Stalin's famines and the British Empire's famines [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Stalin's famines and the British Empire's famines

abraxas21
03-21-2012, 02:13 PM
When talking about famines, the name of Stalin usually pops up as the monster of history responsible for the deaths of millions, famously with his purges but also for his 'man made' famines, in particular Ukranian Holodomor which many recognise as a deliberate attempt to destroy a population (i.e. genocide). arguments still rage about whether this was the case, or whether it was simply an effect of Stalin's policies, but I don't think anyone can argue Stalin had little regard for the lives of millions.

So why are the famines in India and Ireland (among others) done by the British empire not regarded in such fashion? There were similar policies, similar hatreds for the subject populations, similar exporting of food despite widespread famine and similar leaders who directly ordered this, Winston Churchill being one who is responsible for the death of millions and yet is regarded to this day with high acclaim in Britain.

in the west, most people like to point their accusing fingers at others by they're not very prone to take a look on their mirrors. hypocrisy, as i've said on countless ocassions, is rampant.

buddyholly
03-21-2012, 05:56 PM
Mao was such a great benefactor. He needs to be recognised in this thread.

Last word from me on this. I'm off to see Gonzalez say goodbye.

shiaben
03-21-2012, 10:16 PM
Mao was such a great benefactor. He needs to be recognised in this thread.

Last word from me on this. I'm off to see Gonzalez say goodbye.

In other words, your horrible message translates to "Who cares about people in India and Ireland", completely disregarding the operator's question.

Time Violation
03-21-2012, 11:43 PM
in the west, most people like to point their accusing fingers at others by they're not very prone to take a look on their mirrors. hypocrisy, as i've said on countless ocassions, is rampant.

Surprise, surprise

buddyholly
03-22-2012, 10:47 AM
So why are the famines in India and Ireland (among others) done by the British empire not regarded in such fashion? There were similar policies, similar hatreds for the subject populations, similar exporting of food despite widespread famine and similar leaders who directly ordered this, Winston Churchill being one who is responsible for the death of millions and yet is regarded to this day with high acclaim in Britain.



Winnie ''directly ordered'' the Irish famine. Who knew? Maybe you are referring to another Winston Churchill who was actually alive at that time. The one I know might be accused of being responsible for the deaths of millions of Nazis, maybe.

As for India, the only famine that one might possibly relate to Winnie was in Bengal. It was during the war and there was a scarcity of rice after the Japanese took Burma. The Japanese fleet controlled the Bay of Bengal, so sending in food in ships was not possible. Is that the one?

So, if the core of your argument here is that Winston Churchill ''did'' famines in India and Ireland I think you need to start by identifying the actual famines that he caused.

Black Adam
03-22-2012, 11:03 AM
The West won and tells the stories to make Stalin look badder for the same thing it did.

buddyholly
03-22-2012, 11:43 AM
The West won and tells the stories to make Stalin look badder for the same thing it did.


I think the stories of what Stalin did in the Ukraine were told by Ukranians who were there and survived.

abraxas21
03-22-2012, 03:54 PM
Winnie ''directly ordered'' the Irish famine. Who knew? Maybe you are referring to another Winston Churchill who was actually alive at that time.

once again your reading skills show that they're in great need of improvement. i never accused "the winston you know" of causing the irish famine. merely said he was responsible for the death of millions of people who starved in the programmed scheme of the famines caused by the british empire.

The one I know might be accused of being responsible for the deaths of millions of Nazis, maybe.

mostly innocent civilians in dresden, hamburg and other cities at a point where the war's ending was inminent as the soviets had done most of the work already. the brit war effort wasn't nearly decisive as the soviet one, and it degenerated quite a bit with winston's bloodlust against germany.


