What did Winston churchill do that was so wrong

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I think you might find it was the Japanese that coursed the famine when they invaded Burma

Winston had an impossible choice, feed bengal or feed his soldiers that were fighting the Nazi machine that was murdering millions and on the verge of conquering Europe and beyond.

Not a nice choice

His orders ensured that 4,000,000 Bengalis died from starvation, while food was diverted from Bengal and being stockpiled, just in case of.......
A British Prime Minister who prioritises the possible, over the inevitable.
A poor decision based on poor judgement in my opinion.



Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/the-cenotaph-today.547066/page-4#ixzz6PN2LV51v

And subsequent comments in that discussion.
Not forgetting that his policies caused the famine in the first place.

 

[durhamplumber]

Bobby the Dazzler has read some blokes book that thinks Winston Churchill is up there with Hiltler in the Genocide league.

 

[fillyboy]

 

[durhamplumber]

Reviewing a recent book, The Churchill Factor, by London Mayor Boris Johnson, a reviewer repeated a widespread canard about Winston Churchill that really needs to be put to rest:

When there was a danger of serious famine in Bengal in 1943–4, Churchill announced that the Indians “must learn to look after themselves as we have done… there is no reason why all parts of the British empire should not feel the pinch in the same way as the mother country has done.” Still more disgracefully, he said in a jocular way that “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks.” This is more than amusingly politically incorrect language: it had real consequences. Three million Bengalis died of starvation. A true historian would not have neglected this in order to suggest that the imperialist was making a stand against ‘barbarous practices.”1

There’s a good reason why Mayor Johnson omits the now-famous accusation that Churchill starved the Bengalis: it is not true. Alas, in the words of a wartime statesman, “a lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on.”2

The charge stems from a 2009 book accusing Churchill of irresponsibility over Bengal that amounted to a war crime, repeated by scores of sources since. As Churchill once remarked, “I should think it was hardly possible to state the opposite of the truth with more precision.”3

The truth—documented by Sir Martin Gilbert and Hillsdale College—is that Churchill did everything he could in the midst of world war to save the Bengalis; and that without him the famine would have been worse.4

 

[transam]

Churchill was a decent bloke

Who had to make difficult decisions whilst the country was involved in a world war

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Reviewing a recent book, The Churchill Factor, by London Mayor Boris Johnson, a reviewer repeated a widespread canard about Winston Churchill that really needs to be put to rest:

When there was a danger of serious famine in Bengal in 1943–4, Churchill announced that the Indians “must learn to look after themselves as we have done… there is no reason why all parts of the British empire should not feel the pinch in the same way as the mother country has done.” Still more disgracefully, he said in a jocular way that “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks.” This is more than amusingly politically incorrect language: it had real consequences. Three million Bengalis died of starvation. A true historian would not have neglected this in order to suggest that the imperialist was making a stand against ‘barbarous practices.”1

There’s a good reason why Mayor Johnson omits the now-famous accusation that Churchill starved the Bengalis: it is not true. Alas, in the words of a wartime statesman, “a lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on.”2

The charge stems from a 2009 book accusing Churchill of irresponsibility over Bengal that amounted to a war crime, repeated by scores of sources since. As Churchill once remarked, “I should think it was hardly possible to state the opposite of the truth with more precision.”3

The truth—documented by Sir Martin Gilbert and Hillsdale College—is that Churchill did everything he could in the midst of world war to save the Bengalis; and that without him the famine would have been worse.4

We know that Mayor, Boris Johnson never tells lies, never mind twisting history, God forbid!
Churchill's actions, his authority and his response are documented on historical records.

 

[durhamplumber]

Churchill was a decent bloke

Who had to make difficult decisions whilst the country was involved in a world war

According to BobbyRazzledazzle he was as bad as Hilter

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Churchill was a decent bloke

Who had to make difficult decisions whilst the country was involved in a world war

And in making those decisions, he prioritised Europeans over BAME people.
That is racism in action.

 

[Toria J]

To be fair, that was perfectly acceptable, at the time.

That's a good point - acceptable to those who weren't being persecuted. Those who were didn't have a voice, or their experiences have been whitewashed (literally) out of history.

There WERE people at the time saying he was as bad as Hitler, but they just weren't listened to. There were people objecting to him bombing and gassing populations, when he was breaking human rights laws, but over time, this hasn't been highlighted.

(Take the massive anti-Brexit protests last year which were ignored by the media. Does a protest even happen if it's not covered by the media?)

As an example of whitewashing: 'Gone With The Wind' - both book and film - is often held up as something that was 'acceptable at the time'.

Thing is, it wasn't. It was acknowledged as Jim Crow era propaganda AT THE TIME. There were protests outside libraries and film theatres, there were people saying it promoted the white supremacy ideals of the 'happy black slave' and glamourised the Confederate fight which was simply the right to own slaves. The writer was a recognised white supremacist!
It has always been problematic. It was never 'acceptable at the time'.

There's a recognised expression about history being written by the winners. Historians of the winning side have been, by-and-large, white and male and rich. Therefore anyone not white, male, or rich isn't likely to have their stories recorded and remembered.

In summary: 'acceptable at the time' mean that voices are missing from historical accounts.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

According to BobbyRazzledazzle he was as bad as Hilter

Not quite, Hitler was responsible for the policies that killed 6,000,000 people. Churchill didn't quite achieve that number.

 

[transam]

And in making those decisions, he prioritised Europeans over BAME people.
That is racism in action.

Ball cocks

 

[ajohn]

I think you might find it was the Japanese that coursed the famine when they invaded Burma

Winston had an impossible choice, feed bengal or feed his soldiers that were fighting the Nazi machine that was murdering millions and on the verge of conquering Europe and beyond.

Not a nice choice

Like most things like that there is usually a reason and all in all a decision might not be just 100% one way or the other. I usually say not black or white but some shade of grey. Seems it might not be a good term to use now. Best hold seance with him and ask what he considered. Anyone got a ouija board.? Actually his reasons might be available via freedom for information now. Just believe a newspaper if you like.

The reason for WWII was Hitler aiming to over run all of Europe. Best give the Russians some credit for defeating him, more than you might think. WWII was very probably a result of the end effects on Germany of WWI. That one didn't end before they decided to accept total defeat - reparations etc and millions more dead. That fact probably had a direct effect on what went on after WWII.

I do know my fathers opinion of him. The right sort of person for a war but not really suitable for peace. Seems he thought the population was ungrateful at some point.

 

[transam]

Not quite, Hitler was responsible for the policies that killed 6,000,000 people. Churchill didn't quite achieve that number.

Stalin 20 million
Mao millions
Pol pot 2 million
Idi amin 500000
Mugabe 20000?
Etc etc

 

[JohnD]

6,000,000

Ten million.

You are only remembering one target group.

 

[transam]

According to BobbyRazzledazzle he was as bad as Hilter

Well he would

Fidel castro is probably his hero

Owns a Che T shirt