6 ms·

Citation needed. The British certainly viewed Indians as expendable, and many decisions during (say) the Bengal Famine made squarely favored military wartime s

Citation needed. The British certainly viewed Indians as expendable, and many decisions during (say) the Bengal Famine made squarely favored military wartime supply at the expense of the local population, but I don't think anybody has seriously proposed that the British intentionally created the famine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Historiography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Historio...

bsanr2 7y ago
Genocide by convenient happenstance, as a side-effect of deliberate action, is still genocide.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  The first modern genocide (if you don't count the Congolese, which most don't but should) was a death march. The Turks didn't try to eliminate the Armenians by shooting or poisoning or slashing them; they simply made them walk, en masse and in horrible conditions, until they died. If you've supplanted an ethnic group's government and redirected resources such that people start dying in horrifically large numbers, that is also a case in which you're committing genocide. Even if you're the Brits.
wavefunction 7y ago
First, I would say that the British should not receive the benefit of the doubt as to their behavior during the Bengal famine, given their intransigence to release grain during the Irish potato famine (and that so many Irish were forced to rely on potatoes leaving them vulnerable was another effect of British rule.) Here's some scientific evidence that the Bengal famine of 1943 was not linked to soil moisture levels, like the previous five: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-blamed-1943-bengal-famine-study-190401155922122.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-bl... Again, the long history of callousness of the British empire towards its colonies should lead one to be skeptical of the official intent at the time.
macewindu 7y ago
> Citation needed. > I don't think anybody has seriously proposed that the British intentionally created the famine. It has been. Mass intentional famine for the purpose of genocide. Even published by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/1... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-blamed-1943-bengal-famine-study-190401155922122.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-bl... I'm surprised that people are unwilling to see the facts of the case. For example, take this quotation: "I believe in the ultimate partition of China—I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph." or another one like: "I am not greatly concerned about Russian development in China. I would rather have them develop in that way down south into India. Russia has a justifiable ambition to possess a warm water port. It is really embarrassing to think that 100,000,000 people are without one." . If you were to imply that the quotes were from Hitler, then everyone is happy to say yes, that's evidence of a desire and planning for genocide. But when they realize those quotes are directly from Churchill, all of sudden, there's so much waxing and waning and trying to protect his "legacy". The reality is those are the facts. Those are his quotes. Those are his clearly stated intentions. And the subsequent historical events of the famines are not mere accidents. Again, no one is alleging that "all the British intentionally created the famine", but to try to claim it was all an accident of nature and there was no desire for genocide at many levels of the British bureaucrats led by Churchill is patently a whitewash.
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  Citation of a blog not even mentioning what you describe doesn't count as a fact. War is harsh, colonization was a crime against humanity IMHO, but the ain't no proof about planned genocide of Indian population. Rather the locals were 'deprioritized' when supplies were considered during war, with horrible consequences.
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    Did you not read the linked articles? "The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, provided scientific backing for arguments that Churchill's policies played a significant role in contributing to the 1943 catastrophe."

bsanr2 7y ago

Genocide by convenient happenstance, as a side-effect of deliberate action, is still genocide.

bsanr2 7y ago
The first modern genocide (if you don't count the Congolese, which most don't but should) was a death march. The Turks didn't try to eliminate the Armenians by shooting or poisoning or slashing them; they simply made them walk, en masse and in horrible conditions, until they died. If you've supplanted an ethnic group's government and redirected resources such that people start dying in horrifically large numbers, that is also a case in which you're committing genocide. Even if you're the Brits.

wavefunction 7y ago

First, I would say that the British should not receive the benefit of the doubt as to their behavior during the Bengal famine, given their intransigence to release grain during the Irish potato famine (and that so many Irish were forced to rely on potatoes leaving them vulnerable was another effect of British rule.) Here's some scientific evidence that the Bengal famine of 1943 was not linked to soil moisture levels, like the previous five: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-blamed-1943-bengal-famine-study-190401155922122.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-bl... Again, the long history of callousness of the British empire towards its colonies should lead one to be skeptical of the official intent at the time.

macewindu 7y ago

> Citation needed. > I don't think anybody has seriously proposed that the British intentionally created the famine. It has been. Mass intentional famine for the purpose of genocide. Even published by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/1... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-blamed-1943-bengal-famine-study-190401155922122.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-bl... I'm surprised that people are unwilling to see the facts of the case. For example, take this quotation: "I believe in the ultimate partition of China—I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph." or another one like: "I am not greatly concerned about Russian development in China. I would rather have them develop in that way down south into India. Russia has a justifiable ambition to possess a warm water port. It is really embarrassing to think that 100,000,000 people are without one." . If you were to imply that the quotes were from Hitler, then everyone is happy to say yes, that's evidence of a desire and planning for genocide. But when they realize those quotes are directly from Churchill, all of sudden, there's so much waxing and waning and trying to protect his "legacy". The reality is those are the facts. Those are his quotes. Those are his clearly stated intentions. And the subsequent historical events of the famines are not mere accidents. Again, no one is alleging that "all the British intentionally created the famine", but to try to claim it was all an accident of nature and there was no desire for genocide at many levels of the British bureaucrats led by Churchill is patently a whitewash.

saiya-jin 7y ago
Citation of a blog not even mentioning what you describe doesn't count as a fact. War is harsh, colonization was a crime against humanity IMHO, but the ain't no proof about planned genocide of Indian population. Rather the locals were 'deprioritized' when supplies were considered during war, with horrible consequences.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  Did you not read the linked articles? "The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, provided scientific backing for arguments that Churchill's policies played a significant role in contributing to the 1943 catastrophe."