5 ms·

Churchill's policies to blame for millions of Indian famine deaths, study says

7 points by dsr12 7y ago

fargle 7y ago
AND, in related news, "Churchill's policies saved millions of Allied lives, helped defeat the Nazis, and preserved democracy..."
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Churchill provided airports for American aircraft (which had remarkably little effect), and decryption of German communications. But it was the Soviets (mostly not Russians, BTW) who actually defeated the Nazis. Litterally all of the big battles were on the Eastern front; the ones we hear about ("Bulge") were sideshows. The Allies spent most of the war in Africa and Italy. The Soviets did not defeat the Nazis to preserve democracy. Except that they could have rolled over all of Europe, but chose not to. I doubt anybody alive knows why.
  - fargle 7y ago
    Well, just involving the Americans, walking a tightrope of diplomacy, not losing the battle of Britain, and basically surviving was quite a trick and kept it a two front war. Otherwise the Russians quite likely would not have survived, at least in eastern Europe. > Except that they could have rolled over all of Europe, but chose not to. I doubt anybody alive knows why Because obviously the allies were there holding the ground. I'm not saying it was single-handedly, but without Churchill and a very few other good leaders, there would have been a very different outcome. I am saying that there were quite a few other things going on at the time, the causes that led to this famine have very little to do with Churchill.
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      The actual events had a very great deal to do with specific choices Churchill made and enforced, such as refusing thousands of tons of food aid offered by other countries. Crop failures cannot usually be blamed on a single official, but famines usually can. Stalin and Mao are likewise personally at fault, but for both. Stalin could easily have rolled over most of Europe while the Allies were still mired in Holland and south/west France, and probably beat them back, too. But he chose not to. From 1939 to '44, the western front was barely a distraction to Hitler. The Battle of Britain consumed some aircraft production capacity, and not much else, but that and tank production increased every year right up until 1945. By the time the Allies actually landed in Europe, Germany had been pushed out of Russian-claimed territory, and there was no doubt about its future.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > Stalin could easily have rolled over most of Europe while the Allies were still mired in Holland and south/west France, and probably beat them back, too. But he chose not to. When were the Allies mired in Holland and south/west France? I'd say that phase ended by October 1944. In October 1944, Russia was taking the Baltic States, and still trying to get into East Prussia. Russia had exactly zero ability to "roll over most of Europe" at that point - they still had the problem of rolling over Germany, and it was going to be another seven months before they even made it to Berlin. Those were not seven months of Stalin letting his troops take their ease. > By the time the Allies actually landed in Europe, Germany had been pushed out of Russian-claimed territory Well, if you mean USSR-claimed territory, the Germans weren't thrown out of (all of) the Belorussian SSR until July 1944. D-Day was June 1944.
        ncmncm 7y ago
        Exactly: the war was almost over by D-Day. And Russia could have swept over Germany, but instead stopped and waited for the Allies to catch up. The Warsaw Uprising was crushed while Soviet troops stood back and watched.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Exactly? No, not exactly. I am not agreeing with you, no matter how much you claim I am. The war was almost over by D-Day? Boloney. D-Day was before Operation Bagration! Yes, Russia had the initiative on the Eastern Front. No, they did not keep the initiative by slowing their operational tempo. Russia stopped and waited for the Allies to catch up? Double boloney. That would have required Stalin to trust the Allies to keep their word on the partition of Germany. I see exactly zero evidence that he had any such trust. Instead, it was the western Allies that stopped at the Elbe, and waited for Russia to take Berlin and everything east of the partition line. The Warsaw Uprising I will give you. What cold-blooded inhumanity.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Except that they could have rolled over all of Europe, but chose not to. Because they, as you note, fought all the big battles of the European war, and mostly on their territory. That had a cost, as did trying to integrate what they'd conquered in Eastern Europe.
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      Russia was stronger then than they had started -- warplane and tank production were soaring, and the practice of enslaving everyone in occupied areas and sending them as cannon fodder kept their own battle losses down. It is said that as much as 10% of "their" losses were slower conscripts gunned down from behind to keep the rest moving. Of course we will never know the full picture.
shrewduser 7y ago
Not sure why Churchill shoulders all the blame and not say imperial Japan who seem to have been the actual culprits...
Isamu 7y ago
Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, established this result long ago. Specially in the case of the great Bengal famine but also modern famines generally are not due to a lack of food in the world but are a result of government mismanagement or war. [edit] I believe the book is Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.

