Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Atrocious Robert Clive

guernicamag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#21

Post by cafard »

robin21 wrote: post #15
srean wrote: post #4

I am assuming that readers interested in the original post would be interested in India's colonial history in general. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/rethinking-churchill-... Churchill is usually seen in much better light. That light, however, hides many of his atrocities. History is indeed written by the victorious. The author of the articles is Shashi Tharoor, a name that some might recognize. Part 2 is her…

I wonder what the formula is for victories vs atrocities in terms of historical respect and modern acceptance. It seems we have entered into a period of no matter how much good you did, there is a hard red line of unacceptability set in a modern context as to which all historical figures are judged. If Churchill wasn’t made PM there is a good argument to be made that the Jewish population would have been all but wipe…

The big purges in the USSR happened in the 1930s.

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#22

Post by valarauko »

robin21 wrote: post #15
srean wrote: post #4

I am assuming that readers interested in the original post would be interested in India's colonial history in general. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/rethinking-churchill-... Churchill is usually seen in much better light. That light, however, hides many of his atrocities. History is indeed written by the victorious. The author of the articles is Shashi Tharoor, a name that some might recognize. Part 2 is her…

I wonder what the formula is for victories vs atrocities in terms of historical respect and modern acceptance. It seems we have entered into a period of no matter how much good you did, there is a hard red line of unacceptability set in a modern context as to which all historical figures are judged. If Churchill wasn’t made PM there is a good argument to be made that the Jewish population would have been all but wipe…

Are you really suggesting that Churchill was the singular character who determined the outcome of the war, and without him fascist Europe would stand till this day?

>_Any criticism of Churchill’s historical significance really needs to consider the alternative outcome without him. I don’t think there is anyone who would want to take him out of history having acknowledged this. I think most criticism of him comes from ignorance to history._

My guess - another British PM would have made different choices, and perhaps the UK would have been overrun, or perhaps it would not. Perhaps the tide of war would have turned earlier, and the war ended in 1943, or perhaps in 1947. Perhaps it would have taken 2 or 3 British PMs to achieve it, or perhaps a better PM would have come along.

Honestly, the "Great Man" approach to history is overwrought. Here's a different take on the trajectory of the war: once set into motion, the worldwide war was a systemic entity, above and beyond the actions of any singular actor, no matter how powerful. Tactics help, but the outcomes of wars turn on systemic parameters - resources, populations, infrastructure, etc. If we could redo the war a million times and change tactics/leaders each time, the Axis powers would lose close to a million times - with individual battles changing outcomes, but not the war. Perhaps in some cases the war would fizzle out immediately, and in some cases the war would drag on for some years longer.

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#23

Post by derivagral »

mrec wrote: post #20
robin21 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s always amazing to think in the complete chaos of war there were still rules to follow. Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. Not using hollow point rounds. Banning gas. Etc. The problem is that in most wars there always seems to be a force of good and a force of evil who is not willing to follow the rules. The Germans, Japanese, Italians, Russians…

> Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. This did happen, at least early on, in the Battle of the Atlantic. And some U-boat crews not only stopped to pick up survivors but gave up their own bunks for them. Eventually Dönitz had to order them to stop, on the grounds that it put the sub at risk. You might also be interested in the Charlie Brown and Franz…

As I understand it, this generally stopped because of the Laconia incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#24

Post by mrec »

derivagral wrote: post #23
mrec wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. This did happen, at least early on, in the Battle of the Atlantic. And some U-boat crews not only stopped to pick up survivors but gave up their own bunks for them. Eventually Dönitz had to order them to stop, on the grounds that it put the sub at risk. You might also be interested in the Charlie Brown and Franz…

As I understand it, this generally stopped because of the Laconia incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

That was '42; the (in)famous Dönitz order below was from November or December '39.

> Rescue no one and take no one with you. Have no care for the ships’ boats. Weather conditions and the proximity of land are of no account. Care only for your own boat and strive to achieve the next success as soon as possible! We must be hard in this war. The enemy started the war in order to destroy us, therefore nothing else matters.

I'm not sure what happened in between that led the U-boats in the Laconia incident to ignore that order.

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#25

Post by selimthegrim »

KaiserPro wrote: post #19
n4r9 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case anyone else wants a summary of these links, they are criticisms of three historical allegations against Churchill, respectively that he: - Used gas against Iraqis - Exacerbated the Bengal famine - Used anthrax bombs against Nazi Germany I don't believe any of these allegations are made in the preceding comment's link, although it does quote him as being in favour of the option of using gas against Arab native…

> - Used gas against Iraqis Proposed the use of tear gas. Didn't carry it out. > - Exacerbated the Bengal famine Its more the japanese cutting off the rice supply, However I have some sympathy with exacerbate. > - Used anthrax bombs against Nazi Germany No. Planned to use it in retaliation. The Nazis were keen to avoid using chemical weapons because they were aware that the british had a far greater capacity to creat…

>Its more the japanese cutting off the rice supply, However I have some sympathy with exacerbate.