As for India, the only famine that one might possibly relate to Winnie was in Bengal. It was during the war and there was a scarcity of rice after the Japanese took Burma. The Japanese fleet controlled the Bay of Bengal, so sending in food in ships was not possible. Is that the one?

right :lol:

The scarcity, Mukherjee writes, was caused by large-scale exports of food from India for use in the war theatres and consumption in Britain - India exported more than 70,000 tonnes of rice between January and July 1943, even as the famine set in. This would have kept nearly 400,000 people alive for a full year. Mr Churchill turned down fervent pleas to export food to India citing a shortage of ships - this when shiploads of Australian wheat, for example, would pass by India to be stored for future consumption in Europe. As imports dropped, prices shot up and hoarders made a killing. Mr Churchill also pushed a scorched earth policy - which went by the sinister name of Denial Policy - in coastal Bengal where the colonisers feared the Japanese would land. So authorities removed boats (the lifeline of the region) and the police destroyed and seized rice stocks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html

just like in the irish famine, the brits were taking out the food of the nations where millions were starving to death.

buddyholly
03-23-2012, 02:09 AM
once again your reading skills show that they're in great need of improvement. i never accused "the winston you know" of causing the irish famine. merely said he was responsible for the death of millions of people who starved in the programmed scheme of the famines caused by the british empire.







My reading skills are fine. I knew exactly where you were going with this. What you try to do every time - and then you abandon the thread when you are called on it.

You write a paragraph that refers to Stalin's genocides, Indian famines, Irish famines and Winston Churchill. Then when I call you on it you say, ''but I never said Churchill had anything to do with the Irish famine. The fact that they are mentioned in the same sentence does not mean the two are related''.
You are like a broken record with this. So please, one more time ''what famine did Winston Churchill directly order?'' Or will you now deny saying that Winston Churchill ordered a famine?

Sham Kay
03-23-2012, 02:38 AM
I look at topics like this from the perspective of an ignorant dog, and wag my tail in glee at not being born a human to have to comprehend this shit

selyoink
03-23-2012, 03:37 AM
The West won and tells the stories to make Stalin look badder for the same thing it did.

If you are implying that the West was just as bad as Stalin then you are an idiot.

Clydey
03-23-2012, 11:21 AM
I feel quite certain that the famines were the result of Lysenko's pseudo-scientific ideas.

Jimnik
03-23-2012, 12:13 PM
Stalin was Satin in disguise. Hopefully joined in the 7th circle of hell by Mao and Amin.

buddyholly
03-23-2012, 12:57 PM
Talked to Gonzo yesterday. He was outside the main stadium with Mary Jo saying goodbye to his fans.

I brought him cordial greetings from the great British nation and on behalf of Maggie Thatcher and Winston Churchill (on topic, you see) thanked the people of the great sister nation of Chile for their solidarity with Britain in the war against aggression in the South Atlantic.

buddyholly
03-23-2012, 01:00 PM
If you are implying that the West was just as bad as Stalin then you are an idiot.

If you think he implied anything remotely like that, then clearly you need to improve on your reading skills.

buddyholly
03-23-2012, 01:07 PM
mostly innocent civilians in dresden, hamburg and other cities at a point where the war's ending was inminent as the soviets had done most of the work already. the brit war effort wasn't nearly decisive as the soviet one, and it degenerated quite a bit with winston's bloodlust against germany.






It is only because of Winnie that you are not picking grapes in some Chilean labour camp today, to be handsorted, with the best of the bunch being flown directly to Berlin.

Of course, if things had worked out better for you, then the same would still apply, with Moscow substituting for Berlin above.

scoobs
03-23-2012, 01:09 PM
Talked to Gonzo yesterday. He was outside the main stadium with Mary Jo saying goodbye to his fans.

I brought him cordial greetings from the great British nation and on behalf of Maggie Thatcher and Winston Churchill (on topic, you see) thanked the people of the great sister nation of Chile for their solidarity with Britain in the war against aggression in the South Atlantic.

I'm sure encounters like this make him feel confident in his retirement decision.

buddyholly
03-23-2012, 02:27 PM
Seriously, he just said his body could no longer continue with the rigorous training and the gruelling travel committments necessary to survive on today's circuit and he felt happy with his decision that the time had come to move on to other interests.

