in? You have to answer that for yourself.

You seem to have a difficult time admitting the faults of Churchill. Are you related to him? Or do you have some prejudice against his victims and wished that he finished the task?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
The documentation shows his racist motivation and his active involvement in delaying relief and solving the situation.

Would it have been ok if they killed all of the local population if the land was threatened by Japan? If not, why is it ok to starve the people and kill them that way?



You implied it. I don't hate all English people; I hate the British government's actions. Language is created by people, not governments.



How can I explain an opinion that I don't believe in? You have to answer that for yourself.

The documentation shows he was racist. It shows that he withheld supplies. But you don't have proof that he withheld supplies BECAUSE he was racist and certainly not that he withheld supplies to intentionally kill people. In fact, the more plausible explanation was that he withheld supplies BECAUSE the Japanese were next door.

No it would not be okay to kill the people in territory threatened by Japan. Not sending supplies to a region threatened by Japan, when Japan was far from its home territory, is not comparable.

Wow you don't think Europeans are more evil than anyone else? How do you explain your consistent focus on European crimes? Do you think they've committed more crimes in history than other peoples? Or was I wrong about that too? Do you hate any English people? Most of them? The white ones maybe?
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Here's another website with the article with some more info on Churchill's genocide. I'm glad that UK sources have started listing it.

Winston Churchill blamed for 1m deaths in India famine
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ill-blamed-for-1m-deaths-in-India-famine.html

According to a new book on the famine, Sir Winston ignored pleas for emergency food aid for millions in Bengal left to starve as their rice paddies were turned over to jute for sandbag production and supplies of rice from Burma stopped after Japanese occupation.

Between one and three million died of hunger in 1943.

The wartime leader said Britain could not spare the ships to transport emergency supplies as the streets of Calcutta filled with emaciated villagers from the surrounding countryside, but author Madhusree Mukerjee has unearthed new documents which challenge his claim.

In her book, Churchill's Secret War, she cites ministry records and personal papers which reveal ships carrying cereals from Australia were bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean where supplies were already abundant.

"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," the author said.

"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," she added.

The man-made famine and the contrast between the plight of starving Indians and well-fed British officers dining in the city's many colonial clubs has been described as one of the darkest chapters in British rule on the Indian subcontinent.

Miss Mukerjee blames Churchill's 'racism' for his refusal to intervene.

He derided Gandhi as a "half-naked holy man" and once said: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

He was known to favour Islam over Hinduism.

"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 Miss Mukerjee.
 
Last edited:

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
The documentation shows he was racist. It shows that he withheld supplies. But you don't have proof that he withheld supplies BECAUSE he was racist and certainly not that he withheld supplies to intentionally kill people. In fact, the more plausible explanation was that he withheld supplies BECAUSE the Japanese were next door.

No, the research suggests that it was because of his racism and desire for Empire. Read the articles.

No it would not be okay to kill the people in territory threatened by Japan. Not sending supplies to a region threatened by Japan, when Japan was far from its home territory, is not comparable.

The actions were exactly the same. One would just kill people faster. How can you justify one but not the other? Especially in a location where many locals were joining the Japanese due to active independence and resistance movements.

Wow you don't think Europeans are more evil than anyone else? How do you explain your consistent focus on European crimes? Do you think they've committed more crimes in history than other peoples? Or was I wrong about that too? Do you hate any English people? Most of them? The white ones maybe?

I focus on them because of history revisionists and racists such as yourself constantly deny them. People need to know what happened. Why do you oppose people pointing them out? Do you hate the victims?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Here's another website with the article with some more info on Churchill's genocide.

Actually there's no mention of genocide there. The article reflects negligence / inaction as opposed to intentional killings. Why are you trying to mislead people?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Read the article. It's not that difficult.

In addition, the research has the endorsement of Mike Davis and John Horgan.

Now please give me some citations for your claims, which are completely against Amartya Sen's Nobel Prize winning research.

It seems that you're the one doing the revisionism. I'm sure you can find brethren at those same neo-nazi websites.

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?

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.

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
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Actually there's no mention of genocide there. The article reflects negligence / inaction as opposed to intentional killings. Why are you trying to mislead people?

A purposeful omission is an action. Why are you trying to mislead people?
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
No, the research suggests that it was because of his racism and desire for Empire. Read the articles.



The actions were exactly the same. One would just kill people faster. How can you justify one but not the other? Especially in a location where many locals were joining the Japanese due to active independence and resistance movements.



I focus on them because of history revisionists and racists such as yourself constantly deny them. People need to know what happened. Why do you oppose people pointing them out? Do you hate the victims?

The author can suggest whatever he wants. He doesn't have any proof of it. The causal connection is speculation. What's really sad is you're taking away from a valuable lesson. This is important, but you're cheapening it by exaggerating it. By exagerrating you're just pushing people to throw the baby out with the bath water.

And other peoples don't constantly deny their crimes? Are you saying Europeans deny their crimes more than other people?

Do you hate any English people?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
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.