Research shows that worshipped World War 2 hero orchestrated Genocide

[CanOWorms]

You don't know how many English people you hate? Why do you hate any of them?

No, I don't. For example, I don't know how many of Churchill's circle was involved in this genocide. I hate them because of their atrocities. Why do you support them despite knowing what they did?

I don't deny any genocides. (And no, this isn't one.)

Yes, it is.

You skipped some questions:

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?

If that description is not a genocide, what is it? What do you call trying to deliberately lower the population of a particular people due to racial prejudice?

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?

 

[Nebor]

Who cares? At the rate they reproduce they made up for those deaths in no time.

Killing Jews, who traditionally have small families, and a small global population, is a far more severe crime. It's like shooting an endangered species.

 

[Infohawk]

No, I don't. For example, I don't know how many of Churchill's circle was involved in this genocide. I hate them because of their atrocities. Why do you support them despite knowing what they did?



Yes, it is.

You skipped some questions:

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?

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?

Wow, you shouldn't waste your time with hate. It clouds the mind and interferes with reasoning. I am still confused as to why you hate Europeans for their atrocities but our silent as to any other continent's atrocities.

Not sending food is not a trivial thing, but you have explained how Churchill created the situation. I don't understand your second question. But I do think if the British had a genocidal agenda they would actually killed many more people. They occupied India by force. India wouldn't be one of the most populous countries in the world right now if Britain had meant to use its technological superiority for genocide. But really we're dancing around the core issue. Fundamentally, you think inaction is just as bad as action. That means almost all Americans are guilty of murdering starving children in Africa by your logic. After all, we could do more to help them.

 

[CanOWorms]

Wow, you shouldn't waste your time with hate. It clouds the mind and interferes with reasoning. I am still confused as to why you hate Europeans for their atrocities but our silent as to any other continent's atrocities.

I am confused why you're silent on the Armenian Genocide, the Herero Genocide, the Trail of Tears, etc.

Not sending food is not a trivial thing, but you have explained how Churchill created the situation. I don't understand your second question. But I do think if the British had a genocidal agenda they would actually killed many more people. They occupied India by force. India wouldn't be one of the most populous countries in the world right now if Britain had meant to use its technological superiority for genocide. But really we're dancing around the core issue. Fundamentally, you think inaction is just as bad as action. That means almost all Americans are guilty of murdering starving children in Africa by your logic. After all, we could do more to help them.

You don't seem to understand the situation that led to the famine. The British CREATED the situation. It's not solely an inaction. It was an action that created a certain situation followed by inaction to fix it knowing fully what was occurring and how to fix it.

It's nothing like your example at all. It's like saying that Hitler did an inaction by not stopping the Holocaust. He initiated their eradication and then chose not to stop it. You are only focusing on the last part.

 

[Infohawk]

I am confused why you're silent on the Armenian Genocide, the Herero Genocide, the Trail of Tears, etc.



You don't seem to understand the situation that led to the famine. The British CREATED the situation. It's not solely an inaction. It was an action that created a certain situation followed by inaction to fix it knowing fully what was occurring and how to fix it.

It's nothing like your example at all. It's like saying that Hitler did an inaction by not stopping the Holocaust. He initiated their eradication and then chose not to stop it. You are only focusing on the last part.

I'm mentioned that American Indians were victims of genocide. But I don't really start topics about genocide because it's not in the news. But you always talk about European crimes. Again, why the special attenion on Europe if you concede they're not as evil or as big in denial as other continents?

You capitalizing CREATED doesn't tell me anything. I don't see how they created supply shortages during a wartime. Sorry. Food was scarce everywhere during WW2. It's not surprising that a poorly developed country had even greater supply problems than other countries.

What's nothing like my example?

 

[ProfJohn]

Damn and we are still 1.2 bil strong! we might have surpassed China if it didnt happen

"Location: Somewhere in TEXAS"

Damn I didn't know that many people lived in Texas

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm mentioned that American Indians were victims of genocide. But I don't really start topics about genocide because it's not in the news. But you always talk about European crimes. Again, why the special attenion on Europe if you concede they're not as evil or as big in denial as other continents?

Europe is in the news. Everything is in the news. There is a lot of news in the world. Genocide information is always in the news, such as this topic today and yesterday.

You capitalizing CREATED doesn't tell me anything. I don't see how they created supply shortages during a wartime. Sorry. Food was scarce everywhere during WW2. It's not surprising that a poorly developed country had even greater supply problems than other countries.

Do you not know anything about the Bengal famine? Are you just blindly defending Churchill's genocide? Food wasn't scarce until the British enacted disastrous economic policies. The amount of crop yield was within the statistical norm.