MaxPower
03-23-2012, 07:09 PM
Starvation and overpopulation goes hand in hand. It's scary to think India could have been even more overpopulated. Not defending any actions of either the British Empire or Stalin but think about it. Looks truly crazy in a condensed graph like below just to really drive in the point.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/images/2002_1.gif

the cut around 1300-1400 is the plague. But seriously since 1900 humanity is out of line. It's pure madness and India is as guilty as China. And both of them could have been more extreme

AliceMariaRenka
04-02-2012, 09:39 AM
When talking about famines, the name of Stalin usually pops up as the monster of history responsible for the deaths of millions, famously with his purges but also for his 'man made' famines, in particular Ukranian Holodomor which many recognise as a deliberate attempt to destroy a population (i.e. genocide). arguments still rage about whether this was the case, or whether it was simply an effect of Stalin's policies, but I don't think anyone can argue Stalin had little regard for the lives of millions.

So why are the famines in India and Ireland (among others) done by the British empire not regarded in such fashion? There were similar policies, similar hatreds for the subject populations, similar exporting of food despite widespread famine and similar leaders who directly ordered this, Winston Churchill being one who is responsible for the death of millions and yet is regarded to this day with high acclaim in Britain.

in the west, most people like to point their accusing fingers at others by they're not very prone to take a look on their mirrors. hypocrisy, as i've said on countless ocassions, is rampant.

Have you tried picking some wild flowers, or going for a nice walk, patting a dog, stroking a cat, eating an ice cream in the sunshine, watching children laugh and play, or even hugging a tree? You might find you actually enjoy life.:hug:

abraxas21
10-01-2012, 11:22 PM
ha, reading the old posts i reckon some fine trolling by BH here... yet again in one of my threads

abraxas21
10-01-2012, 11:24 PM
Have you tried picking some wild flowers, or going for a nice walk, patting a dog, stroking a cat, eating an ice cream in the sunshine, watching children laugh and play, or even hugging a tree? You might find you actually enjoy life.:hug:

thanks. i mostly enjoy it. there have been ups and downs, it's been quite a trip thus far. i hope for the best for everyone.

TigerTim
10-01-2012, 11:27 PM
British rule in India :o

Topspindoctor
10-02-2012, 01:33 AM
British rule in India :o

Thank God for 21st century democracy, though. Britain is well on its way to becoming an Indian colony these days. Quite ironic, I'd say. No wonder, Brits are swarming into AU/NZ like rats abandoning a sinking ship. :lol:

Echoes
10-02-2012, 05:44 PM
I guess all the Serbs on this forum should be "grateful" (joking) to Churchill for his support to Tito (still Stalin's friend) instead of Mihailovic ...


Churchill & Stalin in the same bag. Both freemason, globalists and overtly allied. Churchill was one of the founding fathers of the EEC/EU for whom it may concern.


The 1300 French dead marine soldiers of Mers-El-Kebir are saluting the Churchilltards, wherever they are. :wavey:

abraxas21
10-02-2012, 06:55 PM
The 1300 French dead marine soldiers of Mers-El-Kebir are saluting the Churchilltards, wherever they are. :wavey:

didn't know about that.

the more i read about churchill the more i get convinced that he was pig. his dimissive approach to human lives is shocking.

hard to believe how a person like that can be regarded as a hero in what westerners claim to be a highly progressive place. the guy was on par with the terrorists the west claims to despise.

Time Violation
10-02-2012, 07:30 PM
I guess all the Serbs on this forum should be "grateful" (joking) to Churchill for his support to Tito (still Stalin's friend) instead of Mihailovic ...

We were just small pawns for the big boys. Some things never change

Sophitia36
10-02-2012, 08:29 PM
Well, I am not going to enter the debate on Stalin and Churchill's famines, because I am simply not qualified at all, I know far too little about those.

