4 ms·

Your comment excludes all mention of Churchill's active role in causing the famine. One would be tempted to conclude that your comment has an agenda of its own,

by whack 3y ago

Your comment excludes all mention of Churchill's active role in causing the famine. One would be tempted to conclude that your comment has an agenda of its own, but I'll assume in good faith that is not the case. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-church... > The Bengal famine of 1943 was the only one in modern Indian history not to occur as a result of serious drought, according to a study that provides scientific backing for arguments that Churchill-era British policies were a significant factor contributing to the catastrophe. > Mukerjee has presented evidence the cabinet was warned repeatedly that the exhaustive use of Indian resources for the war effort could result in famine, but it opted to continue exporting rice from India to elsewhere in the empire. > Rice stocks continued to leave India even as London was denying urgent requests from India’s viceroy for more than 1m tonnes of emergency wheat supplies in 1942-43. Churchill has been quoted as blaming the famine on the fact Indians were “breeding like rabbits”, and asking how, if the shortages were so bad, Mahatma Gandhi was still alive. > Mukerjee and others also point to Britain’s “denial policy” in the region, in which huge supplies of rice and thousands of boats were confiscated from coastal areas of Bengal in order to deny resources to the Japanese army in case of a future invasion.

revelio 3y ago
These are better points than what the article makes, indeed. There's been an uptick lately of fighting over the Bengal famine. A more neutral evaluation is provided by Encyclopedia Brittanica [1]. The summary is: - Japanese invasions caused rice exports from Myanmar and Singapore to halt. - A cyclone devastated crops, forcing farmers to consume their seed corn. - The Japanese meanwhile were bombing coastal cities and using submarines to interdict shipping. Anticipating Japanese invasion, the British stockpiled food for the troops. - They also exported food for troops elsewhere. - This led to hoarding, shortages and price inflations which triggered famine. - Britain, far from not caring, distributed 110 million free meals, but the scope of the economic chaos meant it wasn't enough. The idea that Churchill actively (as in deliberately) caused the famine isn't supported by history. It's a modern invention by the same sorts of people who assert that only white Americans had slaves, and other historical re-interpretations designed to extract concessions from rich westerners. The reality is far simpler and closer to what people would expect. Churchill didn't want there to be a famine in India, nobody did. The cause was the Axis attempt to take over the world and the fight-to-the-death that this led to. Any attempt to attack Churchill or the British over what happened must, to be intellectually rigorous, reflect on the alternative. Churchill was indeed a racist but compared to Hitler, Churchill's views were nothing. If the Nazis had won the Battle of Britain not only would the British population have been enslaved in forced labor camps, thus ending any question of it aiding India, but the Empire would have come under direct Nazi control and D-Day would have been impossible. With Hitler's full attention and resources on the eastern front it's possible that the Third Reich would have survived and become stable. If that had happened then, given Hitler's views and India's absolute economic weakness in comparison to what a unified Nazi Europe would have had access to, the full scale extermination of Indian and African populations could have followed. Only a major new front by the USA would have been able to stop it. This sort of hypothetical holocaust of Africa is a minor plot point in The Man In The High Castle. So when people complain about the allocation of food in WW2, it seems like they're forgetting how badly things could have easily turned out in alternative timelines. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bengal-famine-of-1943 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bengal-famine-of-1943
- niemandhier 3y ago
  They stockpiled and exported food in face of a famine, the rest of your elaborations is conjecture. Most probably redirecting resources spared Germany 2 atomic bombs since it allowed for a defeat before they were needed, but that is also conjecture.
- ruralthinker 3y ago
  >>> "It's a modern invention by the same sorts of people who assert that only white Americans had slaves, and other historical re-interpretations designed to extract concessions from rich westerners." Are you serious? You think, Americans who believe chattel slavery in the US was one of the foremost abominations in human history is trying to extract monetary concessions from rich people? That is some seriously twisted thinking from your part. The legacy of slavery and Jim Crow is unparalleled, legacy of that is hurting people even to this day, trying lessen the impact of slavery in the US is offensive.
  - revelio 3y ago
    Are you aware that there are several officially sanctioned commissions in the US right now that are recommending huge "reparation" payments, funded through tax? (tax being paid mostly by the well off)
shenman 3y ago
It might not be wise to accuse people of having an "agenda", when the only source cited is a Guardian article (which is known to have a bias). The debate around culpability is vast, nuanced and cannot be settled with reductionist claims like "Churchill was the reason millions died".
- whack 3y ago
  > It might not be wise to accuse people of having an "agenda" It would be wise to read the comment more carefully before replying. I explicitly did not accuse or suggest anyone of having an agenda, unlike the person I responded to. > The debate around culpability is vast, nuanced and cannot be settled with reductionist claims like "Churchill was the reason millions died". I had stated "Churchill's active role in causing the famine" and linked to a guardian article headlined "Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine". There is plenty of supporting evidence supporting both statements in the linked article. If you disagree, I'd be happy to see your supporting evidence, as opposed to unsubstantiated accusations of reductionism.
gnufied 3y ago
Actually encyclopedia Britannica supports argument that it was war time measures that caused famine. From same article: >It was ultimately special wartime factors that caused this difficult situation to become a disastrous famine. Fearing Japanese invasion, British authorities stockpiled food to feed defending troops, and they exported considerable quantities to British forces in the Middle East. They also confiscated boats, carts, and elephants in Chittagong, where the invasion was expected.
- thunkshift1 3y ago
  I doubt if “encyclopedia Britannica” would be a reliable source in this matter..
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by whack 3y ago

