Posted on 03/30/2018 6:11:49 AM PDT by granada
Another fool using modern standards to judge historical figures, just like the ignorant parasites denigrating the founding fathers. Churchill was certainly not perfect; he made secret deals with the Soviet Union to take Greece in exchange for Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia, but that was the best deal he was going to get at the time. He also did not look too closely at the German death camps, but he was kind of in a struggle for British survival at the time.
PC Bullsh*t.
“The past is a different country, they do things differently there.” — attributed to Shelby Foote, and another historian whose name escapes me at the moment.
Was Churchill responsible gor the Bengal famine of 1943-44?
Yes
And No.
Did a little research on the matter and one, if one is fair, delivers a mixed verdict.
After the invasion of Burma by the Japanese, the British, who controlled India were afraid of the Japaneses capturing “Greatest Gem” of the “Crown Jewels” of the British Empire.
Their efforts of a “scorched earth” efforts led to the inference of the food supply network, consisting of small boats the peasants used in their daily affairs.
The Brits ordered these destroyed, leaving those who depended on them, basically without transport to get relief if it ever became available.
Then the weather destroyed the remaining crops and made food scarcity into a famine.
All during a war.
So Churchill didn’t intend to starve these Indians but his efforts to win the war did set the conditions for famine to get a foothold.
Thus not a war criminal per David Olusoga
......well, if history tells us anything it is that with few exceptions our so called “leaders” have been rogues in their private life. JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama come quickly to mind.
But, one has escaped much scrutiny and that is MLK. Just like Obama, he gets a pass from media generally speaking because he was black even though evidence is plentiful that he was not the Saint The Left wants to portray him as. He was the greatest American leader the blacks ever had and probably ever will have, but like JFK, LBJ and Bill Clinton..........he was sex maniac in private life. Hoover thought he was being blackmailed.
Guess President Trump didn’t get the memo — this was on FR in March:
CHURCHILL was a WAR CRIMINAL - BBC historian David Olusoga in astonishing attack
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3643614/posts
David Olusoga DID NOT say Churchill was a war criminal
He did say "almost all historical figures did good and bad", “It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t someone who took part in things we would consider war crimes in Africa."
nuances.
The fact is that Churchill's actions or even Gandhi's actions in their lives were not completely saintly. in comparison to Stalin or Hitler they were saints, and both did enormous amounts of good, but we need to see them as men - warts and all and see how they rose ABOVE their flaws
Churchill was also criticized by his own people, who fought the Germans on some of his conduct. He was instrumental in the British war effort, but he also called for or ignored some atrocities - during the war in pushing the Bengal famine (basically taking the food from starving people) and post that in Africa (which I don’t know much about so not going to talk about them).
Referring to Arthur Herman’s excellent and balanced Gandhi & Churchillhere is quite a lot on the Bengal Famine (page 512 et. seq.), which Herman believes “did more than Gandhi to undermine Indian confidence in the Raj.” Secretary of State for India Leo Amery, Herman writes, “at first took a lofty Malthusian view of the crisis, arguing that India was ‘overpopulated’ and that the best strategy was to do nothing. But by early summer even Amery was concerned and urged the War Cabinet to take drastic action....
“For his part, Churchill proved callously indifferent. Since Gandhi's fast his mood about India had progressively darkened.....[He was] resolutely opposed to any food shipments. Ships were desperately needed for the landings in Italy....Besides, Churchill felt it would do no good. Famine or no famine, Indians will ‘breed like rabbits.’
Churchill was the man needed in 1940-1945, but he was no saint, and this was one of his flaws.
Overall, taken impartially (or attempting to do so), I would consider him a great man with flaws, but definitely not deserving of a label of war criminal (which David O did not call him)
Another Butthurt 3rd world anti-colonialist Obama Nigerian claiming old white guys as war criminals.
No, it wasn’t due solely to World War two. That was a factor that exacerbated it yes, but the famine was due to
1. environmental - the crops failed simply put
2. scorched earth policy of the raj in the eastern part of bengal (this links to WWII yes)
3. the British raj preventing trade between different Indian nations - Punjab wasn’t allowed to export wheat in ‘42 - ‘43 for instance
4. Indifference by the authorities
Since independence India hasn’t had a famine. That’s compared to the many famines under the British raj - as the latter’s aim was always maximizing British profits
well, Nappy planted them for his troops who invaded and crushed the Germans and ruled over them for over a decade.
What I find interesting is how the French in effect
1. destroyed their own culture
2. gave the British #1 position in the world
3. created their 19th and early 20th century nemesis, Germany
Before the French revolution, France was the most populous part of Europe, the richest and, despite losing the first TRUE world war (the 7 year war in 1756) a true contender for #1 top dog. They had a large number of languages - Breton, Corsican, Occitan, Basque, Gallo, Picardy etc.
The German nations were divided, on their way to becoming separate countries like Prussia etc.
The Prussians were powerful but still opposed by powerful Austria, Bavaria etc.
By destroying the Holy Roman Empire and then consolidating Germany, Napoleon in effect created Germany imho
Not really. Churchill’s personal approval rating was still 93% in 1945. But his party lost.
Remember - the UK was and is a parliamentary democracy - the local MP is chosen by the party members, you elect your local MP by FPTP, the elected MPs who are part of the party or coalition with the largest number of seats get to form the government; the government is beholden to those MPs who elected it in.
Churchill’s party - the Tories, promised a return to the way things were before 1939 - with the ruling toffs in charge. People didn’t want that.
hence the Tories lost and so Churchill wasn’t able to re-form a government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.