The Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Independent:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
I mean, Winston Churchill most definitely was a villain. He wasn’t the villain of WWII, but undoubtedly a villain.
He was intensely racist, had no problem using Indian people in his army while censoring their letters, as a famine he had a hand in creating killed over three million people.
That’s no excuse for peddling propaganda-Nazi propaganda, though. I thought that was kind of this guy’s shtick?
Tucker hanging out with nazis? Why, I find that hard to believe. /s
Churchill was the villain his entire life, he’s been hailed a hero despite his history. Hitler was evil too but the number of deaths directly attributed around the world to Churchill makes Hitler look like an amateur. The only difference is Hitlers victims were mostly white, Churchill’s were mostly brown and history always placed a different significance to brown and black deaths
Do you have a source on Churchill’s death tool in comparison to Hitler’s?
Churchill was undeniably horrible and the naked colonialism of the British Empire had normalized atrocities occurring on a daily basis. But even so, I’m skeptical that his numbers would “put Hitler to shame,” considering the scale of the wars and genocide Hitler caused.
Looked it up, referring to this?
Churchill’s policies to blame for millions of Indian famine deaths, study says
I think the major difference here is malice. Did Churchill set out cause these deaths or was it greed and/or stupidity? Honest question worth discussion, I haven’t heard of this prior.
Policy lapses such as prioritizing distribution of vital supplies to the military, stopping rice imports and not declaring that it was actually a famine were among the factors that led to the magnitude of the tragedy, he added.
So we’re comparing some possible logistics mistakes, in a distant colony, during a defensive war where the ruling country was being bombed on their own soil. Comparing those “incendental” deaths to those of an aggressive conquering army literally rounding up their own citizens and those of the lands they conquered, to be killed.
Right.
She wrote that famine was caused in part by large-scale exports of food from India. India exported more than 70,000 tons of rice between January and July 1943 as the famine set in, she said.
That quantity seems pretty low. In comparison, I found an old post that indicated 300,000 tons of food aid had been supplied to Gaza over 190 days, so similar time spans, to a much smaller population.
Of course, exporting food while the residents are starving is terrible. But this is one study and one interpretation of results.
This certainly sounds like yet another bad faith strawman talking point by Nazi sympathizers.
I don’t agree with their point comparing it to the Nazis, but I think this interpretation is being way too generous in reaction to that. Famines in India under British colonial rule were a frequent occurrence. Between 1850 and 1899, 15 million Indians died from no less than 24 major famines. The horrors inflicted through Britain’s nakedly colonial rule were not just innocent mistakes or the product of unexpected circumstances - this was simply the modus operendi of the empire. Frequent atrocities, oppression, and mass death were the status quo for much of the world’s population during this time period.
Obviously, the Nazis had no problem with any of that, they were only upset that they weren’t the ones getting to do it.
Pushing back against the idea that Churchill was worse than Hitler is good, but criticism of Churchill’s role in the famine outside of that comparison is perfectly valid and has academic support, for example, Amartya Sen’s work.
And for scale
According to a 1941 census, the population of India was 388,997,955. This was an increase of over 50 million from the previous census.
In 1943, India was also experiencing the Bengal famine, which killed an estimated 2.1–3 million people.
70,000 tons, distributed over 389m people, is 0.0003598972 pounds of food were taken away from each Indian person, over a 6-7 month period.
Riiiiight.
Yeah, I just don’t see the comparison the OP made here. I’m willing to relent that Britain has done more harm than good to India but I’m no expert so I’d defer to someone smarter here.
But the even crazier thing is that the article isn’t even talking about famine caused by the British Raj… No, they’re saying Churchill was the aggressor and Hitler was pushed into a fight he didn’t want. And the craziest part is the statement that the concentration camps were mercy kills to prevent starvation.
This article provides some quotes that certainly seem to indicate that malice played a role, or at best callous indifference.
The only difference is Hitlers victims were mostly white
Holy fuck, how fucking convenient that the victims of white supremacy (and groups of people who have been consistently excluded from and oppressed by white Christian societies) can be considered white when it fits the twisted game of oppression olympics you’re trying to play here, to what, virtue signal? Be a contrarian? Or do you genuinely think the holocaust gets some sort of special status because white supremacist society somehow suddenly cares about Jews and Roma people (or queers, for that matter)?
I don’t think anyone here would argue with you that Churchill wasn’t a murderous piece of shit, but leaning in to holocaust denial is never going to help you make a case for anything other than that you’re a holocaust denier.
No ones denying the Holocaust, I’m pointing out that Hitler is viewed as the bigger villain because he was killing white people. Society in general does not give a flying fuck if brown people are killed. Churchill was basically given a pass and essentially viewed as a hero despite his history.
THIS is EXACTLY why Republicans are the ONLY PARTY for Jews! You’re not a REAL JEW unless you vote for the Pro Nazi Party!
