I'll never get sick of people getting selectively angry about imperialism. It's only been one of the defining features of human civilization since forever but now sometimes you're supposed to get mad about it.
No no no! You just don't get it! When Britain takes over countries to steal their wealth they're filthy capitalists imperialists who all deserve to die. When the Soviet Union takes over half a continent to steal their wealth they're just spreading the revolution! Same goes for the US imperialism in Cuba and China liberating Tibet!
This is why I love the term "first nations people". It's so beautifully encapsulates how certain segments of the far-left are much more interested in lip service and appearances than anything else.
It completely re-frames the entire history of their cultures in terms of European colonialism, since they were only the "first nations" in the sense that they were the first ones that white settlers saw when they got here. They were there because they came along and conquered or assimilated the people who were there before them, who had done the same to the people before them.
But none of that history is as important as signaling how woke you are.
One of my favorite leftist arguments is "You were immigrants that genocided the Indians, therefore, in the interest of fairness, you must let new immigrants genocide you."
It's "simple" and "obvious" because it's just a bunch of vague scare-words that mean nothing. Anyone can play that game: "If you persecute and oppress people for their beliefs, bad things will happen."
i know that part but its not convincing all it does is make me go WHY WOULD I WANT THAT not oh that makes sense allow me to go lay down and be genocided
my theory is the 'white genocide' kids are a bunch of incels who know no woman would ever voluntarily breed with them if she had better options on the table
do incels even play that they might consider it too alpha and get mad at the game. actually what would you play if you consider being smart having good hygiene and in general being a good human being alpha chad additude how do you even function it sounds depressing
Well no it is because the government is intentionally trying to flood Europe with people of other races so the "white race" can be eliminated and Germany will finally feel absolved of it sins that no-one else committed.
Of course. Conquered and subject people's rebelling against imperialism and being otherwise butthurt about it is also a defining feature of civilization. The only thing that's new is that everyone now has the Internet to whine, bitch or write apologetics.
yah but if people want to change a bad system and not do said bad things anymore that really doesn't make it such a terrible thing ya? Most historical figures are grey figures, very rarely have just good or bad qualities or actions
Sure, because they're humans and humans are grey figures.
But doing what they're doing over there (eg. saying such-and-such a person is bad because they were an imperialist in an era when imperialism was considered normal and good) is Whig history presentism.
True and people are often quite hyperbolic but at the same time talking about the bad shit these people have done is worthwhile to learn from. I would say it's worse when people just worship historical figures and ignore all the terrible shit they did
The famine was caused by Indians overbreeding, Indian mismanagement and the necessary scorched earth policy when Japan was right on their doorstep. The prime cause was the fungal infection which destroyed the crops, followed by a cyclone which decimated the grain store. Unless they believe that Churchill was some divine being that could call in natural disasters (I wouldn't be surprised if he was, the absolute legend), a couple of soundbites are not enough evidence to condemn him for something which came down to Indian mismanagement.
And regarding colonialism; India in 1945 would have been in a far worse state had it been under total Mughal or Maratha rule, colonialism was a GOOD thing for India. What fucked them was Bose turning into a fucking commie and missing out on the post war economic boom.
India was a net IMPORTER of food, so all this cuntery about India exporting during a famine is utter bullshit.
Making Famine History by Cormac O'Grada talks about the fungal infections of late 1942 and the cyclone;
I can expand: in the closing months of 1942 the area was hit with many natural disasters - the staple rice crop was hit by Brown Spot disease. The cyclone also killed around 15,000 people and destroyed the grain store and critically, killed many of the farmers in the bengal region as they were the most exposed to it. The season was also unusually warm and humid and this made the disease particularly virulent.
The cyclone itself was the nail in the coffin as the British Raj had set in place grain stores which would be used in the case of famines (of which there were many, and most of which were handled spectacularly well by the British. Back to the cyclone - it killed over 300,000 cattle and destroyed over 8000 villages, and left a further 10,000 flooded. This, obviously encouraged water borne diseases like dysentery, cholera and malaria to flourish. And then most of the fertile land in the area was destroyed, removing any possibility of regrowing the crop in the region.
The stuff about scorched earth policy from mid 1942 is also talked about in depth in O'Grada's book.
Here's a map of Burma. Note that directly east of Burma is Bangladesh, but before the separation, this was part of the Bengal province in the British Raj. Burma at the time was also under our control.
I don't think I need to remind you of Japanese war atrocities and their violent rate of expansion, so the scorched earth policy was the only logical option at the time. The 17th Indian division fought to defend Burma, but after their defeat and subsequent retreat at the battle of Sittang bridge, most of the equipment was left in the hands of the Japanese. Since the 17th was the main garrison to defend the east and were underequipped and thorougly beaten, having taken heavy losses, it was a difficult decision to make, but ultimately the correct one. The scorched earth policy would have made their supply line even longer (from the Port of Salewa) and denied the Japanese any possible method of success.
And, as with many things that are conveniently blamed on the British, the scorched earth policy was also heavily mismanaged by the Indian governors of the time (Famine Management by Auriel Weigold). There were many cases of crops being taken from farmland that was not designated to be destroyed due to greed, fraud and corruption.
The rest of the info regarding the famine is just a google search away so you can do that yourself.
What pisses me off the most is all of these nationalists claiming as if Bengal was some thriving province which Churchill forcefully stopped supplies going to it due to him being a "genocidal maniac". It wasn't. Most of the problems in Bengal were due to natural disasters, Indian mismanagement and necessary actions that had to be taken due to the reality of a global conflict.
I can go on and on but I've wasted 20 minutes making this fucking post and I had work to do.