revelio 3y ago

These are better points than what the article makes, indeed. There's been an uptick lately of fighting over the Bengal famine. A more neutral evaluation is provided by Encyclopedia Brittanica [1]. The summary is: - Japanese invasions caused rice exports from Myanmar and Singapore to halt. - A cyclone devastated crops, forcing farmers to consume their seed corn. - The Japanese meanwhile were bombing coastal cities and using submarines to interdict shipping. Anticipating Japanese invasion, the British stockpiled food for the troops. - They also exported food for troops elsewhere. - This led to hoarding, shortages and price inflations which triggered famine. - Britain, far from not caring, distributed 110 million free meals, but the scope of the economic chaos meant it wasn't enough. The idea that Churchill actively (as in deliberately) caused the famine isn't supported by history. It's a modern invention by the same sorts of people who assert that only white Americans had slaves, and other historical re-interpretations designed to extract concessions from rich westerners. The reality is far simpler and closer to what people would expect. Churchill didn't want there to be a famine in India, nobody did. The cause was the Axis attempt to take over the world and the fight-to-the-death that this led to. Any attempt to attack Churchill or the British over what happened must, to be intellectually rigorous, reflect on the alternative. Churchill was indeed a racist but compared to Hitler, Churchill's views were nothing. If the Nazis had won the Battle of Britain not only would the British population have been enslaved in forced labor camps, thus ending any question of it aiding India, but the Empire would have come under direct Nazi control and D-Day would have been impossible. With Hitler's full attention and resources on the eastern front it's possible that the Third Reich would have survived and become stable. If that had happened then, given Hitler's views and India's absolute economic weakness in comparison to what a unified Nazi Europe would have had access to, the full scale extermination of Indian and African populations could have followed. Only a major new front by the USA would have been able to stop it. This sort of hypothetical holocaust of Africa is a minor plot point in The Man In The High Castle. So when people complain about the allocation of food in WW2, it seems like they're forgetting how badly things could have easily turned out in alternative timelines. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bengal-famine-of-1943 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bengal-famine-of-1943

niemandhier 3y ago
They stockpiled and exported food in face of a famine, the rest of your elaborations is conjecture. Most probably redirecting resources spared Germany 2 atomic bombs since it allowed for a defeat before they were needed, but that is also conjecture.
ruralthinker 3y ago
>>> "It's a modern invention by the same sorts of people who assert that only white Americans had slaves, and other historical re-interpretations designed to extract concessions from rich westerners." Are you serious? You think, Americans who believe chattel slavery in the US was one of the foremost abominations in human history is trying to extract monetary concessions from rich people? That is some seriously twisted thinking from your part. The legacy of slavery and Jim Crow is unparalleled, legacy of that is hurting people even to this day, trying lessen the impact of slavery in the US is offensive.
- revelio 3y ago
  Are you aware that there are several officially sanctioned commissions in the US right now that are recommending huge "reparation" payments, funded through tax? (tax being paid mostly by the well off)

shenman 3y ago

It might not be wise to accuse people of having an "agenda", when the only source cited is a Guardian article (which is known to have a bias). The debate around culpability is vast, nuanced and cannot be settled with reductionist claims like "Churchill was the reason millions died".

whack 3y ago
> It might not be wise to accuse people of having an "agenda" It would be wise to read the comment more carefully before replying. I explicitly did not accuse or suggest anyone of having an agenda, unlike the person I responded to. > The debate around culpability is vast, nuanced and cannot be settled with reductionist claims like "Churchill was the reason millions died". I had stated "Churchill's active role in causing the famine" and linked to a guardian article headlined "Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine". There is plenty of supporting evidence supporting both statements in the linked article. If you disagree, I'd be happy to see your supporting evidence, as opposed to unsubstantiated accusations of reductionism.

gnufied 3y ago

Actually encyclopedia Britannica supports argument that it was war time measures that caused famine. From same article: >It was ultimately special wartime factors that caused this difficult situation to become a disastrous famine. Fearing Japanese invasion, British authorities stockpiled food to feed defending troops, and they exported considerable quantities to British forces in the Middle East. They also confiscated boats, carts, and elephants in Chittagong, where the invasion was expected.

thunkshift1 3y ago
I doubt if “encyclopedia Britannica” would be a reliable source in this matter..

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]