Again: Churchill didn't just not send food to people. He created the situation that directly led to access to food issues, 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.

You apparently think that's not a genocide.

What's nothing like my example?

Your Americans are guilty of the starving African children example. It's nothing like the situation with Churchill and the Bengal Genocide. It's more analogous to Hitler's Holocaust.

 

[Infohawk]

Europe is in the news. Everything is in the news. There is a lot of news in the world. Genocide information is always in the news, such as this topic today and yesterday.

Do you not know anything about the Bengal famine? Are you just blindly defending Churchill's genocide? Food wasn't scarce until the British enacted disastrous economic policies. The amount of crop yield was within the statistical norm.

Again: Churchill didn't just not send food to people. He created the situation that directly led to access to food issues, 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.

Your Americans are guilty of the starving African children example. It's nothing like the situation with Churchill and the Bengal Genocide. It's more analogous to Hitler's Holocaust.

If everything is in the news why are you so focused European crimes?

You saying "again" doesn't add anything new. You just keep repeating he created the situation. You haven't really offered evidence for that. I'm confident that disastrous economic policies doesn't equal genocide.

So you're saying that Americans are as bad as Hitler for not sending more food to Africa?

 

[CanOWorms]

If everything is in the news why are you so focused European crimes?

Because I find it interesting. So much of it is denied, forgotten, or revisioned. It's like asking someone why they like a certain color. They just do.

Why are you so focused on people who are focused on issues that you're not as interested in?

You saying "again" doesn't add anything new. You just keep repeating he created the situation. You haven't really offered evidence for that. I'm confident that disastrous economic policies doesn't equal genocide.

Read the articles. The British government enacted several policies, including destruction of local forms of transportation, that led to the genocide.

Disastrous economic policies don't necessarily lead to genocide. But when you know what will happen, act on it, know what is happening, and don't do anything about it because of racist motivations then it's a genocide. Do you disagree with that?

So you're saying that Americans are as bad as Hitler for not sending more food to Africa?

No, I'm saying that your Africa analogy has no place in the conversation. I'm saying that Churchill's actions were similar to Hitler's. He didn't simply fail to act.

 

[ProfJohn]

Why do you guys waste your time posting in this thread started by a hate mongering troll??

Wormy didn't start this thread as some sort of public service. He started it because it reenforces his predetermined believes that Europeans are evil SOBs.

 

[CanOWorms]

Why do you guys waste your time posting in this thread started by a hate mongering troll??

Wormy didn't start this thread as some sort of public service. He started it because it reenforces his predetermined believes that Europeans are evil SOBs.

Are you claiming that what Churchill did was not evil? That seems like the hate mongering troll belief.

 

[Infohawk]

Because I find it interesting. So much of it is denied, forgotten, or revisioned. It's like asking someone why they like a certain color. They just do.

Why are you so focused on people who are focused on issues that you're not as interested in?

Read the articles. The British government enacted several policies, including destruction of transportation, that led to the genocide.

Disastrous economic policies don't necessarily lead to genocide. But when you know what will happen, act on it, know what is happening, and don't do anything about it because of racist motivations then it's a genocide. Do you disagree with that?

No, I'm saying that your Africa analogy has no place in the conversation. I'm saying that Churchill's actions were similar to Hitler's.

But you've already conceded that Europeans don't deny more than anyone else. Are you sure its an arbitrary thing? You've already admitted to hating a lot of English people. Maybe there's some personal reason

I'm interested in why YOU are so obsessed with Europe. A lot of people have their pet issues on this forum, but yours is far more unusual and rare.

Of course the British government destroyed infrastructure. That was part of scorched earth which most sides employed. The INTENT was to stop the enemy, not to kill civilians.

Churchill didn't warn Londoners about certain air raids and they went to their deaths. Did he intend to kill them? No. He just didn't want to let the Germans know he knew what they were doing. Same thing with these subjects. He made very tough decisions but ultimately he won the war. Many white Britons and non-white subjects died.

The Africa example is spot on. In fact, based on what you've presented to me so far, the Africa scenario is worse. He knew something was going on and didn't stop it according to you. We know people are starving in the world and aren't doing anything to stop it. And we have no excuse because there is nobody sinking our ships. But I don't think we're genocidal criminals.

 

[CanOWorms]

But you've already conceded that Europeans don't deny more than anyone else. Are you sure its an arbitrary thing? You've already admitted to hating a lot of English people. Maybe there's some personal reason

I wonder if you have some personal reason against people talking about these type of atrocities. You already have a history of anti-minority posts. Maybe there's some personal reason. Even now you posted a thread about an explosion in a largely Hispanic town. Why? It's not exactly the traditional type of news posted on this forum.