The famine was caused by Indians overbreeding, Indian mismanagement and the necessary scorched earth policy when Japan was right on their doorstep. The prime cause was the fungal infection which destroyed the crops, followed by a cyclone which decimated the grain store. Unless they believe that Churchill was some divine being that could call in natural disasters (I wouldn't be surprised if he was, the absolute legend), a couple of soundbites are not enough evidence to condemn him for something which came down to Indian mismanagement.
Also It has been established unequivocally by Sen that India had a bumper harvest in 1943, food supply was actually increased as compared to 1941. The British were however EXPORTING wheat and Rice was used as a substitute grain to make up for the shortfall caused by wheat exports and this caused a net shortfall.
The INA offered 100,000 tones, the Americans offered another 100,000 tones, the Canadians offered another 25,000 tones to make up for the shortfall all which were rejected by Churchill. Australia offered another 25,000 tons of wheat but guess what Churchill did? He diverted these food stocks to the Mediterranean to stock up for the Tunisia Campaign - Churchill's own command said they had adequate stocks, but nope, Churchill flat out refused to supply Bengal using Australian stocks.
And regarding colonialism; India in 1945 would have been in a far worse state had it been under total Mughal or Maratha rule, colonialism was a GOOD thing for India. What fucked them was Bose turning into a fucking commie and missing out on the post war economic boom.
Yeah unless you have special ability to see alternate history that's bullshit.
Everything the Brits did it was to strip India of resource, faster and efficiently. They didn't build the roads and railways out of the goodness of their hearts.
India was a net IMPORTER of food, so all this cuntery about India exporting during a famine is utter bullshit.
Because their staple food was being redirected towards the war effort.
This isn't cunntery. You're just dick riding Churchill.
Famines had existed in India since time immemorial. Once the railways were built, they disappeared almost entirely - with one notable exception. The Bengal famine was caused, in large part, by transferring executive control to Provincial (elected) governments, that declined to transfer food from surplus-holding provinces to Bengal. Once the central (British-appointed) government realised the true scope of the famine, they ordered the provincial governments to release food stocks to the famine-stricken provinces. They refused.
Because their staple food was being redirected towards the war effort.
An absolute and total lie. The British did not have the authority to ship food from provinces - that power had been granted to locally-elected provincial governors, who were Indian. It was a recent development - the British had only just started to grant control of food distribution. The provincial governors were ordered by the British to ship food to India, who promptly told the British authorities that they could no longer order them to do so, and that they wished to keep the food for their own people, in case the famine spread. The cause of the famine was not to produce cash-crops, as that decision had been made a long time ago. The cause was environmental and the fact that the bulk of the rice imports from Burma had been cut off due to war.
The army in India was fed from food shipments sent to India, from Australia and elsewhere. You could argue that the army should have rationed itself, and that more food should have gone to Bengal - but it wouldn't have made much difference, and there was a war on, you know. Japan would have treated India far, far worse.
Famines had existed in India since time immemorial. Once the railways were built, they disappeared almost entirely - with one notable exception. The Bengal famine was caused, in large part, by transferring executive control to Provincial (elected) governments, that declined to transfer food from surplus-holding provinces to Bengal. Once the central (British-appointed) government realised the true scope of the famine, they ordered the provincial governments to release food stocks to the famine-stricken provinces. They refused.
You talk as if the local bodies had an actual authority to resist British orders.
Your denial policies and trade barriers literally aggravated an already grave situation.
But it looks like even you've admitted that they withheld food until "they realized the true scope of the famine". Like realizing it after the damage has been done is of any help.
An absolute and total lie. The British did not have the authority to ship food from provinces - that power had been granted to locally-elected provincial governors, who were Indian. It was a recent development - the British had only just started to grant control of food distribution. The provincial governors were ordered by the British to ship food to India, who promptly told the British authorities that they could no longer order them to do so, and that they wished to keep the food for their own people, in case the famine spread. The cause of the famine was not to produce cash-crops, as that decision had been made a long time ago. The cause was environmental and the fact that the bulk of the rice imports from Burma had been cut off due to war.
Oh is that so? Is that why the British exported wheat from India enough to cause a shortfall.
I guess restricting the rice imports from within the country and outside imports as a part of the denial policies didn't have any harm? (Heck one aspect of the denial policy was "deny rice")
The army in India was fed from food shipments sent to India, from Australia and elsewhere. You could argue that the army should have rationed itself, and that more food should have gone to Bengal - but it wouldn't have made much difference, and there was a war on, you know. Japan would have treated India far, far worse.
It should have. The Japanese never reached India and what they done and couldn't have done is another matter.
Restricting food imports to Bengal had no part in their defeat, it was a pointless exercise. Even the Brits realized it but it was too late by then.
I guess that's why you conveniently ignored all the examples I gave of the Brits ignoring all the food offers from other countries and them redirecting food aid to from Australia to the war effort.
The Japanese never reached India and what they done and couldn't have done is another matter.
No, it's relevant to this matter considering that they were on the Indian border and a stone's throw away from the 17th Division that was garrisoned there. They did not invade due to the denial policies that were set in place. Is it useless to close one's door at night because "oh well no one tried to break in so what's the point"? The country was at war and did what needed to be done - the "denial of rice" only occurred in areas where there had been a large surplus of rice. This was before the rice infection and subsequent cyclone. Which, let me remind you, was the main reason for the famine.
Restricting food imports to Bengal had no part in their defeat
It was a preventative measure, of course it did. You think the nips would have held back if all they saw before them were lush fields of rice ready to harvest? Or would they see their invasion of India as stretching their supply lines beyond breaking point?
That was only for inter provincial trade
Of which Bengal was a massive benefactor. Blame your fellow Indian for lacking basic fucking empathy.
Your denial policies literally aggravated an already grave situation.
The policies were in place far before the famine. And back to my point about the Japanese - would you rather have a Japanese occupied Bengal in which they are committing real genocide against the local populace?
