4 ms·

So was Sir Winston Churchill, by whose policy 10 mln Bengali people died from starvation. I see no difference between one greedy self-important politician and a

So was Sir Winston Churchill, by whose policy 10 mln Bengali people died from starvation. I see no difference between one greedy self-important politician and another. Its a pity we are defenseless in front of them.

Aloha 12y ago
There is good information that the true scope of the famine didn't really reach London until after the 1943 harvest came in, and by then the famine was easing.
mc32 12y ago
There is a difference when one is intentional and the other is due to unreliable information. Yes, the results are the same (starvation), but it matters how it happened. It's also interesting that in soviet Russia it was the urban disaffected population who supported the revolution, while the farmers and peasants did not. Lenin at first tried to get them to cooperate (volunteer) in the collectivization programme, but farmers wanted none of that, they preferred selling their grain and produce on the market to urbanites. Finally, desperate, Lenin gave orders, contradicting his advisors who told him it would result in poor production and starvation, went ahead and forced collectivization. This resulted in famine, as farmers forced to hand over their production, didn't have an incentive to produce.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
mr_luc 12y ago
It seems as though this was a murky situation that administrators/provincial governments did not understand was happening at the time (much less a central government back in London!) Which would make it very different from the other famines being mentioned here. (Also, according to Wikipedia the figures you cite seem to be a multiple of current estimates).
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  It's not like the British Empire didn't have any experience of dealing with famine in the colonies, though. In the previous century a quarter of the Irish population died in a famine and another quarter or so fled to the US. It's not that I have anything against Churchill, but it's easy to come up with excuses for politicians or historical figures one would like to support while assuming both omniscience and ill-will of the others.
  - SixSigma 12y ago
    And 25m Indians in the late 19th C. The British had turned most Indian arable land over to cotton. The British food producing arable land had been turned over to wool. The market for Indian cotton collapsed when the superior American production recovered from the Civil War. The El Nino drought wiped out the remaining food production and what grain was produced was being exported back to the UK. They guarded from starving Indians with soldiers. The same weather system flooded China, flood defenses had been neglected while the Chinese were fighting off European colonists. Another 25m starved.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  "Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet. " http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992...
- ommunist 12y ago
  Oh yeah, and killing every second male in Ireland by Lord-Protector Cromwell is also grossly exaggerated.

Aloha 12y ago

There is good information that the true scope of the famine didn't really reach London until after the 1943 harvest came in, and by then the famine was easing.

mc32 12y ago

There is a difference when one is intentional and the other is due to unreliable information. Yes, the results are the same (starvation), but it matters how it happened. It's also interesting that in soviet Russia it was the urban disaffected population who supported the revolution, while the farmers and peasants did not. Lenin at first tried to get them to cooperate (volunteer) in the collectivization programme, but farmers wanted none of that, they preferred selling their grain and produce on the market to urbanites. Finally, desperate, Lenin gave orders, contradicting his advisors who told him it would result in poor production and starvation, went ahead and forced collectivization. This resulted in famine, as farmers forced to hand over their production, didn't have an incentive to produce.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

mr_luc 12y ago

It seems as though this was a murky situation that administrators/provincial governments did not understand was happening at the time (much less a central government back in London!) Which would make it very different from the other famines being mentioned here. (Also, according to Wikipedia the figures you cite seem to be a multiple of current estimates).

anigbrowl 12y ago
It's not like the British Empire didn't have any experience of dealing with famine in the colonies, though. In the previous century a quarter of the Irish population died in a famine and another quarter or so fled to the US. It's not that I have anything against Churchill, but it's easy to come up with excuses for politicians or historical figures one would like to support while assuming both omniscience and ill-will of the others.
- SixSigma 12y ago
  And 25m Indians in the late 19th C. The British had turned most Indian arable land over to cotton. The British food producing arable land had been turned over to wool. The market for Indian cotton collapsed when the superior American production recovered from the Civil War. The El Nino drought wiped out the remaining food production and what grain was produced was being exported back to the UK. They guarded from starving Indians with soldiers. The same weather system flooded China, flood defenses had been neglected while the Chinese were fighting off European colonists. Another 25m starved.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
"Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet. " http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992...
ommunist 12y ago
Oh yeah, and killing every second male in Ireland by Lord-Protector Cromwell is also grossly exaggerated.