I'm interested in why YOU are so obsessed with Europe. A lot of people have their pet issues on this forum, but yours is far more unusual and rare.

Not only am I interested in why you're obsessed with people obsessed with Europe, but I want to know why you're so obsessed with so many issues going against minority groups or the oppressed. It's certainly an interesting observation.

Of course the British government destroyed infrastructure. That was part of scorched earth which most sides employed. The INTENT was to stop the enemy, not to kill civilians.

They destroyed the infrastructure knowing what would happen to the civilians, went ahead with it, knew how to stop it, but refused solely because of the race of the victims. There certainly was intent not to stop it.

In addition, if they know that millions of citizens would die and went ahead with the activity, how is that different than just directly killing the millions instead? One is just indirect but with the same knowledge of what would happen: death.

Churchill didn't warn Londoners about certain air raids and they went to their deaths. Did he intend to kill them? No. He just didn't want to let the Germans know he knew what they were doing. Same thing with these subjects.

Slaves are not subjects. Don't try to sterilize the situation. Would you call Holocaust survivors subjects of Hitler? No, they were victims. Don't adopt Neo-Nazi like tactics.

He made very tough decisions but ultimately he won the war. Many white Britons and non-white subjects died.

The Africa example is spot on. In fact, based on what you've presented to me so far, the Africa scenario is worse. He knew something was going on and didn't stop it according to you. We know people are starving in the world and aren't doing anything to stop it. And we have no excuse because there is nobody sinking our ships. But I don't think we're genocidal criminals.

You still don't get it. Churchill not only knew something was going on, but he initiated that thing that was going on knowing fully what would happen. He was a genocidal criminal. He even refused to stop his orchestrated genocide simply because of racial reasons!

 

[Infohawk]

I wonder if you have some personal reason against people talking about these type of atrocities. You already have a history of anti-minority posts. Maybe there's some personal reason. Even now you posted a thread about an explosion in a largely Hispanic town. Why? It's not exactly the traditional type of news posted on this forum.

Not only am I interested in why you're obsessed with people obsessed with Europe, but I want to know why you're so obsessed with so many issues going against minority groups or the oppressed. It's certainly an interesting observation.

They destroyed the infrastructure knowing what would happen to the civilians, went ahead with it, knew how to stop it, but refused solely because of the race of the victims. There certainly was intent not to stop it.

In addition, if they know that millions of citizens would die and went ahead with the activity, how is that different than just directly killing the millions instead? One is just indirect but with the same knowledge of what would happen: death.

Slaves are not subjects. Don't try to sterilize the situation. Would you call Holocaust survivors subjects of Hitler? No, they were victims. Don't adopt Neo-Nazi like tactics.

You still don't get it. Churchill not only knew something was going on, but he initiated that thing that was going on knowing fully what would happen. He was a genocidal criminal. He even refused to stop his orchestrated genocide simply because of racial reasons!

You didn't answer my question. Is there a personal reason that you talk about Europe all the time?

I pick on all religions. I don't pick on races. The Fire story is just a variant of a natural disaster story. Who are these oppressed people you are saying I attack? And you have to admit I post on a much wider variety of topics than you do.

Your whole argument falls apart because the thing you say Churchill did he did to his own Londoners. Is he a self-hating white person?

 

[CanOWorms]

You didn't answer my question. Is there a personal reason that you talk about Europe all the time?

Yes, I think that it's interesting. Is there a personal reason why you're uncomfortable when someone brings up European issues?

I pick on all religions. I don't pick on races. The Fire story is just a variant of a natural disaster story. Who are these oppressed people you are saying I attack? And you have to admit I post on a much wider variety of topics than you do.

Not really. You have a consistent anti-minority theme to your posts.

Your whole argument falls apart because the thing you say Churchill did he did to his own Londoners. Is he a self-hating white person?

Not really. He was not motivated by bigotry there. He was motivated by bigotry in the Bengal famine. In addition, he would not have actively thwarted solutions. Churchill seems very similar to Hitler in regard to concepts of racial supremacy. He likely would have wanted to preserve lives in London as opposed to destroying lives in Bengal.

 

[ModestGamer]

fuck it. India is indias problem.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, I think that it's interesting. Is there a personal reason why you're uncomfortable when someone brings up European issues?



Not really. You have a consistent anti-minority theme to your posts.



Not really. He was not motivated by bigotry there. He was motivated by bigotry in the Bengal famine. In addition, he would not have actively thwarted solutions. Churchill seems very similar to Hitler in regard to concepts of racial supremacy. He likely would have wanted to preserve lives in London as opposed to destroying lives in Bengal.