However, Irish history is my main area of research (Northern Irish history, rather, but of course you cannot study Northern Ireland without studying the whole of Ireland too). And I think that it's not really true to say that the Famine has been ignored.
If there's one thing the Irish are really good at, it's promoting their status as victims, martyrs and so on. True, for a while, the Famine was not talked about, it was a trauma that people did not want to re-awaken. But that changed about a decade ago, at that time, the Famine suddenly became a very "trendy" topic, there were dozens of books written about it, and lots of commemorations, it became almost ridiculous (and of course it was heavily used by Republicans for propaganda purposes).
Tony Blair actually apologized to the Irish about the Famine, so you cannot really claim that the British have evaded their responsibility on this.

Quickly, someone mentioned overpopulation as the cause of Famine... Well, it was certainly one factor in Ireland, but it was also exaggerated as a factor. At the time, theories such as Malthusianism were actually one of the reasons why the British did not do anything and let so many Irish people die.
Like most historical phenomena, the Irish Famine is complex and it's always wrong to claim one cause was the only cause, or even the "main" cause of the deaths. But if one main cause is to be identified, I think it was the social system (and especially how Irish farmers were kept entirely dependent on the potato crop, and how the lack of industrial development in Ireland prevented them from resisting the natural disaster of the potato blight).

Echoes
10-04-2012, 06:58 PM
didn't know about that.



I once had a discussion with a Frenchy, Pied-Noir and Vichy nostalgic. He would swear that De Gaulle had something to do with all this, while it's definitely clear that Churchill did not warn him about it, just like he did not warn him about Operation Torch. The FFL couldn't get any more volunteers after that.

I can tell you that the French haven't forgotten about it, at least those who have a little bit of historical knowledge.

8uh-N4HOCro


We were just small pawns for the big boys. Some things never change

What makes me wild is that many people in the West still believe that the Chetniks were collaborationists, Communist propaganda. I once had a discussion with two French leftist who were sure of that. At that time I was rather young and I did not have a lot of sources to back up my claims (only Orwell's preface for his Animal Farm which is available on the net) but now I've read a book about his rehabilitation trial and am glad that I was perfectly right.

Those guy would call me a Neo-Nazi/Fascist/Vichyist. It's just crazy !

Har-Tru
10-04-2012, 07:27 PM
Echoes why don't you apply for French citizenship already?

buddyholly
10-04-2012, 09:33 PM
didn't know about that.

the more i read about churchill the more i get convinced that he was pig. his dimissive approach to human lives is shocking.

hard to believe how a person like that can be regarded as a hero in what westerners claim to be a highly progressive place. the guy was on par with the terrorists the west claims to despise.

He saved Western civilization from Nazis or Communists or both. What more do you want? Oh wait...............

TigerTim
10-04-2012, 09:35 PM
war is war. Mers el Kebier was done in desperate times, do you realise the situation the British were in at that point?

The Prince
10-04-2012, 10:14 PM
Classic Abraxas thread.

Echoes
10-05-2012, 07:16 PM
He saved Western civilization [...] Communists or both. What more do you want? Oh wait...............

:lol: I have just shown that he SURRENDERED to them ..


war is war. Mers el Kebier was done in desperate times, do you realise the situation the British were in at that point?

So you mean that Sir Winston could easily lose his mind in desperate times? I don't think it fits with the character. I think he was still clear-minded enough to know what he was doing.


He could easily have destroyed the Italian fleet at that time. So why the French? He had Darlan's word. Of course, Darlan would later collaborate but that was in retaliation for Mers-El-Kebir (no excuse, of course though), against the will of his government. And despite that fact, Roosevelt negotiated with him after Torch (1942).

scoobs
10-05-2012, 08:11 PM
When talking about famines, the name of Stalin usually pops up as the monster of history responsible for the deaths of millions, famously with his purges but also for his 'man made' famines, in particular Ukranian Holodomor which many recognise as a deliberate attempt to destroy a population (i.e. genocide). arguments still rage about whether this was the case, or whether it was simply an effect of Stalin's policies, but I don't think anyone can argue Stalin had little regard for the lives of millions.

