The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit (Page 2) Outbackjack: Why not enlighten us and please not a made up story with your own facts from another story.  R E B E C C A: The salient facts are that despite his initial expressions about Gandhi, Churchill did attempt to alleviate the famine. As William Manchester wrote, Churchill “always had second and third thoughts, and they usually improved as he went along. It was part of his pattern of response to any political issue that while his early reactions were often emotional, and even unworthy of him, they were usually succeeded by reason and generosity.” (The Last Lion, Boston: 1982, I: 843-44). The Unconsidered Factor: World War II If the famine had occurred in peacetime, it would have been dealt with effectively and quickly by the Raj, as so often in the past. At worst, Churchill’s failure was not sending more aid—in the midst of fighting a war for survival. And the war, of course, is what Churchill’s slanderers avoid considering. Martin Gilbert writes about the situation at the time: “The Japanese were on the Indian border with Burma—indeed inside India at Kohima and Imphal in the state of Assam. Gandhi’s Quit India movement, and Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army then fighting alongside the Japanese, provided the incentive for a full-scale Japanese invasion. The Royal Air Force and the Army were fully stretched. We know what terrors the Japanese wreaked n non-Japanese natives in Korea, the Philippines, and Malaya.” If the RAF planes supporting India’s defense were pulled off for a famine airlift, far more than three million would have died. The blame for insufficient famine relief lies with those who prevented those planes from being used: the Japanese. The case against Churchill collapses when we consider the war—just like the oft-repeated complaints that he did nothing for Australia after Japan attacked, or that he didn't attend Roosevelt's funeral out of pique or envy. There was a war on. More pressing military matters were at hand which governed his actions and decisions. Bottom Line What have we left besides the falsehood of “deliberate, sustained, remorseless starving to death of 6-7 million Indians”? As a wrap to its condemnation, “Media With Conscience” culls out every critical quote it can find by Churchill on Indians. Thirteen years ago at our 1995 conference, one of these was recited by William F. Buckley, Jr.: “Working his way through disputatious bureaucracy from separatists in New Delhi he exclaimed, to his secretary, ‘I hate Indians.’ I don’t doubt that the famous gleam came to his eyes when he said this, with mischievous glee—an offense, in modern convention, of genocidal magnitude.” Sure enough, the quotation resurfaces in “Media With Conscience,” described as Buckley predicted: an offense of genocidal magnitude. This article is a prize-winning example of non-history: the myopic determination to find feet of clay in a man who was human and made mistakes, like everybody else, but who remains admirable, warts and all, mostly because he gave all his papers to an archive where carpers can pore over them. One of his more balanced critics observed recently that Churchill may have had one foot of clay, but that the other foot was anchored firmly in his innate decency. His biographer once remarked that, as he sorted through the tons of paper in Churchill’s archive, “I never felt that he was going to spring an unpleasant surprise on me. I might find that he was adopting views with which I disagreed. But I always knew that there would be nothing to cause me to think: ‘How shocking, how appalling.’” Yes, Churchill had a blind spot where Gandhi was concerned, despite the positive things he wrote and said to Indians, from Birla and Gandhi in 1935 to Nehru in 1953, which his critics never bother to quote. And Thomas Malthus may have influenced Amery’s initial view that the famine was caused by overpopulation. But Winston Churchill did not cause or wish for the death of Bengalis. His impulses in situations of human suffering were the opposite of hateful. After World War I, for example, it was Churchill who urged the Cabinet to send boatloads of food to the blockaded Germans—a proposal greeted with derision by colleagues such as Prime Minister Lloyd George, who preferred to “squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak.” Their policy prevailed—and we all know what it led to twenty years later. Perhaps the best summation of this particular piece of invective is that lovely line by Jack Nicholson in the charming film As Good As It Gets: “Sell crazy someplace else. We’re all stocked up here.” Outbackjack: "The salient facts are that despite his initial expressions about Gandhi, Churchill did attempt to alleviate the famine. As William Manchester wrote, Churchill “always had second and third thoughts, and they usually improved as he went along. It was part of his pattern of response to any political issue that while his early reactions were often emotional, and even unworthy of him, they were usually succeeded by reason and generosity.”" Rebecca has succeeding in copy and pasting a ridiculous statement hat posturs and procratinates but but offers absolutely no proof of any action taken. Churchill was an imperialist who only cared about keeping hold of India for the British. R