Self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed Winston Churchill ‘was the villain of Second World War’ and that millions of people ‘ended up dead’ in Nazi concentration camps
Churchill was the villain his entire life, he’s been hailed a hero despite his history. Hitler was evil too but the number of deaths directly attributed around the world to Churchill makes Hitler look like an amateur. The only difference is Hitlers victims were mostly white, Churchill’s were mostly brown and history always placed a different significance to brown and black deaths
The only difference is Hitlers victims were mostly white
Holy fuck, how fucking convenient that the victims of white supremacy (and groups of people who have been consistently excluded from and oppressed by white Christian societies) can be considered white when it fits the twisted game of oppression olympics you’re trying to play here, to what, virtue signal? Be a contrarian? Or do you genuinely think the holocaust gets some sort of special status because white supremacist society somehow suddenly cares about Jews and Roma people (or queers, for that matter)?
I don’t think anyone here would argue with you that Churchill wasn’t a murderous piece of shit, but leaning in to holocaust denial is never going to help you make a case for anything other than that you’re a holocaust denier.
No ones denying the Holocaust, I’m pointing out that Hitler is viewed as the bigger villain because he was killing white people. Society in general does not give a flying fuck if brown people are killed. Churchill was basically given a pass and essentially viewed as a hero despite his history.
I think the major difference here is malice. Did Churchill set out cause these deaths or was it greed and/or stupidity? Honest question worth discussion, I haven’t heard of this prior.
Policy lapses such as prioritizing distribution of vital supplies to the military, stopping rice imports and not declaring that it was actually a famine were among the factors that led to the magnitude of the tragedy, he added.
So we’re comparing some possible logistics mistakes, in a distant colony, during a defensive war where the ruling country was being bombed on their own soil. Comparing those “incendental” deaths to those of an aggressive conquering army literally rounding up their own citizens and those of the lands they conquered, to be killed.
Right.
She wrote that famine was caused in part by large-scale exports of food from India. India exported more than 70,000 tons of rice between January and July 1943 as the famine set in, she said.
That quantity seems pretty low. In comparison, I found an old post that indicated 300,000 tons of food aid had been supplied to Gaza over 190 days, so similar time spans, to a much smaller population.
Of course, exporting food while the residents are starving is terrible. But this is one study and one interpretation of results.
This certainly sounds like yet another bad faith strawman talking point by Nazi sympathizers.
Yeah, I just don’t see the comparison the OP made here. I’m willing to relent that Britain has done more harm than good to India but I’m no expert so I’d defer to someone smarter here.
But the even crazier thing is that the article isn’t even talking about famine caused by the British Raj… No, they’re saying Churchill was the aggressor and Hitler was pushed into a fight he didn’t want. And the craziest part is the statement that the concentration camps were mercy kills to prevent starvation.
I don’t agree with their point comparing it to the Nazis, but I think this interpretation is being way too generous in reaction to that. Famines in India under British colonial rule were a frequent occurrence. Between 1850 and 1899, 15 million Indians died from no less than 24 major famines. The horrors inflicted through Britain’s nakedly colonial rule were not just innocent mistakes or the product of unexpected circumstances - this was simply the modus operendi of the empire. Frequent atrocities, oppression, and mass death were the status quo for much of the world’s population during this time period.
Obviously, the Nazis had no problem with any of that, they were only upset that they weren’t the ones getting to do it.
Pushing back against the idea that Churchill was worse than Hitler is good, but criticism of Churchill’s role in the famine outside of that comparison is perfectly valid and has academic support, for example, Amartya Sen’s work.
Ok, so Churchill was an imperialistic prick, debatable even for his time (though the wellknown history of centuries of atrocities commited by imperialistic Britain seems to contradict that…). Sure. I don’t think many would defend those actions through today’s lens.
But even that article just throws dozens of famine in Indias colonial history squarely at Britain’s feet with zero evidence that they were avoidable.
Droughts, disease, infestations happen, and have happened throughout history. We are now better than we ever have been at addressing those crisis at a global scale, and there is still plenty of famine and food insecurity in the world.
This reads more, as I said before, a strawman argument that doesnt do anything to establish that Churchill is responsible for millions of deaths - genocide to be compared with concentration camps.
I really encourage you to look more into Amartya Sen’s work and his thesis that famines don’t just happen naturally and are virtually always traced back to political causes. Of course there are bad harvests and the like that can exacerbate a bad situation, but farmers are typically able to stockpile enough during good years to weather it. To say that 24 famines over the span of 50 years just happened naturally, at the exact same time that Indians were subject to exorbitantly high taxes and other horribly exploitative conditions, is a completely absurd and revisionist claim. It seems like you’re knee jerk defending Britain even when we’re discussing one of the darkest parts of its history. In addition to Sen’s work, you should also learn more about the conditions in India under colonialism, if you think the British deserve such extreme benefit of the doubt.