So why are the famines in India and Ireland (among others) done by the British empire not regarded in such fashion? There were similar policies, similar hatreds for the subject populations, similar exporting of food despite widespread famine and similar leaders who directly ordered this, Winston Churchill being one who is responsible for the death of millions and yet is regarded to this day with high acclaim in Britain.

in the west, most people like to point their accusing fingers at others by they're not very prone to take a look on their mirrors. hypocrisy, as i've said on countless ocassions, is rampant.

History is written by the victors and so the shameful behaviour of the British Empire in its colonial and even post-colonial eras has not been subjected to the sort of scrutiny it deserves.

Sophitia36
10-06-2012, 12:26 PM
History is written by the victors and so the shameful behaviour of the British Empire in its colonial and even post-colonial eras has not been subjected to the sort of scrutiny it deserves.

Well... the British have lost their empire so they are not really the victors anymore, I think.

As I said in my post about Ireland, I think it's wrong to say that colonial history has not been scrutinized and exposed. At least, in the academic world it has been subjected to intense scrutiny. I know lots of people who work on post-colonialism, slavery, the British Empire, the Irish question and so on.
Maybe it's not spreading to the "outside" world yet but it has definitely been studied extensively and very critically.

scoobs
10-06-2012, 01:50 PM
Well... the British have lost their empire so they are not really the victors anymore, I think.

As I said in my post about Ireland, I think it's wrong to say that colonial history has not been scrutinized and exposed. At least, in the academic world it has been subjected to intense scrutiny. I know lots of people who work on post-colonialism, slavery, the British Empire, the Irish question and so on.
Maybe it's not spreading to the "outside" world yet but it has definitely been studied extensively and very critically.

Indeed, but when you win the wars you fight, and your empire ends up being dismantled relatively peacefully, there's no need for the populace at large to confront and come to terms with the horrible things done by their leaders in their name. You don't need a truth and reconciliation commission, so you don't have one - you keep moving forward and, apart from in fusty academic texts that few people read, never look at the reality of what was done, only the triumphalist soundbites that are used to reinforce the national identity.

The average Britain has no idea that it was we who invented the concentration camp, which is pretty shameful.

abraxas21
10-06-2012, 02:46 PM
He saved Western civilization from Nazis or Communists or both. What more do you want? Oh wait...............

he saved fuck all.

as much as the yanks and the brits try to put themselves at the head of WWII victory in hollywood films and the like, the truth is that the nazi war effort received its major blow in the eastern front where the great patriotic war was won by the soviets. that was the event the tipped off the balance in favour of the allies. before that, the brits were mainly defending whatever they could from the german bombs falling in their cities.

as for communism, it didn't add up to much. but i do reckon that if it weren't for the USA and to a lesser degree Britain, Stalin would have probably taken most of western europe, including the whole of germany. the clash of powers served to equalize things and senteced the basis for an iron wall. the americans and particularly the brits couldn't care less for the euro eastern countries, they've always looked down one them on way or another, so i guess it was a cost they could take.

abraxas21
10-06-2012, 03:02 PM
war is war. Mers el Kebier was done in desperate times, do you realise the situation the British were in at that point?

i guess it could be argued in his favour that that incident in particular along with his insistance to send working class people to fight in gallipoli in WWI along with his endorsment and participation in the british concentration camps for boers in south africa where thousands of women and children died along with the hundreds of thousands (if not millions as it is accepted) who perished in india because of his scorch-and-burn tactics could be understood in the context of war and thus, in some way, be justified.

i guess that's what many in the UK think.

Then again, I have a different view. Churchill was conservative in many of his policies and wanted to preserve british power. He looked the world in terms of what's better for british interests, as any leader should when looking after his nation. Then again, he was able to stop at nothing to get his objectives. His little regard for life was always abysmal, in part because he saw people's lives as means to a greater end.

in winstons' case, the great kinks' song "victoria" fits well.

lalit
10-06-2012, 03:08 PM
I will just put this out there. I was born in India and am ethnically 100% Indian though I left India at the age of 8. My grandfather often said that life under British rule was better than when India was under socialist rule. That's how bad socialism is.
abraxas21 you can always move to Cuba or North Korea if you feel America, UK ,Israel, capitalism is so bad. Stop trolling here.

abraxas21
10-06-2012, 03:08 PM
The average Britain has no idea that it was we who invented the concentration camp, which is pretty shameful.

indeed.

here's a good article by the independent who exposes churchill for what he really was. a racist megalomaniac borderline sociopath who is responsible for the death of millions.