E B E C C A: Yeah i did cut n paste....like id write u an essay u weirdo Besides SadSackJack, you only succeeded in copying n pasting this story in the 1st place the original author of this post is a woman named Rakhi Chakraborty http://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/   chronology: I don't know Jack. Sir Winston seems no worse than any leader of his day. When any group of people are threatened with an enemy, they just go into 'survival mode' , survival brings out the ugly in all of us. Yes like you I wish the people of Bengal never suffered as they did. but Sir Winston acted within the ethical conduct of his day, very different from todays ethics. Outbackjack: Shazza I will try and explain the basic semantics that are going on here. I will usually post a what I have read in a book, a news report or what a journalist has written to Wireclub.This is then usually discussed then refuted,ignored or agreed upon on. What you have done is just copy and pasted an opinion by some clown who offers no evidence to back up what they have stated.The fact that you then uncritically mimic this is a dud argument. All of you with your backward views on Churchill ignore the very first paragraph of this thread: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” -Winston Churchill This pretty much sums up how "ethical" je is. R E B E C C A: LOL wooo SadSackJack is angry...hes callin me shazza!! now let me explain your original post copied word for word check the link provided an article published in 2014...thats before you posted this numbnuts! and ffs get over it “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” well thats not exactly what he said but so what if he did, he said many things a that politicians of today wouldn't say like the working class should be kept out of libraries, the best argument against democracy was a 5 minuet discussion with the electorate. He didn't reserve his harsh words for indians you just want to feel victimized, n i can understand his frustration at people continuing to have babies during a famine....what where they thinking? Also, thats not even the worst thing he said about indians but he said what he exactly what he thought which is a quality id like to see in todays politicians, he did the job he was required to do and as best as he could....hes done more for the world than you or i will ever do so quit whinging chronology: It was a mix of history Jack, good and bad. As Karl Marx said 'if England had not invaded India, another country would have done so' the most likely candidate Marx said was Turkey. How would India have looked after 200 years of Turkish Rule? most likely it would be the worlds most powerful Islamic nation today, wonder how the Hindus and Sikhs would tale that? Outbackjack: I can't find a quote anywhere where Marx said that.Maybe you can show me where that is? Outbackjack: One of the things that I have had the misfortune of witnessing is the idea that some British (by no means all) believe in some kind of British or even English divine superiority. They look back on history with rose tinted spectacles and imagine a world where Britain brought civilisation to the savages.Government and media propaganda feed into his nonsense. The reality is much more brutal of course.The British being responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths over nearly half a millennia of brutal occupation of nearly a third of the planet. The thing that is so ironic about this is that the majority of them are from a working class background or even an Irish background. They fail to even understand the most basic concept that the same ruling class who repressed and profited from the misery of the Third World did the very same thing to their very own ancestors. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_riots http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/should-we-hang-mr-churchill-or-not R E B E C C A: Winston Churchill was British Prime Minister so, his first duty is to serve the crown then the country as a british subject i know that i have no rights other than what the crown allows It so happens that under the British monarch i have more rights than an indian woman ruled by government. The only reason for that is a deeply religious culture. Its been proven time and time again wherever a society treats women as equals rather than property of men you will automatically raise the standard of living...blaming the english for your way of life is nonsense. Is ireland a third world country? or why aren't all countries who were part of the british empire in the third world. Name one third world country where women are equal to men n ask yourself why. The reasons Churchill didnt like india....he felt the transport and farming methods where far too sluggish. He also said that until islam ceases to be a great force on the planet man will never be free from slavery chronology: Jack, you have got to be joking asking me where I remembered the quote of Marx from, he wrote so much over the years and was wrote about so much. Well Jack you seem really cheesed off with 'Britain' but frankly I have no idea where 'Britain' is directly involved in many of the events you are condemning. Bengal was administered and taken over by the East India Company. The East India Company was a private company only nominally associated with England, they had officers in the City of London, but their every day management was run from regional headquarters in Asia. They recruited local mercenaries in Asia and had few English troops at all. They had their own navy but worked closely at times with the Royal Navy. Yes, the East India Company simply ran 'a business' in Asia, they had no interest in the peoples welfare there at all, millions of people died in Bengal famines. But with the East India company controlling half the worlds international trade they were unconcerned about the deaths of people in England or Bengal. They were different times Jack, different ethics.  