The famines didn't disappear with the railways
Then they decreased considerably from the catastrophes of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
I guess that's why you conveniently ignored all the examples etc
I guess that's why you conveniently ignored the series of natural disasters in the Bengal region etc
No, it's relevant to this matter considering that they were on the Indian border and a stone's throw away from the 17th Division that was garrisoned there. They did not invade due to the denial policies that were set in place. Is it useless to close one's door at night because "oh well no one tried to break in so what's the point"? The country was at war and did what needed to be done - the "denial of rice" only occurred in areas where there had been a large surplus of rice. This was before the rice infection and subsequent cyclone. Which, let me remind you, was the main reason for the famine.
It was a preventative measure, of course it did. You think the nips would have held back if all they saw before them were lush fields of rice ready to harvest? Or would they see their invasion of India as stretching their supply lines beyond breaking point?
I didn't realize the Japanese were the types to hold back.
Oh wait they didn't . They did attack Kohima and planned on pressing to Dimapur but those areas were thoroughly defended by the allied troops.
They left because their already doomed plan had failed(which each historians repeat) and were low on ammunition and supplies for another invasion.
Of which Bengal was a massive benefactor. Blame your fellow Indian for lacking basic fucking empathy.
One of the biggest reasons for the trade barrier was that each province was afraid of famines themselves.
But that shit wouldn't have been necessary if you fucks didn't export wheat from India(which you no longer denying)
If you didn't reject the food Aid from various countries (which you never denied).
You're just shifting goalposts right now because you can't make up an argument without lies.
The policies were in place far before the famine. And back to my point about the Japanese - would you rather have a Japanese occupied Bengal in which they are committing real genocide against the local populace?
They never had any real chance of controlling any part of the country and the invading force consisted of INA as well.
So your talk of Japanese genocide is irrelevant guessing at this point.
So if you're arguing that what you did wasn't as bad as the japs ,does this mean what you did was bad ?
Then they decreased considerably from the catastrophes of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
But that's not what you said is it?
You said the famines disappeared not reduced. What you said was false.
For an Englishman you don't seem to be quite strong in English.
I guess that's why you conveniently ignored the series of natural disasters in the Bengal region etc
I didn't but the entire point of the Famine issue is how Churchills policies aggravated what could've been a preventable famine.
I didn't realize the Japanese were the types to hold back.
They left because their already doomed plan had failed
You have the benefit of hindsight into the Japanese war machine. How on earth were we to know that they would stop attacking? That they were low on supplies? Neither India nor Britain had any idea, so we did what we could to stop a rampant Japanese army from attacking.
One of the biggest reasons for the trade barrier was that each province was afraid of famines themselves
These barriers were imposed by the Indian governance. Not by Brits! Despite the repeated requests by the British to to redistribute food, this was denied by your fellow countryman. Churchill had no hand in this.
But that shit wouldn't have been necessary if you fucks didn't export wheat from India
You didn't need the wheat because the country was producing enough! We only exported the surplus. And who's to say the surplus would even have made it to Bengal anyway? It was your failure and petty squabbles that led to Bengal not being supplied. I think it really is VERY telling that when the provinces are set to govern themselves they cannot organise a simple relief effort. Even if we had not exported the surplus from other provinces in India, would Bengal's fellow provinces even have transported the crop?
The country had enough food, and sectarian squabbles prevented what could have been a famine averted.
"The Cabinet cited other causes of the famine rarely mentioned in latter-day denunciations of Churchill: the shortages were “partly political in character, caused by Marwari supporters of Congress [Gandhi’s party] in an effort to embarrass the existing Muslim Government of Bengal.” Another cause, they added, was corrupt local officials: “The Government of India were unduly tender with speculators and hoarders.”
- Hungry Bengal, Mukherjee
You said the famines disappeared not reduced. What you said was false.
You are right, I concede that point. We did significantly limit the famines however, saving tens of millions of lives each century.
You have the benefit of hindsight into the Japanese war machine. How on earth were we to know that they would stop attacking? That they were low on supplies? Neither India nor Britain had any idea, so we did what we could to stop a rampant Japanese army from attacking.
Yeah , shitty policy is a shitty policy. Do you actually expect me to believe the British operated with zero intelligence on the enemy.
Destroying food supplies when your local population is facing crisis is dumb. Fuck I am not even talking about the soon to be captured areas in Myanmar but destroying food reserves near Bengal.
But in the end this is just a another example of you moving goalposts when offered with actual evidence.
You're essentially admitting the denial policies had no effect on the British retreat.
These barriers were imposed by the Indian governance. Not by Brits! Despite the repeated requests by the British to to redistribute food, this was denied by your fellow countryman. Churchill had no hand in this.
Yeah friendo, the trade barriers were a direct result of the "Boat denial" policies and the inflation caused to due to the various British policies.
You literally crippled the trade by destroying the transportion and causing inflation with policy failures.
Dude seriously at the very least go to Wikipedia and do some basic research.
You didn't need the wheat because the country was producing enough! We only exported the surplus. And who's to say the surplus would even have made it to Bengal anyway? It was your failure and petty squabbles that led to Bengal not being supplied. I think it really is VERY telling that when the provinces are set to govern themselves they cannot organise a simple relief effort. Even if we had not exported the surplus from other provinces in India, would Bengal's fellow provinces even have transported the crop?
We literally weren't . That's why the famine occurred in the first place.
The neighboring provinces had their reserves destroyed as a part of the denial policies.
There was also a war on, if you hadn't noticed and the future of Western Civilization hung in the balance.
Yes and redirecting food aid to a campaign when the commander himself said it wasn't necessary, refusing aid from countries who willingly offered food was a brilliant plan to protect the western civilization.
You are right, I concede that point. We did significantly limit the famines however, saving tens of millions of lives each century.
