4 ms·

In the interests of providing a little balance: - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022064745.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/

by Veen 6y ago

In the interests of providing a little balance: - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022064745.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022064745.h... - https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-the-bengal-famine/ https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-t... - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.1987.11459604?journalCode=rbul20 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.1987.11...

n4r9 6y ago
In case anyone else wants a summary of these links, they are criticisms of three historical allegations against Churchill, respectively that he: - Used gas against Iraqis - Exacerbated the Bengal famine - Used anthrax bombs against Nazi Germany I don't believe any of these allegations are made in the preceding comment's link, although it does quote him as being in favour of the option of using gas against Arab natives.
- vixen99 6y ago
  Or if you really want to open up a can of worms - the firebombing of Dresden in which (it's suggested) 25,000 people, mostly civilians, died as a result of an attempt to intimidate/frighten the German population. But to take an overview, we should then return to the question of Hiroshima and that second bomb on Nagasaki. How far is one prepared to go to win a war?
  - robin21 6y ago
    It’s always amazing to think in the complete chaos of war there were still rules to follow. Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. Not using hollow point rounds. Banning gas. Etc. The problem is that in most wars there always seems to be a force of good and a force of evil who is not willing to follow the rules. The Germans, Japanese, Italians, Russians of that time were led by truly evil regimes. Or maybe this is just our collective 20th century bias. How did Europe see Napoleon for example? How did countries see the actions of other nations during the previous decades? Back to the point though, it did seem like Britain saw themselves on the side of the light and fought within the rules as much as possible. To fight an evil without becoming evil yourself is quite a challenge for humanity in general.
    - mrec 6y ago
      > Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. This did happen, at least early on, in the Battle of the Atlantic. And some U-boat crews not only stopped to pick up survivors but gave up their own bunks for them. Eventually Dönitz had to order them to stop, on the grounds that it put the sub at risk. You might also be interested in the Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler incident [1] - sometimes a spark of human decency shines through even when you'd least expect it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigler_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigle...
      - derivagral 6y ago
        As I understand it, this generally stopped because of the Laconia incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident
        mrec 6y ago
        That was '42; the (in)famous Dönitz order below was from November or December '39. > Rescue no one and take no one with you. Have no care for the ships’ boats. Weather conditions and the proximity of land are of no account. Care only for your own boat and strive to achieve the next success as soon as possible! We must be hard in this war. The enemy started the war in order to destroy us, therefore nothing else matters. I'm not sure what happened in between that led the U-boats in the Laconia incident to ignore that order.
        n4r9 6y ago
        Dönitz gave two orders: "War Order No.154" which you quote, then the "Laconia Order" following that incident, which doubles down on the message. > All efforts to save survivors of sunken ships, such as the fishing out of swimming men and putting them on board lifeboats, the righting of overturned lifeboats, or the handing over of food and water, must stop. I assume that between these two events the Prize Rules were followed to greater or lesser degree according to the Captain's inclinations (on both sides)
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  > - Used gas against Iraqis Proposed the use of tear gas. Didn't carry it out. > - Exacerbated the Bengal famine Its more the japanese cutting off the rice supply, However I have some sympathy with exacerbate. > - Used anthrax bombs against Nazi Germany No. Planned to use it in retaliation. The Nazis were keen to avoid using chemical weapons because they were aware that the british had a far greater capacity to create and deploy them compared to the Nazis. (well in 1939-42) There are very real faults we can lay at churchill's career. 1) the bombing campaign. lots of "dehoming" (ie attacking civilians instead of industrial targets) 2) dresden 3) hamburg 4) fucking up Galipoli
  - srean 6y ago
    Given that Bengal was a traditional grain overproduction / surplus state, it seems odd that reserves needed replenishing from Japan unless it had been stripped in the first place
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    >Its more the japanese cutting off the rice supply, However I have some sympathy with exacerbate. Punjab banned export of grain outside its boundaries. The viceroy who answered to Churchill could have overridden that.

by Veen 6y ago

n4r9 6y ago

In case anyone else wants a summary of these links, they are criticisms of three historical allegations against Churchill, respectively that he: - Used gas against Iraqis - Exacerbated the Bengal famine - Used anthrax bombs against Nazi Germany I don't believe any of these allegations are made in the preceding comment's link, although it does quote him as being in favour of the option of using gas against Arab natives.

vixen99 6y ago
Or if you really want to open up a can of worms - the firebombing of Dresden in which (it's suggested) 25,000 people, mostly civilians, died as a result of an attempt to intimidate/frighten the German population. But to take an overview, we should then return to the question of Hiroshima and that second bomb on Nagasaki. How far is one prepared to go to win a war?
- robin21 6y ago
  It’s always amazing to think in the complete chaos of war there were still rules to follow. Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. Not using hollow point rounds. Banning gas. Etc. The problem is that in most wars there always seems to be a force of good and a force of evil who is not willing to follow the rules. The Germans, Japanese, Italians, Russians of that time were led by truly evil regimes. Or maybe this is just our collective 20th century bias. How did Europe see Napoleon for example? How did countries see the actions of other nations during the previous decades? Back to the point though, it did seem like Britain saw themselves on the side of the light and fought within the rules as much as possible. To fight an evil without becoming evil yourself is quite a challenge for humanity in general.
  - mrec 6y ago
    > Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. This did happen, at least early on, in the Battle of the Atlantic. And some U-boat crews not only stopped to pick up survivors but gave up their own bunks for them. Eventually Dönitz had to order them to stop, on the grounds that it put the sub at risk. You might also be interested in the Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler incident [1] - sometimes a spark of human decency shines through even when you'd least expect it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigler_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigle...
    - derivagral 6y ago
      As I understand it, this generally stopped because of the Laconia incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident
      - mrec 6y ago
        That was '42; the (in)famous Dönitz order below was from November or December '39. > Rescue no one and take no one with you. Have no care for the ships’ boats. Weather conditions and the proximity of land are of no account. Care only for your own boat and strive to achieve the next success as soon as possible! We must be hard in this war. The enemy started the war in order to destroy us, therefore nothing else matters. I'm not sure what happened in between that led the U-boats in the Laconia incident to ignore that order.
        n4r9 6y ago
        Dönitz gave two orders: "War Order No.154" which you quote, then the "Laconia Order" following that incident, which doubles down on the message. > All efforts to save survivors of sunken ships, such as the fishing out of swimming men and putting them on board lifeboats, the righting of overturned lifeboats, or the handing over of food and water, must stop. I assume that between these two events the Prize Rules were followed to greater or lesser degree according to the Captain's inclinations (on both sides)
KaiserPro 6y ago
> - Used gas against Iraqis Proposed the use of tear gas. Didn't carry it out. > - Exacerbated the Bengal famine Its more the japanese cutting off the rice supply, However I have some sympathy with exacerbate. > - Used anthrax bombs against Nazi Germany No. Planned to use it in retaliation. The Nazis were keen to avoid using chemical weapons because they were aware that the british had a far greater capacity to create and deploy them compared to the Nazis. (well in 1939-42) There are very real faults we can lay at churchill's career. 1) the bombing campaign. lots of "dehoming" (ie attacking civilians instead of industrial targets) 2) dresden 3) hamburg 4) fucking up Galipoli
- srean 6y ago
  Given that Bengal was a traditional grain overproduction / surplus state, it seems odd that reserves needed replenishing from Japan unless it had been stripped in the first place
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  >Its more the japanese cutting off the rice supply, However I have some sympathy with exacerbate. Punjab banned export of grain outside its boundaries. The viceroy who answered to Churchill could have overridden that.