4 ms·
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 gover
by mr_luc 11y 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 11y agoIt'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 11y agoAnd 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 11y 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 11y agoOh yeah, and killing every second male in Ireland by Lord-Protector Cromwell is also grossly exaggerated.