11–20 of 26 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say that it depends very much what you mean by "the world". Plenty cared.
Not enough to take decisive action I would say. EDIT: I mean "major governments like the ones involved in WWII".
Friend of mine just posted this to Facebook. It's sensationalist garbage with anti-British bigotry thrown in. Draws a false equivalence between Hitler (who deliberately exterminated millions) and Churchill (whose "policies" were supposedly unintentionally "responsible" for the famine). That's outrageous even if the history were true. In fact, it isn't. The article claims that "Churchill could easily have prevented th…
"Churchill’s excuse — currently being peddled by his family and supporters — was Britain could not spare the ships to transport emergency supplies, but Mukerjee has unearthed documents that challenge his claim. She cites official records that reveal ships carrying grain from Australia bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean"
&
"Churchill’s hostility toward Indians has long been documented. At a War Cabinet meeting, he blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying they “breed like rabbits”. His attitude toward Indians may be summed up in his words to Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” On another occasion, he insisted they were “the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not enough to take decisive action I would say. EDIT: I mean "major governments like the ones involved in WWII".
WW2 wasn't fought because people saw evil in Hitler. I have heard that is what is taught in British schools, but that is not true. WW2 was a fight for survival and nothing else.
Friend of mine just posted this to Facebook. It's sensationalist garbage with anti-British bigotry thrown in. Draws a false equivalence between Hitler (who deliberately exterminated millions) and Churchill (whose "policies" were supposedly unintentionally "responsible" for the famine). That's outrageous even if the history were true. In fact, it isn't. The article claims that "Churchill could easily have prevented th…
FTFY: Churchill's 'policies' were supposedly intentionally "responsible" for the famine. Link to actual wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Governme... (the article has NPOV problems for more than a year now). For the British apologists, here is the quote to give you some acquaintance with the subject of Britain induced famines: "During the first eighty years of the nineteenth centu…
One can still make unfavorable comparisons to other "evil" figures, where the analogy is imo closer. If indeed Churchill is responsible for an essentially deliberate famine, one could compare him to Stalin, and the probably-deliberate famine in the Ukraine. Or, if he's merely responsible for a large famine via negligence, one could compare him to Mao, and the probably-not-deliberate famine in China.
Friend of mine just posted this to Facebook. It's sensationalist garbage with anti-British bigotry thrown in. Draws a false equivalence between Hitler (who deliberately exterminated millions) and Churchill (whose "policies" were supposedly unintentionally "responsible" for the famine). That's outrageous even if the history were true. In fact, it isn't. The article claims that "Churchill could easily have prevented th…
The Japanese army in Burma had its own supply problems, and a lot of the soldiers starved during their retreat. But if the neighboring provinces had food surpluses, why didn't the authorities manage a transfer?
How else do you get the argument that Churchill was intentionally killing Indians because he "had a bad attitude" toward them and because he didn't risk enough merchant shipping during a world war to ship food there?
Friend of mine just posted this to Facebook. It's sensationalist garbage with anti-British bigotry thrown in. Draws a false equivalence between Hitler (who deliberately exterminated millions) and Churchill (whose "policies" were supposedly unintentionally "responsible" for the famine). That's outrageous even if the history were true. In fact, it isn't. The article claims that "Churchill could easily have prevented th…
Why would you call this garbage & bigotry. There seems to be evidence supporting Churchill's attitude towards Indians: "Churchill’s excuse — currently being peddled by his family and supporters — was Britain could not spare the ships to transport emergency supplies, but Mukerjee has unearthed documents that challenge his claim. She cites official records that reveal ships carrying grain from Australia bypassed India…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WW2 wasn't fought because people saw evil in Hitler. I have heard that is what is taught in British schools, but that is not true. WW2 was a fight for survival and nothing else.
Survival of what? Individuals were not threatened; governments were. The argument that government propaganda stirred the population into wanting to fight goes right back to the original argument: people fought because they saw evil (as presented by the propaganda).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think much people outside the former USSR, apart from the usual weirdos, saw Stalin as a hero or a Good Guy™. And inside the USSR being a dissident wasn't a healthy option.
I don't think people specifically thought Stalin personally was a hero, but prior to the cold war, Western Europeans had a much more positive view of the USSR's role in WW2. For example, here are the answers of French people to the survey question "Which was, in your view, the nation that most contributed to the defeat of Germany in WW2?": 1945: USSR 57%, USA 20%, UK 12% 1994: USSR 25%, USA 49%, UK 16% 2004: USSR 20%…
The USSR did contribute to the defeat of Germany. People's impression of how much of an impact the USSR had does not mean they thought the USSR was a force for good.
Friend of mine just posted this to Facebook. It's sensationalist garbage with anti-British bigotry thrown in. Draws a false equivalence between Hitler (who deliberately exterminated millions) and Churchill (whose "policies" were supposedly unintentionally "responsible" for the famine). That's outrageous even if the history were true. In fact, it isn't. The article claims that "Churchill could easily have prevented th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WW2 wasn't fought because people saw evil in Hitler. I have heard that is what is taught in British schools, but that is not true. WW2 was a fight for survival and nothing else.
Survival of what? Individuals were not threatened; governments were. The argument that government propaganda stirred the population into wanting to fight goes right back to the original argument: people fought because they saw evil (as presented by the propaganda).