[abraxas21]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

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]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

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]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

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]

The West won and tells the stories to make Stalin look badder for the same thing it did.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by Black Adam

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]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

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

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/thereport...ved_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]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Black Adam

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]

I feel quite certain that the famines were the result of Lysenko's pseudo-scientific ideas.

[Jimnik]

Stalin was Satin in disguise. Hopefully joined in the 7th circle of hell by Mao and Amin.

[buddyholly]

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]

Originally Posted by selyoink

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.