Who is defending Britain’s colonialism? I’m pushing back at some pretty extreme historical recharacterizations.
This is all some pretty ridiculous Captain Hindsight retconning. There have been tons of agricultural blunders in humanities history. Depletion of soils, monocultures extremely susceptible to disaster, etc.
We learn and adapt. That’s humanity.
Resource mismanagement is certainly a factor, and colonies were obviously rife with it. And just as obviously, the conquerors historically didn’t exactly care much about the damage they did.
In nature, species boom when there’s abundance, and rubber band back hard when scarcity hits directly after a big boom.
At a glance, India’s population was almost 10% of the world population during WW2.
Literally laying all the blame at the feet of British mismanagement is a pretty extreme take.
So now we’ve veered into full-blown Malthusianism. You can’t treat human populations the way you treat animal populations. More humans means more people working and growing food, whereas animals simply graze or hunt on preexisting resources. Malthusian claims have been thoroughly debunked repeatedly throughout history, and have never been backed by any sort of evidence whatsoever.
Again, if you choose to reject history and evidence in favor of knee jerk defending colonialism and using long discredited theories, then I don’t really see what I can do here. You are simply wrong and in contradiction of scholarly work on the subject.
Rofl. That’s rich coming from someone making wild claims, whose only citation was one sentence from a Churchill hit piece that contained zero justification for their assertion that Churchill was somehow responsible for India’s famines. You then deflect with “read this persons work you ignorant simpleton” without any relevant citations.
Sure buddy. You can keep raging against this machine of yours, I’ve wasted enough of my Friday trying to reason with a dramatic husky.
FWIW I didn’t down vote you, but I don’t think all malice is equal. Driving with a heart condition or narcolepsy and killing someone isn’t the same as driving through a crowd to get revenge.
Do you have a source on Churchill’s death tool in comparison to Hitler’s?
Churchill was undeniably horrible and the naked colonialism of the British Empire had normalized atrocities occurring on a daily basis. But even so, I’m skeptical that his numbers would “put Hitler to shame,” considering the scale of the wars and genocide Hitler caused.
Churchill was the villain his entire life, he’s been hailed a hero despite his history. Hitler was evil too but the number of deaths directly attributed around the world to Churchill makes Hitler look like an amateur. The only difference is Hitlers victims were mostly white, Churchill’s were mostly brown and history always placed a different significance to brown and black deaths
Holy fuck, how fucking convenient that the victims of white supremacy (and groups of people who have been consistently excluded from and oppressed by white Christian societies) can be considered white when it fits the twisted game of oppression olympics you’re trying to play here, to what, virtue signal? Be a contrarian? Or do you genuinely think the holocaust gets some sort of special status because white supremacist society somehow suddenly cares about Jews and Roma people (or queers, for that matter)?
I don’t think anyone here would argue with you that Churchill wasn’t a murderous piece of shit, but leaning in to holocaust denial is never going to help you make a case for anything other than that you’re a holocaust denier.
No ones denying the Holocaust, I’m pointing out that Hitler is viewed as the bigger villain because he was killing white people. Society in general does not give a flying fuck if brown people are killed. Churchill was basically given a pass and essentially viewed as a hero despite his history.
Looked it up, referring to this?
Churchill’s policies to blame for millions of Indian famine deaths, study says
I think the major difference here is malice. Did Churchill set out cause these deaths or was it greed and/or stupidity? Honest question worth discussion, I haven’t heard of this prior.
So we’re comparing some possible logistics mistakes, in a distant colony, during a defensive war where the ruling country was being bombed on their own soil. Comparing those “incendental” deaths to those of an aggressive conquering army literally rounding up their own citizens and those of the lands they conquered, to be killed.
Right.
That quantity seems pretty low. In comparison, I found an old post that indicated 300,000 tons of food aid had been supplied to Gaza over 190 days, so similar time spans, to a much smaller population.
Of course, exporting food while the residents are starving is terrible. But this is one study and one interpretation of results.
This certainly sounds like yet another bad faith strawman talking point by Nazi sympathizers.
Yeah, I just don’t see the comparison the OP made here. I’m willing to relent that Britain has done more harm than good to India but I’m no expert so I’d defer to someone smarter here.
But the even crazier thing is that the article isn’t even talking about famine caused by the British Raj… No, they’re saying Churchill was the aggressor and Hitler was pushed into a fight he didn’t want. And the craziest part is the statement that the concentration camps were mercy kills to prevent starvation.