This cable from Churchill to Roosevelt, dated April 29th 1944, classified Personal and Top Secret, shows Churchill practically begging Roosevelt for help with shipping food to India. And note that it was written just five weeks before D-Day, showing that Churchill was giving attention to this issue even while preparations for the Second Front were close to their climax.
And don't even dare say that all Britain contributed to India was roads and railways. I could probably write 500 words simply listing all the improvements we brought. We did not strip India of any resources, in fact your GDP grew so, so much faster when Britain was in control compared to the 16th Century and before.
what happened during the empire wasn't a net positive for the nation
the Empire was fucking parasite to India
Social benefits: Abolition of suttee and infanticide. Destruction of Dacoits, Thugs, Pindarees, and other such pests of Indian society. Allowing remarriage of Hindu widows, and charitable aid in time of famine.
Cultural benefits: Education, both male and female. Though yet only partial, an inestimable blessing as far as it has gone, and leading gradually to the destruction of superstition, and many moral and social evils. Resuscitation of India's own noble literature, modified and refined by the enlightenment of the West.
Political benefits: Peace and order. Freedom of speech and liberty of the press. Higher political knowledge and aspirations. Improvement of government in the native states. Security of life and property. Freedom from oppression caused by the caprice or greed of despotic rulers, and from devastation by war. Equal justice between man and man (sometimes vitiated by partiality to Europeans). Services of highly educated administrators, who have achieved the above-mentioned results.
What about infrastructural changes? Development of valuable products, such as indigo, tea, coffee, silk, etc. Increase of exports. Telegraphs, railways, roads, canals, mines, sewers, plantations and the establishment of English law and language. Within 25 years, 10,000 miles of track were laid joining distant parts of the nation. By independence, 136,000 bridges had been constructed. Great cities including Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were built and some of the finest universities and museums in India were founded. Perhaps most innovative of all was the bringing together of several different states into one unified India. The foundation of the modern Indian military was laid by Brits too. The Indian Army was formed and its top officers trained in new military academies, modelled on Sandhurst.
By 1914, the Indian mining industry, which was built from nothing by the British, was producing nearly 16 million tons of coal a year. Health and life expectancy both improved dramatically, particularly because malaria was tackled and vaccination against smallpox introduced.
The 200-year window of British governance was perhaps the only period in a thousand years of Indian history to date when the minorities and people of different religions felt more secure and less discriminated against, with a notable absence of killings, conflicts and persecutions. India's GDP increased substantially quicker than at any other point in history when the Mughals had occupied it. India would have been no better than China in 1945 had it been untouched, completely vulnerable to Japanese invasion and with most of the country still stuck in the middle ages.
The only thing meaningful was abolition of sati and infanticide.
But sati and infanticide continued and it was only with the help of social reformers it was reduced
All your education and industry you brought wasn't to help India but to subjugate it and strip it of resources.
During your rule India's contribution to the World GDP went from 25% to 2%.
Also it's hilarious you talk about freedom and peace when you literally subjugated the entire nation treated them as second class citizens and killed millions.
Again I also proved you weren't charitable during famines , you literally caused the worst famines in our history.
All your roads and Industries were to benefit Brittania not India.
During your rule India's contribution to the World GDP went from 25% to 2%
Due to the Industrial revolution.
India's share of the world's GDP was decreasing from the first century BC and would have fallen even further without British intervention. In 1600 the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany and Italy didn't exist. China, Japan and Korea were pre-industrial while Russia still had serfdom. All of these nations were yet to rise, yet to become the behemoths they were by the dawn of the 20th century largely due to the Industrial revolution. Take a look at China's fall in %GDP from 1700 to 1950. Was China also being "plundered clean by evil invaders"?
All your education and industry you brought wasn't to help India but to subjugate it and strip it of resources.
Utter conjecture
We've been arguing for a while and it's clear we won't see eye to eye on this issue, so I'm going to stop here. Nice chat.
??? lol. Dude I'm Indian myself, why would I do that? I don't insult Indians, I just take the piss out of Indian nationalists and don't think Churchill was primarily responsible for the famine.
You say you're Indian but you shit on the sub continent and call anyone who disagrees with you a nationalist, just like the guy above.(in that comment section I linked you do it twice).
You also Dick ride the British empire more than any Indian guy I've ever see.
I am sorry you post history just reeks of a white male.
You must be an Indian with serious self hate issues or you're white.
It's always funny when people say churchill had fascist sympathies and then others always go "but he fought the nazis!" It's weird when people think just because someone might like one system of government due to how it wields power, they have to like every other regime with that same government. If this were the case you would have thought the age of monarchies would have been such a peaceful one!
91 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-05-03
I can take a 9-inch dildo up my butt, because I'm an adult and I solve my own problems
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-03
/u/big-butts-no-lies your accusation of fascist sympathies show that no anarchist really knows what fascism truly is.
Also better enjoy /r/anarchism before the mods go full Franco on it.
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-03
Wasn't it the commies (i.e., their own side) who crushed the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War?
It's kind of illuminating that not even actual tankies could stand anarchists.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-03
No, although tankies did infight with anarchists, it was ultimately Franco who put an end to all of Republican Spain.
It was the bolsheviks who put down anarchist Ukraine, however.
n/a Thhueros 2017-05-03
God bless Leon Trotsky
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-03
Knew when to die, too
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-03
It's true. We can't stand them.
n/a big-butts-no-lies 2017-05-03
I can't even imagine being as pathetic as the people on this subreddit lol.
n/a FULLM3TALBITCH 2017-05-03
I'll never get sick of people getting selectively angry about imperialism. It's only been one of the defining features of human civilization since forever but now sometimes you're supposed to get mad about it.
