Posted on 09/08/2021 10:28:28 PM PDT by blueplum
Oh, military bases did it? Snicker !
“Military build-up caused massive displacement of Bengalis from their homes. Farmland purchased for airstrip and camp construction is “estimated to have driven between 30,000 and 36,000 families (about 150,000 to 180,000 persons) off their land”, according to the historian Paul Greenough. They were paid for the land, but they had lost their employment.”
Shame on Churchill for causing those disasters... /sarc
“Bengal was affected by a series of natural disasters late in 1942. The winter rice crop was afflicted by a severe outbreak of fungal brown spot disease, while, on 16–17 October a cyclone and three storm surges ravaged croplands, destroyed houses and killing thousands, at the same time dispersing high levels of fungal spores across the region and increasing the spread of the crop disease.[182] The fungus reduced the crop yield even more than the cyclone.”
Churchill’s real Darkest Hour: new evidence confirms
British leader’s role in murdering 3 million Bengalis
April 12, 2019
Lol An article that starts of with discussing moisture levels.
Try again democrat shill.
World War II
Japanese taking Burma.
Japanese threatening to invade India.
Massive influx of refugees from Burma.
Japanese interdicting shipping.
Japanese interdicting rail.
Japanese not shipping rice from Burma
Etc, etc, etc
More than 1/2 the deaths from disease (malaria) and not famine.
Move along little shill. Move along.
The Forgotten Holocaust — Churchill Responsible For The
Death 65 Million Indians
Movie Community College
YouTube
February 1, 2018
The Forgotten Holocaust — A Look At Indian Loss Under
British Rule
Video:
“ Midgets erasing the names of Giants.”
*************
Had there been not for Winston the Brits would be speaking German today. Young Brits need to study their own history or at least watch a few documentaries on Netflix.
Maybe they can rename the “charity” to honor fake Indian Ward Churchill.
I've never read your theory. What are your sources?
New soil study confirms 1943 Bengal famine was caused by Winston Churchill’s policies, not drough
1943 Bengal famine: Winston Churchill’s policy and not
drought caused one of India’s worst disasters
New soil study confirms 1943 Bengal famine was caused by
Winston Churchill’s policies, not drought
A group of Indian and American researches simulated soil
moisture content during major Indian famines to come to the
conclusion.
scroll.in
March 30, 2019
Continues:
“The charge against the former PM is that he viewed the Indians as not worth saving.”
In 1943 the English couldn’t even feed THEMSELVES! They were very dependent on the US. The US fed it’s allies and former foes for years AFTER the war.
Some people need to buy a pup and name it Clue, so they’ll have one.
He did murder 5m Indians during WW2. A planned famine so that only whites in Europe could get food. He wax pure evil…
The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
His record in Britain’s former colonies more closely resembles that of a
war criminal than a defender of democracy and freedom.
By Shashi Tharoor
February 15, 2019
The recent flap over Winston Churchill — with Labour politician John
McDonnell calling Britain’s most revered prime minister a “villain” and
prompting a rebuke from the latter’s grandson — will astonish many
Indians. That’s not because the label itself is a misnomer, but because
McDonnell was exercised by the death of one Welsh miner in 1910. In
fact, Churchill has the blood of millions on his hands whom the British
prefer to forget.
“History,” Churchill himself said, “will judge me kindly, because I
intend to write it myself.” He did, penning a multi-volume history of
World War Two, and won the Nobel Prize for Literature for his
self-serving fictions. As the Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies
remarked of the man many Britons credit with winning the war, “His real
tyrant is the glittering phrase, so attractive to his mind that awkward
facts have to give way.”
Awkward facts, alas, there are aplenty. As McDonnell correctly noted,
Churchill as Home Secretary in 1910 sent battalions of police from
London and ordered them to attack striking miners in Tonypandy in South
Wales; one was killed and nearly 600 strikers and policemen were
injured. It’s unlikely this troubled his conscience much. He later
assumed operational command of the police during a siege of armed
Latvian anarchists in Stepney, where he decided to allow them to be
burned to death in a house where they were trapped.
