Off-Topic Chit-Chat
- Thread starter BMD
- Start date
Ah Thardoor's exaggerations. Part of me wishes Bose could have succeeded so that you would get to experience that outcome for a true comparison.
Ah, so Gandhi was a stooge now. Does this make it easier to justify his murder. Last I looked he was a hero of India.
The Bengal Famine was in 1943, if it was a result of WWI policies, how come no famine in the interim?
So was he a British stooge or not? He makes a fair point, only the poor starved.
Did Churchill Cause the Bengal Famine? - The Churchill Project - Hillsdale College
Reviewing a recent book, The Churchill Factor, by London Mayor Boris Johnson, a reviewer repeated a widespread canard about Winston Churchill that really needs to be put to rest:
When there was a danger of serious famine in Bengal in 1943–4, Churchill announced that the Indians “must learn to look after themselves as we have done… there is no reason why all parts of the British empire should not feel the pinch in the same way as the mother country has done.” Still more disgracefully, he said in a jocular way that “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks.” This is more than amusingly politically incorrect language: it had real consequences. Three million Bengalis died of starvation. A true historian would not have neglected this in order to suggest that the imperialist was making a stand against ‘barbarous practices.”1
There’s a good reason why Mayor Johnson omits the now-famous accusation that Churchill starved the Bengalis: it is not true. Alas, in the words of a wartime statesman, “a lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on.”2
The charge stems from a 2009 book accusing Churchill of irresponsibility over Bengal that amounted to a war crime, repeated by scores of sources since. As Churchill once remarked, “I should think it was hardly possible to state the opposite of the truth with more precision.”3
The truth—documented by Sir Martin Gilbert and Hillsdale College—is that Churchill did everything he could in the midst of world war to save the Bengalis; and that without him the famine would have been worse.4
Reviewing a recent book, The Churchill Factor, by London Mayor Boris Johnson, a reviewer repeated a widespread canard about Winston Churchill that really needs to be put to rest:
When there was a danger of serious famine in Bengal in 1943–4, Churchill announced that the Indians “must learn to look after themselves as we have done… there is no reason why all parts of the British empire should not feel the pinch in the same way as the mother country has done.” Still more disgracefully, he said in a jocular way that “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks.” This is more than amusingly politically incorrect language: it had real consequences. Three million Bengalis died of starvation. A true historian would not have neglected this in order to suggest that the imperialist was making a stand against ‘barbarous practices.”1
There’s a good reason why Mayor Johnson omits the now-famous accusation that Churchill starved the Bengalis: it is not true. Alas, in the words of a wartime statesman, “a lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on.”2
The charge stems from a 2009 book accusing Churchill of irresponsibility over Bengal that amounted to a war crime, repeated by scores of sources since. As Churchill once remarked, “I should think it was hardly possible to state the opposite of the truth with more precision.”3
The truth—documented by Sir Martin Gilbert and Hillsdale College—is that Churchill did everything he could in the midst of world war to save the Bengalis; and that without him the famine would have been worse.4
Please read about deaths due to starvation in Bengal and East India. There was no famine. But still millions died of starvation as all the crop produce was shipped to UK for war effort. The 1943 Famine is different from the period I am talking of. People were left to die even when there was no famine.
I'd rather listen to genuine Irish voices on what they thought about the IRA's role during WW-2 than to someone who identifies himself completely with his own people's oppressors.
For your kind information, De Valera never supported the British which in turn led Churchmouse to bitterly complain about Irish role and to which De Valera responded with an eloquent speech which rankled the future invalid Churchmouse so much that he wouldn't have anything to do with De Valera, all of which I've quoted in previous arguments that I've had with you.That doesn't sound like endorsement for Britain during WW-2 not does it sound like condemnation of the IRA's role during WW-2.
On Bose, he achieved what he set out to with his death - the liberation of India from British rule. Personally, I'd prefer an end like Bose to that of a doddering invalid wallowing in his own waste waiting for someone to clean him up & for redemption like your own idol & hero Churchmouse.