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-05-03
No no no! You just don't get it! When Britain takes over countries to steal their wealth they're filthy capitalists imperialists who all deserve to die. When the Soviet Union takes over half a continent to steal their wealth they're just spreading the revolution! Same goes for the US imperialism in Cuba and China liberating Tibet!
Communists can't be imperialists silly goose!
n/a Mizziracer 2017-05-03
b-but communists can't be oppressive and imperialistic!
Say it with me,
"BERLIN CRISIS NEVER HAPPENED!"
n/a Lesmothian 2017-05-03
This is why I love the term "first nations people". It's so beautifully encapsulates how certain segments of the far-left are much more interested in lip service and appearances than anything else.
It completely re-frames the entire history of their cultures in terms of European colonialism, since they were only the "first nations" in the sense that they were the first ones that white settlers saw when they got here. They were there because they came along and conquered or assimilated the people who were there before them, who had done the same to the people before them.
But none of that history is as important as signaling how woke you are.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-03
One of my favorite leftist arguments is "You were immigrants that genocided the Indians, therefore, in the interest of fairness, you must let new immigrants genocide you."
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-03
This is a terrible argument for the right, too.
"Look how horrible we've been to minorities! We better make sure we're never the minority or they'll probably want revenge."
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-03
"If we allow ourselves to be invaded by masses of people who do not share our values, bad things will happen." It is a simple and obvious argument.
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-03
It's "simple" and "obvious" because it's just a bunch of vague scare-words that mean nothing. Anyone can play that game: "If you persecute and oppress people for their beliefs, bad things will happen."
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-03
Exactly! Do not bring barbarians into my nation to attempt to eradicate me. It is bad.
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-03
The sooner we eradicate you, the better.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-03
I disagree with you. And I have guns.
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-03
I don't need guns, remember? You consider ordinary, peaceful immigration to be an "invasion".
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-03
You are fucked, mate.
n/a crimsonchibolt 2017-05-03
i actually never got how that was supposed to convince me that immigration is good
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-03
It's not. It's supposed to suggest that opposing immigration is hypocritical and/or selfish: "Fuck you, I [or my ancestors] got mine."
n/a crimsonchibolt 2017-05-03
i know that part but its not convincing all it does is make me go WHY WOULD I WANT THAT not oh that makes sense allow me to go lay down and be genocided
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-03
I dunno why mayoskins always think "intermarrying and producing beautiful, caramel-skinned offspring" == "genocide", but whatever gets you off, mate.
n/a crimsonchibolt 2017-05-03
your right whatever gets me off good thing its just fantasy otheriwse id be fecked
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-03
my theory is the 'white genocide' kids are a bunch of incels who know no woman would ever voluntarily breed with them if she had better options on the table
n/a crimsonchibolt 2017-05-03
do incels even play that they might consider it too alpha and get mad at the game. actually what would you play if you consider being smart having good hygiene and in general being a good human being alpha chad additude how do you even function it sounds depressing
n/a OrangePeals 2017-05-03
Well no it is because the government is intentionally trying to flood Europe with people of other races so the "white race" can be eliminated and Germany will finally feel absolved of it sins that no-one else committed.
n/a skivian 2017-05-03
Yeah, but they were smart enough to genocide them and then stop talking about it.
n/a OrangePeals 2017-05-03
If I'm white British, and I live in Britain, does that mean I'm a first-nation person?
Oh wait no because when it comes to white people race is arbitrary. But only white people, Native Americans are definitely native.
n/a Obregon 2017-05-03
Of course. Conquered and subject people's rebelling against imperialism and being otherwise butthurt about it is also a defining feature of civilization. The only thing that's new is that everyone now has the Internet to whine, bitch or write apologetics.
n/a JumbledFun 2017-05-03
yah but if people want to change a bad system and not do said bad things anymore that really doesn't make it such a terrible thing ya? Most historical figures are grey figures, very rarely have just good or bad qualities or actions
n/a Lesmothian 2017-05-03
Sure, because they're humans and humans are grey figures.
But doing what they're doing over there (eg. saying such-and-such a person is bad because they were an imperialist in an era when imperialism was considered normal and good) is Whig history presentism.
n/a JumbledFun 2017-05-03
True and people are often quite hyperbolic but at the same time talking about the bad shit these people have done is worthwhile to learn from. I would say it's worse when people just worship historical figures and ignore all the terrible shit they did
n/a Lesmothian 2017-05-03
As with everything else, extremist centrism is the only correct path.
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-03
DAE SOUTHPARK NEUTRAL REEEEE
n/a heavenlytoaster 2017-05-03
How are they going to change it? (Spoiler: imperialistic imposition)
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
The famine was caused by Indians overbreeding, Indian mismanagement and the necessary scorched earth policy when Japan was right on their doorstep. The prime cause was the fungal infection which destroyed the crops, followed by a cyclone which decimated the grain store. Unless they believe that Churchill was some divine being that could call in natural disasters (I wouldn't be surprised if he was, the absolute legend), a couple of soundbites are not enough evidence to condemn him for something which came down to Indian mismanagement.
And regarding colonialism; India in 1945 would have been in a far worse state had it been under total Mughal or Maratha rule, colonialism was a GOOD thing for India. What fucked them was Bose turning into a fucking commie and missing out on the post war economic boom.
India was a net IMPORTER of food, so all this cuntery about India exporting during a famine is utter bullshit.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-03
Got some sources for that?
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Making Famine History by Cormac O'Grada talks about the fungal infections of late 1942 and the cyclone;
I can expand: in the closing months of 1942 the area was hit with many natural disasters - the staple rice crop was hit by Brown Spot disease. The cyclone also killed around 15,000 people and destroyed the grain store and critically, killed many of the farmers in the bengal region as they were the most exposed to it. The season was also unusually warm and humid and this made the disease particularly virulent.