Shortly afterward, during the fight for Irish independence between
1918-23, Churchill was one of the few British officials in favor of
bombing Irish protesters from the air, suggesting using “machine gun
fire bombs” to scatter them. As Secretary of State for the Colonies, he
followed through on that threat in Iraq. He ordered large-scale bombing
of Mesopotamia in 1921, with an entire village wiped out in 45 minutes.
When some British officials objected to his proposal for “the use of gas
against natives,” he found their objections “unreasonable.” In fact he
argued that poison gas was more humane than outright extermination: “The
moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced
to a minimum.”
This underscores the fundamental contrast in views of Churchill. In
Britain and much of the West, he’s seen as the savior of “Democracy,
Freedom, and all that is good in Western Civilization,” as one
enthusiastic correspondent put it. In fact, his record is far more mixed
even there. Throughout the 1920s and early 1930s, Churchill was an open
admirer of Mussolini, declaring that the Italian Fascist movement had
“rendered a service to the whole world.” Traveling to Rome in 1927 to
express his admiration for the Fascist Duce, Churchill announced that he
“could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by
Signor Mussolini’s gentle and simple bearing and by his calm detached
poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers.”
What Churchill was above all, though, was a committed imperialist — one
determined to preserve the British Empire not just by defeating the
Nazis but much else besides. At the start of his career, as a young
cavalry officer on the northwest frontier of India, he declared the
Pashtuns needed to recognize “the superiority of [the British] race” and
that those who resisted would “be killed without quarter.” He wrote
happily about how he and his comrades “systematically, village by
village, destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the
towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the
reservoirs in punitive devastation. Every tribesman caught was speared
or cut down at once.”
In Kenya, Churchill either directed or was complicit in policies
involving the forced relocation of local people from the fertile
highlands to make way for white colonial settlers and the incarceration
of over 150,000 men, women and children in concentration camps. British
authorities used rape, castration, lit cigarettes on tender spots and
electric shocks to torture Kenyans under Churchill’s rule.
And his principal victims were the Indians — “a beastly people with a
beastly religion,” as he charmingly called us, a “foul race.” Churchill
was an appalling racialist, one who could not bring himself to see any
people of color as entitled to the same rights as himself. (He “did not
admit,” for instance, “that a great wrong has been done to the Red
Indians of America, or the black people of Australia … by the fact that
a stronger race, a higher grade race, has come in and taken its place.”)
He fantasized luridly of having Mahatma Gandhi tied to the ground and
trampled upon by elephants.
Thanks to Churchill’s personal decisions, more than 3 million Bengalis
died of hunger in a 1943 famine. Churchill deliberately ordered the
diversion of food from starving Indian civilians to well-supplied
British soldiers and even to top up European stockpiles, meant for
yet-to-be-liberated Greeks and Yugoslavs. “The starvation of anyway
underfed Bengalis is less serious” than that of “sturdy Greeks,” he
argued. When reminded of the suffering of Bengalis, his response was
typically Churchillian: The famine was the Indians’ own fault, he said,
for “breeding like rabbits.” If the suffering was so dire, he wrote on
the file, “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?”
It’s important to remember that these weren’t enemies in a war —
Churchill also wanted to “drench the cities of the Ruhr” in poison gas
and said of the Japanese, “we shall wipe them out, every one of them,
men, women and children” — but British subjects. Nor can his views be
excused as being reflective of their times; his own Secretary of State
for War, Leo Amery, confessed that he could see very little difference
between Churchill’s attitude and Hitler’s.
Britons and Oscar voters may yet thrill to Churchill’s stirring words
about freedom. But to the descendants of the Iraqis whom Churchill
gassed and the Greek protesters on the streets of Athens who were mowed
down on his orders in 1944 (killing 28 and maiming 120), to sundry
Pashtuns and Irish, to Afghans and Kenyans and Welsh miners as well as
to Indians like myself, it will always be a mystery why a few bombastic
speeches have been enough to wash the bloodstains off Churchill’s hands.
We shall remember him as a war criminal and an enemy of decency and
humanity, a blinkered imperialist untroubled by the oppression of
non-white peoples, a man who fought not to defend but to deny our freedom.
Source:
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.