Winston Churchill is rightly remembered for leading Britain through her finest hour – but what if he also led the country through her most shameful hour? What if, in addition to rousing a nation to save the world from the Nazis, he fought for a raw white supremacism and a concentration camp network of his own? This question burns through Richard Toye's new history, Churchill's Empire, and is even seeping into the Oval Office.

George W Bush left a bust of Churchill near his desk in the White House, in an attempt to associate himself with the war leader's heroic stand against fascism. Barack Obama had it returned to Britain. It's not hard to guess why: his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill's watch, for resisting Churchill's empire.

Can these clashing Churchills be reconciled? Do we live, at the same time, in the world he helped to save, and the world he helped to trash? Toye, one of Britain's smartest young historians, has tried to pick through these questions dispassionately – and he should lead us, at last and at least, to a more mature conversation about our greatest national icon.

Churchill was born in 1874 into a Britain that was washing the map pink, at the cost of washing distant nations blood red. Victoria had just been crowned Empress of India, and the scramble for Africa was only a few years away. At Harrow School and then Sandhurst, he was told a simple story: the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation. As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in "a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples". In the Swat valley, now part of Pakistan, he experienced, fleetingly, a crack of doubt. He realised that the local population was fighting back because of "the presence of British troops in lands the local people considered their own," just as Britain would if she were invaded. But Churchill soon suppressed this thought, deciding instead they were merely deranged jihadists whose violence was explained by a "strong aboriginal propensity to kill".

He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops. He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three "savages".

The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn. When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced "the minimum of suffering". The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his "irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men". Later, he boasted of his experiences there: "That was before war degenerated. It was great fun galloping about."

Then as an MP he demanded a rolling programme of more conquests, based on his belief that "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph". There seems to have been an odd cognitive dissonance in his view of the "natives". In some of his private correspondence, he appears to really believe they are helpless children who will "willingly, naturally, gratefully include themselves within the golden circle of an ancient crown".

But when they defied this script, Churchill demanded they be crushed with extreme force. As Colonial Secretary in the 1920s, he unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians, and when the Kurds rebelled against British rule, he said: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...[It] would spread a lively terror."

Of course, it's easy to dismiss any criticism of these actions as anachronistic. Didn't everybody think that way then? One of the most striking findings of Toye's research is that they really didn't: even at the time, Churchill was seen as at the most brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was warned by Cabinet colleagues not to appoint him because his views were so antedeluvian. Even his startled doctor, Lord Moran, said of other races: "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin."

Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.

Skeletal, half-dead people were streaming into the cities and dying on the streets, but Churchill – to the astonishment of his staff – had only jeers for them. This rather undermines the claims that Churchill's imperialism was motivated only by an altruistic desire to elevate the putatively lower races.

Hussein Onyango Obama is unusual among Churchill's victims only in one respect: his story has been rescued from the slipstream of history, because his grandson ended up as President of the US. Churchill believed that Kenya's fertile highlands should be the preserve of the white settlers, and approved the clearing out of the local "blackamoors". He saw the local Kikuyu as "brutish children". When they rebelled under Churchill's post-war premiership, some 150,000 of them were forced at gunpoint into detention camps – later dubbed "Britain's gulag" by Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Professor Caroline Elkins. She studied the detention camps for five years for her remarkable book Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya, explains the tactics adopted under Churchill to crush the local drive for independence. "Electric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire," she writes. "The screening teams whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects." Hussein Onyango Obama never truly recovered from the torture he endured.