The cyclone itself was the nail in the coffin as the British Raj had set in place grain stores which would be used in the case of famines (of which there were many, and most of which were handled spectacularly well by the British. Back to the cyclone - it killed over 300,000 cattle and destroyed over 8000 villages, and left a further 10,000 flooded. This, obviously encouraged water borne diseases like dysentery, cholera and malaria to flourish. And then most of the fertile land in the area was destroyed, removing any possibility of regrowing the crop in the region.
The stuff about scorched earth policy from mid 1942 is also talked about in depth in O'Grada's book.
Here's a map of Burma. Note that directly east of Burma is Bangladesh, but before the separation, this was part of the Bengal province in the British Raj. Burma at the time was also under our control.
http://www.worldatlas.com/img/areamap/2cdb5c4a37284b57f5050949207d59c7.gif
I don't think I need to remind you of Japanese war atrocities and their violent rate of expansion, so the scorched earth policy was the only logical option at the time. The 17th Indian division fought to defend Burma, but after their defeat and subsequent retreat at the battle of Sittang bridge, most of the equipment was left in the hands of the Japanese. Since the 17th was the main garrison to defend the east and were underequipped and thorougly beaten, having taken heavy losses, it was a difficult decision to make, but ultimately the correct one. The scorched earth policy would have made their supply line even longer (from the Port of Salewa) and denied the Japanese any possible method of success.
And, as with many things that are conveniently blamed on the British, the scorched earth policy was also heavily mismanaged by the Indian governors of the time (Famine Management by Auriel Weigold). There were many cases of crops being taken from farmland that was not designated to be destroyed due to greed, fraud and corruption.
The rest of the info regarding the famine is just a google search away so you can do that yourself.
What pisses me off the most is all of these nationalists claiming as if Bengal was some thriving province which Churchill forcefully stopped supplies going to it due to him being a "genocidal maniac". It wasn't. Most of the problems in Bengal were due to natural disasters, Indian mismanagement and necessary actions that had to be taken due to the reality of a global conflict.
I can go on and on but I've wasted 20 minutes making this fucking post and I had work to do.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-03
Tyvm, but you downvoted me, so i'm obliged to downvote you as well
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
I didn't downvote you lol
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-03
oh
n/a Thhueros 2017-05-03
He could have downvoted you, upvoted you for the screenshot then downvoted you again.
Sounds far fetched but I have my (((suspicions)))
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
I think he has an alt for vote manipulation
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Oy vey, the goyim have found out!
n/a HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-05-03
Reported for effort-posting
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Oh let me fix that
DESIGNATED
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
He spreading myths created by colonial dick riders.
Check his post history .
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-03
/u/theRagingEwok's asshole
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
d-do you w-wanna see it :3
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-05-03
I only want to see bussy
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
Also It has been established unequivocally by Sen that India had a bumper harvest in 1943, food supply was actually increased as compared to 1941. The British were however EXPORTING wheat and Rice was used as a substitute grain to make up for the shortfall caused by wheat exports and this caused a net shortfall.
The INA offered 100,000 tones, the Americans offered another 100,000 tones, the Canadians offered another 25,000 tones to make up for the shortfall all which were rejected by Churchill. Australia offered another 25,000 tons of wheat but guess what Churchill did? He diverted these food stocks to the Mediterranean to stock up for the Tunisia Campaign - Churchill's own command said they had adequate stocks, but nope, Churchill flat out refused to supply Bengal using Australian stocks.
Yeah unless you have special ability to see alternate history that's bullshit.
Everything the Brits did it was to strip India of resource, faster and efficiently. They didn't build the roads and railways out of the goodness of their hearts.
Because their staple food was being redirected towards the war effort.
This isn't cunntery. You're just dick riding Churchill.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Famines had existed in India since time immemorial. Once the railways were built, they disappeared almost entirely - with one notable exception. The Bengal famine was caused, in large part, by transferring executive control to Provincial (elected) governments, that declined to transfer food from surplus-holding provinces to Bengal. Once the central (British-appointed) government realised the true scope of the famine, they ordered the provincial governments to release food stocks to the famine-stricken provinces. They refused.
An absolute and total lie. The British did not have the authority to ship food from provinces - that power had been granted to locally-elected provincial governors, who were Indian. It was a recent development - the British had only just started to grant control of food distribution. The provincial governors were ordered by the British to ship food to India, who promptly told the British authorities that they could no longer order them to do so, and that they wished to keep the food for their own people, in case the famine spread. The cause of the famine was not to produce cash-crops, as that decision had been made a long time ago. The cause was environmental and the fact that the bulk of the rice imports from Burma had been cut off due to war.
The army in India was fed from food shipments sent to India, from Australia and elsewhere. You could argue that the army should have rationed itself, and that more food should have gone to Bengal - but it wouldn't have made much difference, and there was a war on, you know. Japan would have treated India far, far worse.
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
Yeah that's just BS. The famines didn't disappear with the railways
You talk as if the local bodies had an actual authority to resist British orders.
Your denial policies and trade barriers literally aggravated an already grave situation.
But it looks like even you've admitted that they withheld food until "they realized the true scope of the famine". Like realizing it after the damage has been done is of any help.
Oh is that so? Is that why the British exported wheat from India enough to cause a shortfall.
I guess restricting the rice imports from within the country and outside imports as a part of the denial policies didn't have any harm? (Heck one aspect of the denial policy was "deny rice")
It should have. The Japanese never reached India and what they done and couldn't have done is another matter.
Restricting food imports to Bengal had no part in their defeat, it was a pointless exercise. Even the Brits realized it but it was too late by then.
