How Churchill 'starved' India - Page 2




 
--
 
November 6th, 2010  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I hate to be the one that says this but if there is any one man in history that single handedly destroyed the "Empire" it was Churchill, his lunacy throughout WW1 cost it the Dominions and what he didn't sell the American's in WW2 left because of his colonial policies.
Now, I hate to be the one to say this, but this is total nonsense IMHO.
The British Empire, the greatest ever known, and the most civilising influence the world has experienced, simply ran its course. This was very much my time, and it was becoming clear that time was called - 'The wind of change was blowing................'

As they say in the tropics - 'you gotta know when to hold 'em - you gotta know when to throw 'em - you gotta know when to walk away - you gotta know when to run'.

I find it quite touching that the Commonwealth has survived until now, and that our relationships with the like of India are so good. So very much there has been adapted from our traditions.

As for trying to match Winston with the two major tyrants of our time - you must be having a laugh - Adolf and Uncle Joe were, as has been said already - simply monsters. The former a psychopath, simply a pumped-up demogogue working to script and spin with a deliberate public policy of pure theatre which mesmerised the masses only because it was new to them and left them with a flattened country and a deflated dead Wizard of Oz on the carpet. Uncle Joe was a psychopath, simply a greasy -pole -climbing bureaucrat who knew how to control and hold his position .

Those were certainly unbalanced monsters, nothing normal there for sure.

Winston on the other hand, was a democrat, and a bloody good one; the man who who warned the world, fought hard for peace, but then made sure to win, saving Europe and the world from Hitler's forces of darkness, and then saving western Europe from Uncle Joe.

The greatest leader, for sure. Watching the criticism of this giant political warrior is like looking down upon the Lilliputians. Just thank God for Winston.

Over and out.
November 6th, 2010  
MontyB
 
 
Oh don't get me wrong Hitler and Stalin were all you say but I am of the opinion that had Churchill been given the same powers he would have been a match for them.

I notice you didn't comment on the quotes either.
November 7th, 2010  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Oh don't get me wrong Hitler and Stalin were all you say but I am of the opinion that had Churchill been given the same powers he would have been a match for them.

I notice you didn't comment on the quotes either.
The point is, IMHO, that much of Churchill's power was as a war leader, and hard decisions taken at war cannot be measured in the same way as deliberate peace time policies directed at your own people, those in your trust - these are where the millions of victims pile up in the case of Hitler and Stalin. Bear in mind that Jews in Germany were actually Germans, offering no threat to the state.

Far from holding any likely pretension to dictatorship, Churchill quite rightly succumbed to the result of the election at the end of WW11, even at that moment of the very height of his glory, and continued to serve his constituency in Woodford thereafter.

Remember also that his talents reached elsewhere; he was a considerable artist and writer and imbiber, always a great attribute for a democrat.

I had hoped to keep this discussion short and general and so at this stage I did not direct my efforts to the detail of quotes; it is by his actions that a man should be judged, is it not, and I have been accused in the past of never shutting up about Winston, have I not?

Of course, that was in the days when I drew my inspiration from your own forum signature.

I am sure that do not want me quoting Winston at you again, especially as I have now learned, with your help, how to copy and paste and link.
--
November 16th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
The point is, IMHO, that much of Churchill's power was as a war leader, and hard decisions taken at war cannot be measured in the same way as deliberate peace time policies directed at your own people,
Starving Indians to feed the British was not a hard decision, it was a racially motivated genocide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
Bear in mind that Jews in Germany were actually Germans, offering no threat to the state.
Interbellum Jews were very often an insular group that refused to integrate, Jews were Jews, not Germans, they were german citizens and no threat to the state but definitely not 'Germans'.

Churchill wasa bigot and a murderer, not anywhere near the likes of Hitler or Stalin but he still deserved a bullet for his "hard decisions" however history is written by the victors so today Brits get to ********** about their Concentration Camp Chief Churchill while Germans have to be ashamed of their own murderer.
November 16th, 2010  
LeEnfield
 
 
At the end off WW2 when the German people were starving, Britain went on even shorter rations to help feed them. Still Churchill had one aim while he was in power and that was to defeat the Axis powers and in this he had to be ruthless as had we been defeated then the results could have been truly dreadful. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and yes more might have been done to help the Indians but did we have the ships and the manpower to it. Also many of these totals of deaths can only be guessed at as many of the Indians were never recorded at birth, marriage or death.
November 16th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
At the end off WW2 when the German people were starving, Britain went on even shorter rations to help feed them.
Which shows that Britain was willing to starve milions of innocent Indians to death but would help a nation that spawned the single most evil regime in the world and attempted to murder over 200 milion people, good job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Still Churchill had one aim while he was in power and that was to defeat the Axis powers and in this he had to be ruthless
And he was ruthless towards other peoples, he was willing to murder millions of women and children to do it and he did.