Hitler, famously didn’t want fights that Adolf hitler. The poles were taunting him, just like the French, the Russians, the communists, his own party…
Well, they’re Republicans. Those Pollacks were just dressing too slutty. Hitler had to invade. And France? Come on now.
And for scale
70,000 tons, distributed over 389m people, is 0.0003598972 pounds of food were taken away from each Indian person, over a 6-7 month period.
Riiiiight.
I don’t agree with their point comparing it to the Nazis, but I think this interpretation is being way too generous in reaction to that. Famines in India under British colonial rule were a frequent occurrence. Between 1850 and 1899, 15 million Indians died from no less than 24 major famines. The horrors inflicted through Britain’s nakedly colonial rule were not just innocent mistakes or the product of unexpected circumstances - this was simply the modus operendi of the empire. Frequent atrocities, oppression, and mass death were the status quo for much of the world’s population during this time period.
Obviously, the Nazis had no problem with any of that, they were only upset that they weren’t the ones getting to do it.
Pushing back against the idea that Churchill was worse than Hitler is good, but criticism of Churchill’s role in the famine outside of that comparison is perfectly valid and has academic support, for example, Amartya Sen’s work.
I read the article in your other post.
Ok, so Churchill was an imperialistic prick, debatable even for his time (though the wellknown history of centuries of atrocities commited by imperialistic Britain seems to contradict that…). Sure. I don’t think many would defend those actions through today’s lens.
But even that article just throws dozens of famine in Indias colonial history squarely at Britain’s feet with zero evidence that they were avoidable.
Droughts, disease, infestations happen, and have happened throughout history. We are now better than we ever have been at addressing those crisis at a global scale, and there is still plenty of famine and food insecurity in the world.
This reads more, as I said before, a strawman argument that doesnt do anything to establish that Churchill is responsible for millions of deaths - genocide to be compared with concentration camps.
I really encourage you to look more into Amartya Sen’s work and his thesis that famines don’t just happen naturally and are virtually always traced back to political causes. Of course there are bad harvests and the like that can exacerbate a bad situation, but farmers are typically able to stockpile enough during good years to weather it. To say that 24 famines over the span of 50 years just happened naturally, at the exact same time that Indians were subject to exorbitantly high taxes and other horribly exploitative conditions, is a completely absurd and revisionist claim. It seems like you’re knee jerk defending Britain even when we’re discussing one of the darkest parts of its history. In addition to Sen’s work, you should also learn more about the conditions in India under colonialism, if you think the British deserve such extreme benefit of the doubt.
Who is defending Britain’s colonialism? I’m pushing back at some pretty extreme historical recharacterizations.
This is all some pretty ridiculous Captain Hindsight retconning. There have been tons of agricultural blunders in humanities history. Depletion of soils, monocultures extremely susceptible to disaster, etc.
We learn and adapt. That’s humanity.
Resource mismanagement is certainly a factor, and colonies were obviously rife with it. And just as obviously, the conquerors historically didn’t exactly care much about the damage they did.
In nature, species boom when there’s abundance, and rubber band back hard when scarcity hits directly after a big boom.
At a glance, India’s population was almost 10% of the world population during WW2.
Literally laying all the blame at the feet of British mismanagement is a pretty extreme take.
So now we’ve veered into full-blown Malthusianism. You can’t treat human populations the way you treat animal populations. More humans means more people working and growing food, whereas animals simply graze or hunt on preexisting resources. Malthusian claims have been thoroughly debunked repeatedly throughout history, and have never been backed by any sort of evidence whatsoever.
Again, if you choose to reject history and evidence in favor of knee jerk defending colonialism and using long discredited theories, then I don’t really see what I can do here. You are simply wrong and in contradiction of scholarly work on the subject.
Rofl. That’s rich coming from someone making wild claims, whose only citation was one sentence from a Churchill hit piece that contained zero justification for their assertion that Churchill was somehow responsible for India’s famines. You then deflect with “read this persons work you ignorant simpleton” without any relevant citations.
Sure buddy. You can keep raging against this machine of yours, I’ve wasted enough of my Friday trying to reason with a dramatic husky.
This article provides some quotes that certainly seem to indicate that malice played a role, or at best callous indifference.
Expanding colonialism is always malice
FWIW I didn’t down vote you, but I don’t think all malice is equal. Driving with a heart condition or narcolepsy and killing someone isn’t the same as driving through a crowd to get revenge.
Do you have a source on Churchill’s death tool in comparison to Hitler’s?
Churchill was undeniably horrible and the naked colonialism of the British Empire had normalized atrocities occurring on a daily basis. But even so, I’m skeptical that his numbers would “put Hitler to shame,” considering the scale of the wars and genocide Hitler caused.