[eropple]

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits."

When Churchill actively refused to allow food aid to come from external sources during the war, yes, he and his government bear an even greater portion of responsibility than the colonization of India, in the "you break it, you bought it" sense of responsibility, already merited. Similarly, Churchill's galloping racism and his government's nastiness spread similar misery elsewhere: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest...

And this is not a new happening for Britain, either; they did the same thing to the Irish during the famines. The Sultan of Turkey wanted to send ten times the money more money than the Queen of Great Britain and two ships of food; the British consul in Istanbul said that to send more aid than the Queen had herself allotted would be seen as diplomatically insulting. All the while, Irish shipments of food to England continued unabated.

[churchill1944]

"I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.

I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help." -Churchill to FDR

War is hell. Thank goodness we had leaders like Churchill. And thank goodness the Allied forces won.

Source: https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-t...

[kamaal]

Yeah, Britain did want to feed a few farmers and peasants, that is because they wanted the next generation of slave labor to be ready from whom they could grow, snatch and tax heavily to build awesome infrastructure and quality of life for people in Britain. So please this whole facade of a benevolent imperialistic power is just pointless.

>>Thank goodness we had leaders like Churchill

Thank him for him for considering the entire Indian subcontinent as some kind of lesser people and race compared to whites? What exactly is the difference between this and the race superiority theories of Adolf Hitler?

>>And thank goodness the Allied forces won.

Oh please. Europe created an untenable political situation in Germany by imposing upon them harsh punishment in forms of war reparations of WW1. Then you create a vacuum for a dangerous political ideology to rise, and then try to stop their imperialistic ambitions.

Beyond all this, why does Churchill expect Indian people pay the price for whatever political blunders any party in Europe had committed.

[chrisco255]

I'm no fan of imperialism. However, I think trying to paint Churchill as an evil man rather than an elected PM who inherited a half-millenia of imperial legacy at one of the most pivotal moments in human history is a long shot at best. You can believe what you want about the predictability of WWII. From an armchair in 2017, it's easy to predict how things play out from 1919 onward.

The difference between Churchill and Hitler is that Churchill didn't slaughter millions of people and subvert half the globe to totalitarian dictatorship. That supplies and shipments are limited under dire circumstances should come as no surprise to any student of historical warfare.

[kamaal]

>>The difference between Churchill and Hitler is that Churchill didn't slaughter millions of people and subvert half the globe to totalitarian dictatorship.

He did precisely that. Britain has inflicted more damage to humanity, with its imperialistic policies than even a fraction of Nazism did. Britain was for all practical purposes was a far more evil force than Nazism would have ever been.

>>That supplies and shipments are limited under dire circumstances should come as no surprise to any student of historical warfare.

It comes as a surprise to us because Britain invaded India, stole and plundered the country.

If you don't want people to call you bad names, stop doing bad things.

[eropple]

It is certainly and unambiguously possible to charge Britain with imperialist policies without claiming that they're worse than the Nazis were. Like, there is a difference of kind in there that I feel you're eliding.

[chrisco255]

Given the choice of living under British colonialism or Nazis...you would choose Nazis? I reckon you should study fascism a little more closely. The closest parallel we have today of what a Nazi regime would be like is North Korea.

[kamaal]

>>Given the choice of living under British colonialism or Nazis...you would choose Nazis?

I would chose neither. Why are you assuming the Indian people chose a european power over them?