Why do you think European crimes are so interesting if Europeans are not more evil or in more denial than other people. I don't feel uncomfortable when you bring up European (90% of the time its you) issues. That's why I post in them. I guess if you think my fire thread had an anti-minority theme than you could find an anti-minority theme in everything. But remember its just in your head. You do realize it makes looks ridiculous when you try to act like a story about a fire is anti-minority or when you try to act like Woolfe is a racist right?

So in two cases (London and South Asia), Churchill took actions that sacrificed civilian lives. The explanation that explains both cases in one swoop was that a war was on and he sacrificed some for the greater cause. But your explanation was that in one case he didn't because of racism and the other he didn't? Have you heard of Occam's Razor? You need to meditate on the fact that just because someone is a racist doesn't mean all their acts are about racism. George Washington was a racist, did he do everything because he was one? Was he trying to commit genocide on blacks?

 

[CanOWorms]

Why do you think European crimes are so interesting if Europeans are not more evil or in more denial than other people. I don't feel uncomfortable when you bring up European (90% of the time its you) issues. That's why I post in them. I guess if you think my fire thread had an anti-minority theme than you could find an anti-minority theme in everything. But remember its just in your head. You do realize it makes looks ridiculous when you try to act like a story about a fire is anti-minority or when you try to act like Woolfe is a racist right?

It's interesting because it tends to be forgotten, denied, or re-visioned. This thread is an excellent example of people denying such a crime. Also, the actions still affect so much of the world today. The scale of the events are astounding - billions affected, hundreds of millions massacred, trillions of dollars of resources looted, devastation across centuries. Understanding European history lets you understand them and others today. Things still happen today primarily due to colonialism. Have you never read a history book to gain some interest or knowledge on a topic?

People who deny atrocities tend to be bigots. It's a pretty safe assumption.

I don't care too much if I appear ridiculous. There are way too many far-right people on this board who view certain peoples as ridiculous by default. To me it makes you look ridiculous to deny research taken straight from historical archives and records.

So in two cases (London and South Asia), Churchill took actions that sacrificed civilian lives. The explanation that explains both cases in one swoop was that a war was on and he sacrificed some for the greater cause. But your explanation was that in one case he didn't because of racism and the other he didn't? Have you heard of Occam's Razor? You need to meditate on the fact that just because someone is a racist doesn't mean all their acts are about racism. George Washington was a racist, did he do everything because he was one? Was he trying to commit genocide on blacks?

Sorry, I'm not really sure what you're referring to in London. However, I doubt that Churchill created a calamity in London, knew that it would happen, went ahead with it anyways, knew what was happening, refused to stop it due to racial prejudices, refused outside aid, and purposely thwarted attempts to prevent the calamity.

 

[cirrrocco]

Western presence in any form improves the condition of any savage colony.

wtf are you smoking dumbass.

http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html
When britain invaded india it had 25 percent of earth's GDP
when britain got kicked out, it's share went down to 3 %

so clean out the shit from your brains before you talk abt stuff you dont have a clue about.

 

[PokerGuy]

Is CanOStupidity still spouting this crap? Churchill was a great man and a hero. He had faults like any person did, but your attempts at smearing him are useless and transparent. Tally ho.

 

[feralkid]

Stalin won the war for the allied powers.

A common misconception.

If Hitler was not forced to fight the war in the west at the same time, he would have steam-rolled to the Urals and beyond.

Quit with that, already.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Posting in a Brit hate thread.

 

[CitizenKain]

Who cares? At the rate they reproduce they made up for those deaths in no time.

Killing Jews, who traditionally have small families, and a small global population, is a far more severe crime. It's like shooting an endangered species.

Amazing. So brown people are worth less because there are more of them.

A common misconception.
If Hitler was not forced to fight the war in the west at the same time, he would have steam-rolled to the Urals and beyond.
Quit with that, already.

Nope. The western powers helped, but the war against Russia started long before the US really got involved.

fuck it. India is indias problem.

Must be nice being that stupid, I imagine life is a lot easier without all that thinking.

 

[CanOWorms]

Is CanOStupidity still spouting this crap? Churchill was a great man and a hero. He had faults like any person did, but your attempts at smearing him are useless and transparent. Tally ho.

Neo-Nazis think that their own Hitler is a great man and hero, too. However, Hitler and Churchill had faults of such great magnitude to overshadow any of their supposed accomplishments.

I think that in a few decades Churchill will be viewed as an even greater monster than Hitler. He is already regarded so by many people in the world, and that population will only increase while the number of his supporters decrease.

President Obama himself appears to be on the side of Churchill being a monster. It is a mainstream position.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Imagine that, Churchill put Britain first during a time of full scale world war and impending invasion by a foreign power. OH NOES!!!