4 ms·

Europe has not given itself a free pass when it comes to colonialism. For example, at the moment they're hiding a bell in Cambridge University lest it turns ou

by Doubl 7y ago

Europe has not given itself a free pass when it comes to colonialism. For example, at the moment they're hiding a bell in Cambridge University lest it turns out to have formerly been used on a slave plantation. There was no government organised genocide in British colonial history that I know of, not even in Ireland in the 17th century where arguably the worst atrocities were carried out. Saying Britain killed millions in India in WW2 is complete hyperbole.

dghf 7y ago
> Saying Britain killed millions in India in WW2 is complete hyperbole. Between two and three million people died in the Bengal Famine of 1943. The extent to which the British regime was responsible is still debated, but it would seem that the Churchill government refused to supply food aid (or at least only supplied a fraction of that requested) and refused the local administration permission to import food themselves.
- quetzthecoatl 7y ago
  two to three million is conservative estimates - from the famines in bengal, in world war 2 alone. There were other famines in India during WW2. There were other famines in India during british raj. There were other famines in other colonies.
- Doubl 7y ago
  The person I was responding to said words to the effect that they killed millions of people in India in order to win the war. That simply isn't true. An inadequate attempt to provide relief is not the same thing as actively killing people.
  - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
    The person you were responding to is me, and yes, it is true that millions of indians were killed to fund war. The famine was directly caused by Briton redirecting the harvested grains and other resources from India for war efforts and scorched earth policies to counter the imminent Japanese invasion from the east (Japanese occupied Burma). Time and again it's whitewashed by blaming the poor people that died from whom the grains were forcefully collected, climate (disputed by everyone except the british and not supported by soil analysis or climate models), and the Japanese.
    - Doubl 7y ago
      You are very certain about something about which they're is no consensus amongst even Indian commentators. Some refer to policy failures. No one apart from you is call it a deliberate killing of millions. I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so vehement about it.
      - srean 7y ago
        Define 'consensus'. In anycase I dont see that a fruitful line of argument. I can easily dismiss smoking causes cancer by adopting such a line.
        Doubl 7y ago
        Consensus as in agreement and no, you cannot easily dismiss smoking causing cancer in that way. There is a scientific basis for the latter. For the former, some commentators are attributing the famine to a malicious intent whereas others attribute it to a policy failure. British policy at that time in that place was focused on preventing a Japanese invasion of India. If that policy had failed and Bengal had been invaded, the fate of the people there would very likely have been worse. Britain was in a tight spot at that time, doubtless things could have been handled better but there were a lot of mitigating factors. Referring to it as a deliberate killing millions of people to win the war is just plain wrong
        srean 7y ago
        > Consensus as in agreement That's ill defined if you get to pick and choose whom you consider in the pool to establish "they're is no consensus amongst even Indian commentators". This seems more opinion than fact. Even for the issue of smoking causes cancer I can easily constitute a pool who will contest that there isn't a convincing body of evidence that categorically shows that smoking causes cancer (not that I agree with a view). The Britain and its sphere of influence has a skin in the game to deny that intentional harm was done. > Referring to it as a deliberate killing millions of people to win the war is just plain wrong Its not by magic that food disappeared from Bengal and ended up were the British wanted it. It was not a case of accidental misplacement of car keys. That qualifies for 'deliberate". They also weren't unaware of the famine related deaths, that came up in the British parliament multiple times. I am not sure which part of "deliberate killing millions" you are contesting. That is opinion. Churchill's benchmark was if Gandhi was still alive it couldn't possibly a famine. That speaks for the general British position then.
  - dghf 7y ago
    > An inadequate attempt to provide relief is not the same thing as actively killing people. You can kill by neglect. I don't think you can simply dismiss the accusation as "complete hyperbole".
    - Doubl 7y ago
      You can but neglect of duty can doubtless happen when you are overwhelmed with just trying to survive yourself fending off an invasion from the adjacent territory.

by Doubl 7y ago

dghf 7y ago

> Saying Britain killed millions in India in WW2 is complete hyperbole. Between two and three million people died in the Bengal Famine of 1943. The extent to which the British regime was responsible is still debated, but it would seem that the Churchill government refused to supply food aid (or at least only supplied a fraction of that requested) and refused the local administration permission to import food themselves.

quetzthecoatl 7y ago
two to three million is conservative estimates - from the famines in bengal, in world war 2 alone. There were other famines in India during WW2. There were other famines in India during british raj. There were other famines in other colonies.
Doubl 7y ago
The person I was responding to said words to the effect that they killed millions of people in India in order to win the war. That simply isn't true. An inadequate attempt to provide relief is not the same thing as actively killing people.
- quetzthecoatl 7y ago
  The person you were responding to is me, and yes, it is true that millions of indians were killed to fund war. The famine was directly caused by Briton redirecting the harvested grains and other resources from India for war efforts and scorched earth policies to counter the imminent Japanese invasion from the east (Japanese occupied Burma). Time and again it's whitewashed by blaming the poor people that died from whom the grains were forcefully collected, climate (disputed by everyone except the british and not supported by soil analysis or climate models), and the Japanese.
  - Doubl 7y ago
    You are very certain about something about which they're is no consensus amongst even Indian commentators. Some refer to policy failures. No one apart from you is call it a deliberate killing of millions. I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so vehement about it.
    - srean 7y ago
      Define 'consensus'. In anycase I dont see that a fruitful line of argument. I can easily dismiss smoking causes cancer by adopting such a line.
      - Doubl 7y ago
        Consensus as in agreement and no, you cannot easily dismiss smoking causing cancer in that way. There is a scientific basis for the latter. For the former, some commentators are attributing the famine to a malicious intent whereas others attribute it to a policy failure. British policy at that time in that place was focused on preventing a Japanese invasion of India. If that policy had failed and Bengal had been invaded, the fate of the people there would very likely have been worse. Britain was in a tight spot at that time, doubtless things could have been handled better but there were a lot of mitigating factors. Referring to it as a deliberate killing millions of people to win the war is just plain wrong
        srean 7y ago
        > Consensus as in agreement That's ill defined if you get to pick and choose whom you consider in the pool to establish "they're is no consensus amongst even Indian commentators". This seems more opinion than fact. Even for the issue of smoking causes cancer I can easily constitute a pool who will contest that there isn't a convincing body of evidence that categorically shows that smoking causes cancer (not that I agree with a view). The Britain and its sphere of influence has a skin in the game to deny that intentional harm was done. > Referring to it as a deliberate killing millions of people to win the war is just plain wrong Its not by magic that food disappeared from Bengal and ended up were the British wanted it. It was not a case of accidental misplacement of car keys. That qualifies for 'deliberate". They also weren't unaware of the famine related deaths, that came up in the British parliament multiple times. I am not sure which part of "deliberate killing millions" you are contesting. That is opinion. Churchill's benchmark was if Gandhi was still alive it couldn't possibly a famine. That speaks for the general British position then.
- dghf 7y ago
  > An inadequate attempt to provide relief is not the same thing as actively killing people. You can kill by neglect. I don't think you can simply dismiss the accusation as "complete hyperbole".
  - Doubl 7y ago
    You can but neglect of duty can doubtless happen when you are overwhelmed with just trying to survive yourself fending off an invasion from the adjacent territory.