I guess that's why you conveniently ignored all the examples I gave of the Brits ignoring all the food offers from other countries and them redirecting food aid to from Australia to the war effort.
n/a HelperBot_ 2017-05-03
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 63744
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
No, it's relevant to this matter considering that they were on the Indian border and a stone's throw away from the 17th Division that was garrisoned there. They did not invade due to the denial policies that were set in place. Is it useless to close one's door at night because "oh well no one tried to break in so what's the point"? The country was at war and did what needed to be done - the "denial of rice" only occurred in areas where there had been a large surplus of rice. This was before the rice infection and subsequent cyclone. Which, let me remind you, was the main reason for the famine.
It was a preventative measure, of course it did. You think the nips would have held back if all they saw before them were lush fields of rice ready to harvest? Or would they see their invasion of India as stretching their supply lines beyond breaking point?
Of which Bengal was a massive benefactor. Blame your fellow Indian for lacking basic fucking empathy.
The policies were in place far before the famine. And back to my point about the Japanese - would you rather have a Japanese occupied Bengal in which they are committing real genocide against the local populace?
Then they decreased considerably from the catastrophes of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
I guess that's why you conveniently ignored the series of natural disasters in the Bengal region etc
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
I didn't realize the Japanese were the types to hold back.
Oh wait they didn't . They did attack Kohima and planned on pressing to Dimapur but those areas were thoroughly defended by the allied troops.
They left because their already doomed plan had failed(which each historians repeat) and were low on ammunition and supplies for another invasion.
One of the biggest reasons for the trade barrier was that each province was afraid of famines themselves.
But that shit wouldn't have been necessary if you fucks didn't export wheat from India(which you no longer denying)
If you didn't reject the food Aid from various countries (which you never denied).
You're just shifting goalposts right now because you can't make up an argument without lies.
They never had any real chance of controlling any part of the country and the invading force consisted of INA as well.
So your talk of Japanese genocide is irrelevant guessing at this point.
So if you're arguing that what you did wasn't as bad as the japs ,does this mean what you did was bad ?
But that's not what you said is it?
You said the famines disappeared not reduced. What you said was false.
For an Englishman you don't seem to be quite strong in English.
I didn't but the entire point of the Famine issue is how Churchills policies aggravated what could've been a preventable famine.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
You have the benefit of hindsight into the Japanese war machine. How on earth were we to know that they would stop attacking? That they were low on supplies? Neither India nor Britain had any idea, so we did what we could to stop a rampant Japanese army from attacking.
These barriers were imposed by the Indian governance. Not by Brits! Despite the repeated requests by the British to to redistribute food, this was denied by your fellow countryman. Churchill had no hand in this.
You didn't need the wheat because the country was producing enough! We only exported the surplus. And who's to say the surplus would even have made it to Bengal anyway? It was your failure and petty squabbles that led to Bengal not being supplied. I think it really is VERY telling that when the provinces are set to govern themselves they cannot organise a simple relief effort. Even if we had not exported the surplus from other provinces in India, would Bengal's fellow provinces even have transported the crop?
The country had enough food, and sectarian squabbles prevented what could have been a famine averted.
"The Cabinet cited other causes of the famine rarely mentioned in latter-day denunciations of Churchill: the shortages were “partly political in character, caused by Marwari supporters of Congress [Gandhi’s party] in an effort to embarrass the existing Muslim Government of Bengal.” Another cause, they added, was corrupt local officials: “The Government of India were unduly tender with speculators and hoarders.”
- Hungry Bengal, Mukherjee
You are right, I concede that point. We did significantly limit the famines however, saving tens of millions of lives each century.
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
Yeah , shitty policy is a shitty policy. Do you actually expect me to believe the British operated with zero intelligence on the enemy.
Destroying food supplies when your local population is facing crisis is dumb. Fuck I am not even talking about the soon to be captured areas in Myanmar but destroying food reserves near Bengal.
But in the end this is just a another example of you moving goalposts when offered with actual evidence.
You're essentially admitting the denial policies had no effect on the British retreat.
Yeah friendo, the trade barriers were a direct result of the "Boat denial" policies and the inflation caused to due to the various British policies.
You literally crippled the trade by destroying the transportion and causing inflation with policy failures.
Dude seriously at the very least go to Wikipedia and do some basic research.
We literally weren't . That's why the famine occurred in the first place.
The neighboring provinces had their reserves destroyed as a part of the denial policies.
Yes and redirecting food aid to a campaign when the commander himself said it wasn't necessary, refusing aid from countries who willingly offered food was a brilliant plan to protect the western civilization.
Lol no. The most severe famines occurred during British rule.
All the actual sources say the opposite of what you're saying
You didn't do shit to reduce the famines Lol. It happened after post independence with the green revolution.
n/a HelperBot_ 2017-05-03
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India#CITEREFMurton2000
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 63795
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Oh, and here's more
This cable from Churchill to Roosevelt, dated April 29th 1944, classified Personal and Top Secret, shows Churchill practically begging Roosevelt for help with shipping food to India. And note that it was written just five weeks before D-Day, showing that Churchill was giving attention to this issue even while preparations for the Second Front were close to their climax.
And don't even dare say that all Britain contributed to India was roads and railways. I could probably write 500 words simply listing all the improvements we brought. We did not strip India of any resources, in fact your GDP grew so, so much faster when Britain was in control compared to the 16th Century and before.
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
Did you even read your fucking link?
By the time Churchill begged FDR (after Wavells constant request) 700,000 people had already died from the famine
The prick literally rejected food offers and redirected others for the Tunisian invasion when the famine was at the early stages .
Also I could write an even bigger essay on why the Empire was fucking parasite to India.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Social benefits: Abolition of suttee and infanticide. Destruction of Dacoits, Thugs, Pindarees, and other such pests of Indian society. Allowing remarriage of Hindu widows, and charitable aid in time of famine.
Cultural benefits: Education, both male and female. Though yet only partial, an inestimable blessing as far as it has gone, and leading gradually to the destruction of superstition, and many moral and social evils. Resuscitation of India's own noble literature, modified and refined by the enlightenment of the West.