Many of the wounds Churchill inflicted have still not healed: you can find them on the front pages any day of the week. He is the man who invented Iraq, locking together three conflicting peoples behind arbitrary borders that have been bleeding ever since. He is the Colonial Secretary who offered the Over-Promised Land to both the Jews and the Arabs – although he seems to have privately felt racist contempt for both. He jeered at the Palestinians as "barbaric hoards who ate little but camel dung," while he was appalled that the Israelis "take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience".

True, occasionally Churchill did become queasy about some of the most extreme acts of the Empire. He fretted at the slaughter of women and children, and cavilled at the Amritsar massacre of 1919. Toye tries to present these doubts as evidence of moderation – yet they almost never seem to have led Churchill to change his actions. If you are determined to rule people by force against their will, you can hardly be surprised when atrocities occur. Rule Britannia would inexorably produce a Cruel Britannia.

So how can the two be reconciled? Was Churchill's moral opposition to Nazism a charade, masking the fact he was merely trying to defend the British Empire from a rival?

The US civil rights leader Richard B. Moore, quoted by Toye, said it was "a rare and fortunate coincidence" that at that moment "the vital interests of the British Empire [coincided] with those of the great overwhelming majority of mankind". But this might be too soft in its praise. If Churchill had only been interested in saving the Empire, he could probably have cut a deal with Hitler. No: he had a deeper repugnance for Nazism than that. He may have been a thug, but he knew a greater thug when he saw one – and we may owe our freedom today to this wrinkle in history.

This, in turn, led to the great irony of Churchill's life. In resisting the Nazis, he produced some of the richest prose-poetry in defence of freedom and democracy ever written. It was a cheque he didn't want black or Asian people to cash – but they refused to accept that the Bank of Justice was empty. As the Ghanaian nationalist Kwame Nkrumah wrote: "All the fair, brave words spoken about freedom that had been broadcast to the four corners of the earth took seed and grew where they had not been intended." Churchill lived to see democrats across Britain's dominions and colonies – from nationalist leader Aung San in Burma to Jawarlal Nehru in India – use his own intoxicating words against him.

Ultimately, the words of the great and glorious Churchill who resisted dictatorship overwhelmed the works of the cruel and cramped Churchill who tried to impose it on the darker-skinned peoples of the world. The fact that we now live in a world where a free and independent India is a superpower eclipsing Britain, and a grandson of the Kikuyu "savages" is the most powerful man in the world, is a repudiation of Churchill at his ugliest – and a sweet, ironic victory for Churchill at his best.

For updates on this issue and others, follow Johann at www.twitter.com/johannhari101

'Churchill's Empire' is published by Macmillan (£25). To order a copy for the special price of £22.50 (free P&P) call Independent Books Direct on 08430 600 030, or visit www.independentbooksdirect.co.uk

abraxas21
10-06-2012, 03:19 PM
abraxas21 you can always move to Cuba or North Korea if you feel America, UK ,Israel, capitalism is so bad. Stop trolling here.

why would i move to cuba or NK when im not cuban or north korean :confused:

your granddaddy's story about india is nice but i think india in general, particularly bengal, has a better understanding of the situation. if british rule was a so great, i guess ghandi wouldn't be famous.

lalit
10-06-2012, 03:22 PM
why would i move to cuba or NK when im not cuban or north korean :confused:

your daddy's story about india is nice but i think india in general, particularly bengal, has a better understanding of the situation. if british rule was a so great, i guess ghandi wouldn't be famous.

probably i phrased it incorrectly. my grandfather didnt say british rule was great, my grandfather said that socialism was worse. saying that british rule was better than socialism doesn't mean british rule was great.
as for gandhi he is probably the most overrated person in the world. someone like subhash chandra bose or sardar patel or bhagat singh are better leaders in the independence movement than him.

buddyholly
10-06-2012, 05:11 PM
why would i move to cuba or NK when im not cuban or north korean :confused:



Why confused? Millions of people migrate in search of a society that better suits their aspirations.

buddyholly
10-06-2012, 05:36 PM
your granddaddy's story about india is nice

""Grandaddy?''

Once again the rapier-witted abraxas unleashes a withering put-down.

buddyholly
10-06-2012, 05:38 PM
if british rule was a so great, i guess ghandi wouldn't be famous.

