[macewindu]

> there's no evidence that the British wanted to "wipe out" the native population.

No one accused all "the British". If you read my sentence, I used the word, some Brits such as Churchill. There's ample evidence of Churchill's desire to genocide, and even actions taken to genocide non-white people and subsequent whitewashing of the matters. I am sorry if some readers are upset to discover this about their hero, as I do realize a lot of Anglo-Saxon people worship Churchill, but these are unfortunately the facts of the matter.

"I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas," he wrote in a memo during his role as minister for war and air in 1919.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he continued.

"In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.""

You can also google Hanslope Park papers to see that a lot of other evidence of intentional planning for genocides and other serious crimes against humanity level of wrong doings were erased or blocked from being released. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/18/foreign-off...

[iguy]

There were parts of the world earmarked for white settlement, like the Kenyan highlands, and of course Australia & the Canadian prairie. But I've never heard of India making this list, everyone thought it was too hot.

To the extent that there was any plan for most of India, it seems to have been along the lines of taxing the peasants (hence salt) and using them as soldiers. Which of course was the traditional aim of empires, this was precisely the Mughal aim, but was quite a few generations past its prime in the 1940s. But if this is your game plan, then killing off the people is not in your interest. (I say "most" because obviously the plan for Bombay etc. was much like that for Hong Kong & Singapore, offshore trading posts, certainly a post-Mughal way to make a living.)

[NeedMoreTea]

Of course if you had quoted the full context of your supposedly damning gas quote:

"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

lachrymatory gas: That's tear gas. To cause a great inconvenience yet leave no serious permanent effects. To reduce loss of life to a minimum. That's clearly not a memo calling for genocide.

[exdsq]

I'd strongly object to saying these views are "unfortunately the facts of the matter" and that Churchill 'desired' genocide.

The Hanslope Park papers were about papers sent back to England related to the entire era of colonialism, not about "Churchill planning genocides" as you suggest.