petras237: GB is the biggest world empire.Empire where the sun never sets,and its have a price.There price paid by slaves in the colonies.Is the Chine.Pakistan,India...really free states today?Or some Balkan states? On the other side British monarchy is in direct connection with Germans or Habsburgs.Who really rule the world? SER W.Churchill become a SER for good serving,so he is just pawn on the chessboard.The real players are behind the scenes that we will never see. And there is no any kind of ethics,there is only the principle of interests and supremacy over the humanity. Outbackjack: Now you are being absolutely hilarious Chrono. When I think of the East India Company there is a prominent episode in history that immediately comes to mind. Their part in actually bringing on the american revolution. You see the East India Company was just a front for the upper classes of England to speculate and make their fortunes.When the company was in trouble the establishment would immediately come to their aid through what we would call "government bailouts" just like today with the thieving bankers in london. One of the many bailouts was the infamous concession given to them by the government where they would pay no duty on their tea. The traders in America resented this and decided to have their very own tea party in a place called Boston.The rest is history. As a person who professes admiration for the U.S you seem very ignorant of this fact and also of the fact that the East India company was much more than just a company. chronology: Jack, it is only in popular culture that the 'Tea Dispute' with the Americans had anything to do with the American Revolution. The Americans were furious at being ground down by 'piggy back' costs attached to money and Taxes, part of which involved the East India, yes. 'Give me Liberty or give me death' ! does that sound like a Chap angry about a cup of tea to you? No the Americans were indignant at being tired up and sold out with hidden charges on the money they used and Taxes they paid. As for who owned the East India, that is anyones guess. Yes you can accuse the 'Toffs' if you like, but the actual owners were probably Dutch, Jewish and Italian. The Actress Helena Bonham Carter's family had long standing associations with City Institutions, but Ms Carter would probably wonder where all the money she was supposed to own was stashed. She did a great job in the Movie 'Fight Club' tho. petras237: "As for who owned the East India, that is anyones guess. Yes you can accuse the 'Toffs' if you like, but the actual owners were probably Dutch, Jewish and Italian." Great games are play behind the mask,actors are the same for centuries. Outbackjack: "India is not a poor country yet theres lots of poverty who's fault is that" Pure ignorance on a massive scale. Popular culture? I have just stated a set of well known historical facts that you choose to ignore. chronology: Jack, yes the 'Tea Party' was a well known fact, still is, but it was not the reason Americans took to Arms to defend their society. The answer can be found in letters of prominent Americans like Franklin and Jefferson, it was the hijacking of their money system and the scamming schemes built into that hijacking. Like the fact Americans had to use English Banknotes to pay their Taxes, Bank Notes they had to first purchase at a cost. The Boston Tea Party was just a well orchestrated propaganda incident by American Patriots.
Outbackjack: We can sit here all day and try and split hairs on this.The fact is that East India companies unfair monopoly was the spark that set off the tea party which set off the revolution. The East India company was not just a normal company. chronology: Jack, agreed, but the real 'straw that broke the camel's back' was the planned imposition on the Americans of a vampiric money system that would have kept them in perpetual debt in return for nothing but the pleasure of being in perpetual debt. Once that scam was tried on them they had just about had enough. Another important factor in the rebellion was the growing knowledge ruling families on the East Coast were gaining of the vast extent of Western Lands that were open to possession. If they continued with British Rule, London would have taken control over the development of these territories. Honestly Jock Old Chap, if you think it was all an argument about the price of a cup of tea you are falling for the 'Fox News' BS. Anyway, a nice cup of tea awaits me, and an fried egg sandwich. R E B E C C A: LOL you love it when someone tells their version of truth about the British? ....Why? How does that affect you ? | Politics Chat Room 68 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
