5 ms·
1943 - the British were in engaged in a multifront war against Germany, Italy, and Japan with their very survival in doubt. Then, Japan cut off a major food su
by tomohawk 8y ago
1943 - the British were in engaged in a multifront war against Germany, Italy, and Japan with their very survival in doubt. Then, Japan cut off a major food supply to Bengal. Blaming this all on Churchill is a bit much.
- ironic_ali 8y agoHave you a source for Japan cutting off it's supply of food, I'd not read about that before.
- tomohawk 8y agoWikipedia talks about it a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 Japan occupied Burma, cutting off supplies. Japan was also sinking British shipping - the whole empire was in extremis. It seems likely that this whole sad episode would have turned out quite differently without the war going on.
- scythe 8y agoSee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Pre-famine_shocks_and_distress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Pre-famin...
- dredmorbius 8y agoMore here as well: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-bengal-famine-of-1943-195073 https://www.thoughtco.com/the-bengal-famine-of-1943-195073
- gammateam 8y agoBacking Poland was a choice in the 1930s. Just like not backing the Ukraine was a choice in the 2010s. There were applicable treaties. It was a choice, and now all your friends are dead.
- reitanqild 8y ago> Backing Poland was a choice in the 1930s. Not backing Poland has to be blamed on the guy before Churchill though?
- gammateam 8y agoFine, Chamberlain. The Dunkirk fiasco and movie should be renamed "So maybe don't back Poland next time" Although the WWII's successes are taught as such, there just isn't a history of nobility to support what happened.
- Sag0Sag0 8y agoCorrect me if i'm wrong but wasn't there more then enough food, he just wanted to send it over to England?
- zaphirplane 8y agoYeah that kind of thing never happens now, just ask puerto rico, Haiti, ethiopia, Rowenda
- chrisco255 8y agoYeah, Churchill may have been controversial at times, but he was absolutely the best possible person to lead Britain at that moment at that time. It just boggles my mind that people try to flatten people of history and cast them in a very specific shadow, out of context of the world, events, and viewpoints of the moment.
- _cerv 8y agoIt seems to be a trendy Twitter thing to shit on the legacy of Churchill after Scott Kelly’s tweet quoting him. Churchill was probably just as bad or even worse than Hitler and to put even the faintest of a positive light on any of his achievements and fruits of his leadership at the time just shows how racist you are. I’m being hyperbolic, but I’m also fucking frustrated that we tear down figures of history whith honrible qualities into the ruins of racists and despots. Would the world have been a better place without Churchill?
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y agoWhen Stalin starved millions of people we invented a completely new word for it, when Churchill does it it's barely 'controversial'.
- chrisco255 8y agoChurchill didn't invent famines for crying out loud. It wasn't an evil plot on his part. The year was 1943...the entire world was at war...maybe you heard about it. The Japanese cut off supplies. Lots of people were being murdered, Britain might not have even survived but for Churchill. War is fucking hell. You have to make trade-offs and decisions that lead to real deaths and the consequences are felt for centuries after. Boy you name one leader of any war torn nation that has never made zero mistakes.