7 points by dsr12 7y ago

AND, in related news, "Churchill's policies saved millions of Allied lives, helped defeat the Nazis, and preserved democracy..."

ncmncm 7y ago
Churchill provided airports for American aircraft (which had remarkably little effect), and decryption of German communications. But it was the Soviets (mostly not Russians, BTW) who actually defeated the Nazis. Litterally all of the big battles were on the Eastern front; the ones we hear about ("Bulge") were sideshows. The Allies spent most of the war in Africa and Italy. The Soviets did not defeat the Nazis to preserve democracy. Except that they could have rolled over all of Europe, but chose not to. I doubt anybody alive knows why.
- fargle 7y ago
  Well, just involving the Americans, walking a tightrope of diplomacy, not losing the battle of Britain, and basically surviving was quite a trick and kept it a two front war. Otherwise the Russians quite likely would not have survived, at least in eastern Europe. > Except that they could have rolled over all of Europe, but chose not to. I doubt anybody alive knows why Because obviously the allies were there holding the ground. I'm not saying it was single-handedly, but without Churchill and a very few other good leaders, there would have been a very different outcome. I am saying that there were quite a few other things going on at the time, the causes that led to this famine have very little to do with Churchill.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    The actual events had a very great deal to do with specific choices Churchill made and enforced, such as refusing thousands of tons of food aid offered by other countries. Crop failures cannot usually be blamed on a single official, but famines usually can. Stalin and Mao are likewise personally at fault, but for both. Stalin could easily have rolled over most of Europe while the Allies were still mired in Holland and south/west France, and probably beat them back, too. But he chose not to. From 1939 to '44, the western front was barely a distraction to Hitler. The Battle of Britain consumed some aircraft production capacity, and not much else, but that and tank production increased every year right up until 1945. By the time the Allies actually landed in Europe, Germany had been pushed out of Russian-claimed territory, and there was no doubt about its future.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      > Stalin could easily have rolled over most of Europe while the Allies were still mired in Holland and south/west France, and probably beat them back, too. But he chose not to. When were the Allies mired in Holland and south/west France? I'd say that phase ended by October 1944. In October 1944, Russia was taking the Baltic States, and still trying to get into East Prussia. Russia had exactly zero ability to "roll over most of Europe" at that point - they still had the problem of rolling over Germany, and it was going to be another seven months before they even made it to Berlin. Those were not seven months of Stalin letting his troops take their ease. > By the time the Allies actually landed in Europe, Germany had been pushed out of Russian-claimed territory Well, if you mean USSR-claimed territory, the Germans weren't thrown out of (all of) the Belorussian SSR until July 1944. D-Day was June 1944.
      - ncmncm 7y ago
        Exactly: the war was almost over by D-Day. And Russia could have swept over Germany, but instead stopped and waited for the Allies to catch up. The Warsaw Uprising was crushed while Soviet troops stood back and watched.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Exactly? No, not exactly. I am not agreeing with you, no matter how much you claim I am. The war was almost over by D-Day? Boloney. D-Day was before Operation Bagration! Yes, Russia had the initiative on the Eastern Front. No, they did not keep the initiative by slowing their operational tempo. Russia stopped and waited for the Allies to catch up? Double boloney. That would have required Stalin to trust the Allies to keep their word on the partition of Germany. I see exactly zero evidence that he had any such trust. Instead, it was the western Allies that stopped at the Elbe, and waited for Russia to take Berlin and everything east of the partition line. The Warsaw Uprising I will give you. What cold-blooded inhumanity.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Except that they could have rolled over all of Europe, but chose not to. Because they, as you note, fought all the big battles of the European war, and mostly on their territory. That had a cost, as did trying to integrate what they'd conquered in Eastern Europe.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    Russia was stronger then than they had started -- warplane and tank production were soaring, and the practice of enslaving everyone in occupied areas and sending them as cannon fodder kept their own battle losses down. It is said that as much as 10% of "their" losses were slower conscripts gunned down from behind to keep the rest moving. Of course we will never know the full picture.

shrewduser 7y ago

Not sure why Churchill shoulders all the blame and not say imperial Japan who seem to have been the actual culprits...

Isamu 7y ago

Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, established this result long ago. Specially in the case of the great Bengal famine but also modern famines generally are not due to a lack of food in the world but are a result of government mismanagement or war. [edit] I believe the book is Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.