But then again seeing as Britain by then had a long history of genocide to preserve its power, including the invention of concentration camps and multiple genocidal campaings in India there's little wonder that Churchill so readily killed even more colonial "subhumans".

Its even less wonder that you as a Brit defend his genocide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
as had we been defeated then the results could have been truly dreadful.
More dreadfull than starving milions of innocent Indians but choosing to feed a nation that spawned the Holocaust?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and yes more might have been done to help the Indians but did we have the ships and the manpower to it.
Of course you could have just accepted the fact that you were a bunch of thieves, murderers and looters who're occupying someone else' country and get the f*ck out instead of stripping it from food and killing anyone who resisted your colonial racist policies.

Yep, if Indians refused to be stolen from by the Brits they got a bullet since it was war, it didnt matter that you were an occupier no better than the nazis (since UK was racist in its policies).

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Also many of these totals of deaths can only be guessed at as many of the Indians were never recorded at birth, marriage or death.
It doesnt change the point, when looked at it from the point of view of India Britain was no better than the Germans and it ceirtanly enacted a Nazi kind of genocide by deliberately stealing from India and starving its people.
November 17th, 2010  
senojekips
 
 
Churchill, especially in his latter years in power, was a typical selfish, whiskey sodden, product of the English public school system as it was at that time. The "little people" were but more than cannon fodder, that could be used to earn glory and honours for the upper classes, all in the name of Great Britain.

I do not deny that he did a far better job than Chamberlain was doing, however he had a complete disregard for the suffering of the lower classes. This was not uncommon among his type at that time, but I feel that to imply that he deliberately set out to starve the Indian people is totally without foundation.

All of the nations of the Empire made huge sacrifices in both manpower and materiel. At that time India was not a large net exporter of most foodstuffs, and consequently they were living somewhat "hand to mouth", in all but the very best of circumstances, it never took very much in the way of a poor crop or harvest to tip them over the edge and this was in turn exacerbated by the lack of effective internal distribution systems. By the time aid was bought to drought or pest affected areas, many had died as almost no one had large reserves of food.

Churchill was somewhat of an "overstuffed turd" by today's standards, but nothing really unusual in his own time. He was of the same stamp as men like Haig who thoughtlessly just kept sending wave after wave of his own troops into certain death with almost no chance of achieving any significant gain. On the first day of the battle of the Somme, he was responsible for the slaughter of 17,000 men, and yet he learned nothing from this. This is just how the English upper classes were.
November 17th, 2010  
Yin717
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Churchill was somewhat of an "overstuffed turd" by today's standards, but nothing really unusual in his own time. He was of the same stamp as men like Haig who thoughtlessly just kept sending wave after wave of his own troops into certain death with almost no chance of achieving any significant gain. On the first day of the battle of the Somme, he was responsible for the slaughter of 17,000 men, and yet he learned nothing from this. This is just how the English upper classes were.
And yet they helped create the world we know and love today.
November 17th, 2010  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yin717
And yet they helped create the world we know and love today.
That would depend on your disposition wouldn't it?

A sizable proportion of the Commonwealth is made up of third world, impoverish and corrupt nations, I can't think of a nation in Africa I would hold up as a shining example of success, the same could be said of Britain's Middle Eastern possessions and outside of Singapore Asia is pretty sparse on glowing examples.

Basically if not for Australia, Canada and New Zealand the commonwealth has been a royal failure, just a bunch of impoverish nations clinging to a failed empire.

As far as Churchill goes I think Senojekips is being rather polite.
November 18th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yin717
And yet they helped create the world we know and love today.
Excuse me? My visit to UK left me with an impression that white Brits are a bunch of racist twats, my personal opinion about Brits as a nation is that they're a bunch of bigoted racist morons (its a huge generalisation) and opinions of people like LeeEnfield justify my point of view.

Twats like that never even think that there might be other people with other point of view like say, Indians who didnt give a f*ck about the Commonwealth in all its racist glory and definitely didnt want to starve for it.

Say what you like i dont give a flying crap about the anglosaxon world, it never did anything for me, my nation and given its long history of racism, immoral pragmatism in politics et cetera it can go burn in hell.

Not to turn it into a flamewar just to point out that UK had a racist policy and Churchill was nothing short of a racist murderer or we could roll with Senojekips and say he was an inconsiderate murderer.

As for the Commonwealth, its hated in India, good relations are a myth, UK has a long history of f*cking its associates within the empire tho, Gallipoli is one example, starving of India another.
 


Similar Topics
Ending freeze, India, Canada sign N-deal
SHOULD INDIA GET A PERMANENT SEAT IN UNSC
India builds a 2,500-mile barrier to rival the Great Wall of China
Indians are so treacherous -- Richard Nixon
cool quotes.