And if I were you, I'd be reticent about voicing my sick fetishes & kinks in public. Btw - how's the temperature around where you are? Hot & sultry like tropical climes? Do Remember to bathe daily and I don't mean sun bathing, Paddy.
If you seriously think you'd be better under genocidal maniacs than the British, then your head needs examining and that's all these people would have accomplished if they'd succeeded. Fortunately they didn't, but unfortunately that leads you to have a asshat's view of reality.
Ask anyone today in Ireland whether collaborating with the Nazis was a good idea.
Wow, really? All your independence required was one dumbar5e burning to death? It's no wonder the British banned the practice of widow-burning in India then.
Your idea of bathing is a swim in the Ganges, which is roughly equivalent to a UK sewer, so you know very little about bathing.
So how do you explain the 7,000 deaths per day in modern India due to famine and malnutrition? It's a lie to say there has been no famine since 1947, it's a permanent famine.
Famine in India - Wikipedia
It's like comparing yellow shit to brown shit, Paddy! To put in language you understand, shit is shit. Doesn't matter if they're British sack of shit or Nazis or Japanese. If it meant taking the help of one sack of shit to get rid of the other, so be it. That's what the IRA did during WW-2 too. That's what De Valera did when he showed The future invalid Churchmouse the middle finger. Basically, De Valera didn't give a damn who won or lost as long as the Nazis were buggering the Brits nicely. Guess that answer should satisfy you. Or not.
I don't see anyone condemning the IRA or De Valera's actions in WW-2 in NI or RoI, unless they're Ulster scum or like you, descendants of Cuckolds oops sorry collaborators who served in the Royal Irish Constabulary.
What's the connection between the British banning Sati & Bose dying in a plane crash, scrotumhead? Better than dying a million deaths as a doddering invalid. That's called Karma. All his wealth & fame couldn't prevent him from leading a wretched bed ridden life towards the end of his life.
Say, how tall are you, Paddy?
Not really, but sadly you'd only realise that if Bose had actually succeeded and millions of you were executed deliberately, not for an uprising but just because. Stalin was all friendly with Hitler too, until they invaded half of Russia.
No one would support collaboration with the Nazis. I'm from a Catholic family and none of them do.
Of course very few Indians reach old age, maybe you're jealous. Now go bath in the Ganges. Face-down preferably.
Why, are you going to do that joke from Full Metal Jacket Mr. Coowtappinson?
No bully, uncle. I take advice from those worth taking it from. Not from wannabes.
Your claims on famines in India are wholly unsubstantiated. India has not suffered any famine since 1943 and all the major famines prior to that have been under British administered Bengal and Bihar.
The British has constituted a Famine inquiry commission, also known as the woodhead commission, in 1945 to look into the causes of the Famine. The report clearly indicted the Bengal administration and partially the war time policies of the British govt in India for the devastating affects of the famine. According to the report, while there was only a marginal crop failure, compared to above average crop yields in preceding year of 1942. To compound this British started stocking up reserves of food supply for the Army, by making very high purchases in the year of 1943. According to the woodhead commission report, compared to Army reserve purchases of 88,000 tonnes in 1941, Army purchases for reserves in 1943 was 310,000 tonnes. This had a cascading effect on the food inflation in Bengal, which was already suffering from the consequences of price. According to the report, the price of rice which was 11 annas in January of 1943 shot upto 36 annas in August. This was in a province which was already the poster child of British maladministration, where more than 80% of the population lived under abject poverty.
To add to this trauma, following the Japanese invasion of Burma, British instituted the policy of Denial of rice. Under the denial of rice policy, the administration arbitrarily declared a certain quantity of rice produced in the coastal district as 'excess' and stocked the excess as reserves. All these measures helped inflate the price food( This along with the denial of boat policy, which ensured no supplies reached Bengal through the sea).
To quote from the woodhead commission report:
Under any circumstances there would have been distress in 1943 and the relief measures on a considerable scale would have been necessary. The supply position was not, however, such as to make starvation on a wide scale inevitable….The high prices of that year clearly standout as unprecedented, much more so indeed than the crop failure.