Punjab banned export of grain outside its boundaries. The viceroy who answered to Churchill could have overridden that.

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#26

Post by selimthegrim »

>invocation of his (Mir Jafar's) name, in fact, is today treated as a slur, meaning a disgrace to a faith, or disgrace to a nation

This is in fact a well-known couplet of Allama Iqbal's (quoted here: https://twitter.com/asadowaisi/status/968861690388336640)

>With the help of the conspirators from the Nawab’s court (all of whom he bribed)

That's not even the half of it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omichund where Clive had _two different agreements_ written, one promising Amirchand (Nawab's retainer) a share of the loot for turning traitor on which they forged one of the British signatures when the real guy couldn't be found or wasn't willing and the real one which cut the traitor out of the bargain

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#27

Post by n4r9 »

mrec wrote: post #24
derivagral wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, this generally stopped because of the Laconia incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

That was '42; the (in)famous Dönitz order below was from November or December '39. > Rescue no one and take no one with you. Have no care for the ships’ boats. Weather conditions and the proximity of land are of no account. Care only for your own boat and strive to achieve the next success as soon as possible! We must be hard in this war. The enemy started the war in order to destroy us, therefore nothing else matter…

Dönitz gave two orders: "War Order No.154" which you quote, then the "Laconia Order" following that incident, which doubles down on the message.

> All efforts to save survivors of sunken ships, such as the fishing out of swimming men and putting them on board lifeboats, the righting of overturned lifeboats, or the handing over of food and water, must stop.

I assume that between these two events the Prize Rules were followed to greater or lesser degree according to the Captain's inclinations (on both sides)

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#28

Post by robin21 »

cafard wrote: post #21
robin21 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what the formula is for victories vs atrocities in terms of historical respect and modern acceptance. It seems we have entered into a period of no matter how much good you did, there is a hard red line of unacceptability set in a modern context as to which all historical figures are judged. If Churchill wasn’t made PM there is a good argument to be made that the Jewish population would have been all but wipe…

The big purges in the USSR happened in the 1930s.

Thanks, Russia is my weak spot in history rn.

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#29

Post by robin21 »

valarauko wrote: post #22
robin21 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what the formula is for victories vs atrocities in terms of historical respect and modern acceptance. It seems we have entered into a period of no matter how much good you did, there is a hard red line of unacceptability set in a modern context as to which all historical figures are judged. If Churchill wasn’t made PM there is a good argument to be made that the Jewish population would have been all but wipe…

Are you really suggesting that Churchill was the singular character who determined the outcome of the war, and without him fascist Europe would stand till this day? >_Any criticism of Churchill’s historical significance really needs to consider the alternative outcome without him. I don’t think there is anyone who would want to take him out of history having acknowledged this. I think most criticism of him comes from…

> Are you really suggesting that Churchill was the singular character who determined the outcome of the war,

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that this is correct.

Churchill was the only one talking about the danger of Hitler since 1935 and the need to re-arm. Everyone else was in the appeasement camp. No one wanted war and they did everything they could to avoid it before Churchill was PM and then continued after he was PM.

The alternative to Churchill taking over from Chamberlain was Halifax who had huge support in parliament, and was who everyone wanted, but who was an appeaser, and whilst in Churchill's cabinet pushed for peace talks even after being wrong for the past 5 years on Hitler. It's not a large jump to say that if Halifax was PM, after the fall of France he would have pushed for peace which Hitler would have welcomed because his ideological nemesis lay with the Bolsheviks in the east. If Hitler had a treaty with the UK he could have committed all forces to the East and defeated Russia. Europe - game, set, match.

If you study the events of the time, it does start to seem that he was a singular force.

> If we could redo the war a million times and change tactics/leaders each time, the Axis powers would lose close to a million times

The mistake here is that its not about redoing the war...its that the war between the UK and Germany would have ceased very prematurely without Churchill.

Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive

#30

Post by robin21 »

mrec wrote: post #20
robin21 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s always amazing to think in the complete chaos of war there were still rules to follow. Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. Not using hollow point rounds. Banning gas. Etc. The problem is that in most wars there always seems to be a force of good and a force of evil who is not willing to follow the rules. The Germans, Japanese, Italians, Russians…

> Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. This did happen, at least early on, in the Battle of the Atlantic. And some U-boat crews not only stopped to pick up survivors but gave up their own bunks for them. Eventually Dönitz had to order them to stop, on the grounds that it put the sub at risk. You might also be interested in the Charlie Brown and Franz…

Wow. Thanks for that - such a great read.
Post reply on HN