Famous for his racism in Africa and his support of the caste system.

Gagsquet
10-06-2012, 05:45 PM
Abraxas and Buddyholly are online laughing boxes. They never run out of good jokes.

abraxas21
10-06-2012, 05:54 PM
shut up, gagsquet. you just spend around all day talking BS in every forum

abraxas21
10-06-2012, 06:05 PM
Famous for his racism in Africa and his support of the caste system.

""Grandaddy?''

Once again the rapier-witted abraxas unleashes a withering put-down.

cool comebacks

nothing to say on churchill's defense?

buddyholly
10-06-2012, 07:04 PM
nothing to say on churchill's defense?

I have commented on Churchill's heroic defense of Western Civilization already.

Sophitia36
10-06-2012, 07:10 PM
Indeed, but when you win the wars you fight, and your empire ends up being dismantled relatively peacefully, there's no need for the populace at large to confront and come to terms with the horrible things done by their leaders in their name. You don't need a truth and reconciliation commission, so you don't have one - you keep moving forward and, apart from in fusty academic texts that few people read, never look at the reality of what was done, only the triumphalist soundbites that are used to reinforce the national identity.

The average Britain has no idea that it was we who invented the concentration camp, which is pretty shameful.

Well, I think one of the reasons why those things don't go beyond the circles of academia is that people don't really like history and its complexity, they like to draw overly simplified versions of history so they can throw those "facts" at each other during arguments.
And we academics are interested in precisely not doing that.

I think that even saying the British "invented concentration camps" is probably a simplification. You need to define first what constitutes a concentration camp, etc... I guess lots of countries and people have used things that could be described as concentration camps, but they will all differ from one another in a way...

Look at this post, people are interested in throwing things at each others' faces, some are trying to show that Churchill was a racist imperialist monster, others that he was the saviour of the world...
What's the point?
I'm studying Northern Ireland, and the British have done a lot of very questionable things in Northern Ireland. But what I'm interested in is not to "count points" and say "OK the British have done this, booo, that's very bad, they're horrible people and should be ashamed" or, "it's all the fault of the IRA and Irish Republicans, if they had not been so troublesome the British wouldn't have needed to do what they did"...
The point is to understand a situation in all its complexity, to try and understand the plurality of points of view and experiences. Of course that makes it very difficult to have a clear-cut opinion on history. But I don't think it's very useful or beneficial in any way to pass judgements on history.

buddyholly
10-06-2012, 07:48 PM
I think that even saying the British "invented concentration camps" is probably a simplification. You need to define first what constitutes a concentration camp, etc... I guess lots of countries and people have used things that could be described as concentration camps, but they will all differ from one another in a way...



Apparently the Spanish were the first, anyway, in Cuba.

But ''concentration camp'' since WWII has come more to mean death camps for the elimination of sectors of society, rather than camps to contain a hostile public in wartime. Extermination was not the idea, although many perished through disease. The camps the British or Spanish invented were not comparable the camps the Nazis developed.

Sophitia36
10-07-2012, 11:28 AM
Apparently the Spanish were the first, anyway, in Cuba.

But ''concentration camp'' since WWII has come more to mean death camps for the elimination of sectors of society, rather than camps to contain a hostile public in wartime. Extermination was not the idea, although many perished through disease. The camps the British or Spanish invented were not comparable the camps the Nazis developed.

Well yes that's exactly what I mean. In history, nothing is really "comparable" to anything else. And at the same time, of course you can draw parallels and you do it all the time. But it's important to always be aware that there are never two situations that are exactly alike, no matter how you'd like to compare them (one classic example is Ireland and Palestine... They love to draw that parallel all the time, and I mean, it's not even necessary to point out how different the two situations are).

Inventions of all kinds are also subjected to the same kind of simplification, especially when countries try to argue about who invented what. Of course every scientist builds on what's been done before, so it's impossible to give someone all the credit for "discovering" something. Same thing goes for "bad inventions", except in that case, no one wants to take responsibility for them.