Political benefits: Peace and order. Freedom of speech and liberty of the press. Higher political knowledge and aspirations. Improvement of government in the native states. Security of life and property. Freedom from oppression caused by the caprice or greed of despotic rulers, and from devastation by war. Equal justice between man and man (sometimes vitiated by partiality to Europeans). Services of highly educated administrators, who have achieved the above-mentioned results.
What about infrastructural changes? Development of valuable products, such as indigo, tea, coffee, silk, etc. Increase of exports. Telegraphs, railways, roads, canals, mines, sewers, plantations and the establishment of English law and language. Within 25 years, 10,000 miles of track were laid joining distant parts of the nation. By independence, 136,000 bridges had been constructed. Great cities including Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were built and some of the finest universities and museums in India were founded. Perhaps most innovative of all was the bringing together of several different states into one unified India. The foundation of the modern Indian military was laid by Brits too. The Indian Army was formed and its top officers trained in new military academies, modelled on Sandhurst.
By 1914, the Indian mining industry, which was built from nothing by the British, was producing nearly 16 million tons of coal a year. Health and life expectancy both improved dramatically, particularly because malaria was tackled and vaccination against smallpox introduced.
The 200-year window of British governance was perhaps the only period in a thousand years of Indian history to date when the minorities and people of different religions felt more secure and less discriminated against, with a notable absence of killings, conflicts and persecutions. India's GDP increased substantially quicker than at any other point in history when the Mughals had occupied it. India would have been no better than China in 1945 had it been untouched, completely vulnerable to Japanese invasion and with most of the country still stuck in the middle ages.
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
The only thing meaningful was abolition of sati and infanticide.
But sati and infanticide continued and it was only with the help of social reformers it was reduced
All your education and industry you brought wasn't to help India but to subjugate it and strip it of resources.
During your rule India's contribution to the World GDP went from 25% to 2%.
Also it's hilarious you talk about freedom and peace when you literally subjugated the entire nation treated them as second class citizens and killed millions.
Again I also proved you weren't charitable during famines , you literally caused the worst famines in our history.
All your roads and Industries were to benefit Brittania not India.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Due to the Industrial revolution.
India's share of the world's GDP was decreasing from the first century BC and would have fallen even further without British intervention. In 1600 the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany and Italy didn't exist. China, Japan and Korea were pre-industrial while Russia still had serfdom. All of these nations were yet to rise, yet to become the behemoths they were by the dawn of the 20th century largely due to the Industrial revolution. Take a look at China's fall in %GDP from 1700 to 1950. Was China also being "plundered clean by evil invaders"?
Utter conjecture
We've been arguing for a while and it's clear we won't see eye to eye on this issue, so I'm going to stop here. Nice chat.
n/a wisty 2017-05-03
But you have the special ability to see how much better it would have been if the UK hadn't civilised it?
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
No but I can see the crimes of the past without the fucking colonial blinders on.
n/a superwengerv1 2017-05-03
nah, you have Indian nationalist blinders on instead.
http://imgur.com/gYMlkK4
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
Few things.
That's a tired meme and at least 4chans creative about it.
I am guessing this is /u/theRagingEwok alt.
I mean your account had basically 3 comments 2 in drama and 1 gunners two subs that /u/theRagingEwok visits.
And the 2 comments in drama is posting the open defecation graph to insult Indians which /u/theRagingEwok is fan of.
It's a bit suspicious , can you explain /u/theRagingEwok.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
??? lol. Dude I'm Indian myself, why would I do that? I don't insult Indians, I just take the piss out of Indian nationalists and don't think Churchill was primarily responsible for the famine.
Secondly, this guy has posted in /r/soccer, not /r/gunners.
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
Read again, I said you post to soccer and gunners while he posts to soccer with his username being based on Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Right, I see. Well it's not my alt. Is there a way I can prove it to you? lol.
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
Very suspicious though
You say you're Indian but you shit on the sub continent and call anyone who disagrees with you a nationalist, just like the guy above.(in that comment section I linked you do it twice).
You also Dick ride the British empire more than any Indian guy I've ever see.
I am sorry you post history just reeks of a white male.
You must be an Indian with serious self hate issues or you're white.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Will a picture of my very brown hand and my masala cupboard suffice as proof of my Indian-ness? lmao
I grew up in Britain, but both of my parents are Indian.
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
OMG that's brown to you Lol.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-03
Night babe.
n/a riemann1413 2017-05-03
you're a weird fuckin guy
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
Hey not that weird.
n/a riemann1413 2017-05-03
p weird
n/a ninjaofpatience 2017-05-03
Why are conspiracy theorist always borderline paranoid schizophrenics?
n/a Sevacado 2017-05-03
AM NOT !!! :)
n/a FranciscoRG 2017-05-03
But muh bengali starvation...
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-03
Colonialism is just globalism before it got re-branded. I'm With Her.
n/a JumbledFun 2017-05-03
It's always funny when people say churchill had fascist sympathies and then others always go "but he fought the nazis!" It's weird when people think just because someone might like one system of government due to how it wields power, they have to like every other regime with that same government. If this were the case you would have thought the age of monarchies would have been such a peaceful one!
n/a LikeTotesObvi 2017-05-03
I, TOO, ENJOY SHITLORDING MY GREATNESS OVER YOU
n/a CaliggyJack 2017-05-03
/u/big-butts-no-lies
What's your favorite designated shitting street?
n/a superwengerv1 2017-05-03
http://imgur.com/gYMlkK4
so many to choose from!
n/a ______________pewpew 2017-05-03
Churchill was a piece of shit, op.
n/a aonome 2017-05-03
Stay mad
n/a TigerBone 2017-05-03
Fucking hell, Churchill was a great man. Why does reddit hate him so much