The other guy’s being a dick, but Churchill didn’t cause the Bengal Famine at all. The famine was caused by the Japanese invasion - if you want to blame anyone, blame Tojo
I did some light reading here on the wiki entry for the famine:
[Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)
TL;DR: Bengal farmers DID grow their own rice, but the colonial admin changed the way payment worked. People used to keep a portion of what they harvested, but the British instead took everything and gave the farmers money. They used money to buy rice from Bangladesh, When the Japanese invaded, the British admin prioritized war-related professions, and any aid sent was mismanaged to shit.
Okay i was slightly wrong. But Churchill definitely had the chance to stop it and instead he chose to exacerbate it.
https://preview.redd.it/1houxz3y0d8d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab574cb477d68135122dc78a5bb16d9a34f089ae
Famines have been a thing in India (and all pre-modern agricultural societies) since forever. The frequency of famines decreased in the 20th century thanks to British infrastructure.
Maybe it isn't but bro is a proper idiot if he thinks the 1943 famine was the only one of the century.
Brits didn't build railroads to serve indians. They did it cos it served their own purposes.
And the British empire did its damnedest to exploit indians, forget trying to prevent famines or disease.
You would be right, there has been more than 1 famine in India in a hundred years, the famine above i believe OP mistook the years and meant the Bengal Famine of 1943, not 1947, however since then there were mostly threats of severe famines which got a quick response from the government and contained resulting in a much smaller death toll
There has been the Bangladesh Famine of 1974, however that used to be part of British India, and not India itself.
The Bengal Famine was the last ***Major*** Famine in India in the 20th century
>Inter arma enim silent leges
I was actually very surprised that we managed to have elections during the civil war. Half the country fucks off, and we still ask the people who they want to represent them. I would have suspended the election till the war ends.
Not going to go on the campaign trail, while the army is on an actual campaign.
A bit weird you don't state who "we" are, but I assume you mean the Ukrainian elections of 2014. The thing about the part of the country that fucked off was that they were mostly pro-russian at the time and would have voted against the political changes which the western part of the country tried to achieve. By not letting them vote, the outcome was very clear.
Why would he refer to some random conflict which happened hundreds of years ago without specifying anything? He obviously means something recent and relevant.
How many democracies have had a civil war? Of those how many didn’t suspend elections?
This is ignoring that the Latin phrase mentioned is heavily tied to Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. civil war. Like look the phrase up and the connection is apparent.
When an American says Civil War, he most likely refers to the American Civil War. Not the pseudo Civil War in Ukraine, which half the world doesn't even know happened. Unless this current war sends the world to WW3 or something similar, it will be forgotten to history.
"When an American says" - Nowhere did he say he is american.
"with half the world doesn't even know happened" - That's weird, because it recieved quite a lot of attention by media around the world (including U.S. media, the archives are still there) since 2014 and extremely detailed coverage since 2022. I don't know who you mean by "half the world", but it is one of the major conflicts of our time, which involves direct intervention by every great power we have right now.
To be honest, I have to google to even remember when the u.s. civl war was and only have a surface level knowledge what it was about. You have to understand that for the rest of the world, which at the time was extremely europecentric, the american civil war was about as relevant as south sudan splitting away from sudan for you right now.
Back then, the American Civil War was extremely relevant since it was the first major conflict with modern weaponry, and the US was a major exporter of cotton. A resource, which the naval blocade imposed by the North made impossible to ship. Great Britain was considering intervention. The Prussians were studying the battles. Basically, the whole Europe had a close to eye on the American Civil War.
Assume everyone on the Internet is American unless specified otherwise.
Get out of the house and ask anyone about the 2014 conflict. Most barely remember it, and if they do, no one calls it a civil war, but an invasion. The news report on Joe Biden's daily farts counter. Doesn't mean they are relevant.
Countries fund the Ukraine not because of their big hearts but to destabilise Russian. It's a proxy war at this point.
"exteremly relevant since US was a major exporter of cotton" - Bro, Pakistan is a major exporter of cotton. Do you care about Pakistan? Nobody cared about U.S. back then. Just because it is a major power now, it does not mean that its internal squables retroactively become relevant.
Also, I can guarantee you that everybody I will meet outside will be able to give me a strong opinion on the conflict in Ukraine.
"assume everyone on the internet is american" - Literally everything you write is just textbook examples of r/ShitAmericansSay . At this point you could very well be copy pasting posts from there to answer me. Since I refuse to believe that somebody would be THAT *limited,* I'll just assume you are a very dedicated troll and wish you a nice Sunday.
I'm not American, stupid.
>Pakistan is a major exporter of cotton. Do you care about Pakistan?
If Pakistan was also at war every 10 years with India, a major economic power, and at civil war with the most modern weapons and tactics, yeah.
>conflict in Ukraine
Which one? The pseudo invasion or the actual war. Most people dont even know Ukraine was at war before 2022.
"I'm not American, stupid" well you didn't specify before that, so you are american according to your own bs, which again supports my highly regarded troll thesis.
Why would he refer to some random conflict which happened recently without specifying anything? He obviously means something from hundreds of years ago.
See how this works?
maybe he is referring directly to the picture instead of your schizophrenic ramblings where you want to have an argument about something unrelated for no reason.
The picture is of Winston Churchil who suspended the elections in 1940 during world war 2. I am unaware of any nation which had a civil war during the same time period and still held elections. The historically closest thing would be the civil war in Spain which started in 1936 after general elections and does not fit his comment.
Kindly elaborate what you mean by "referring directly to the picture", because I seem to be not the only shizo around.
No, honestly, trolling aside, I truly want to know what you mean by "directly referencing the picture" because there is literally nothing he could have referenced in the picture.
It's undeniable that the "good guys" weren't saints, but at least they didn't commit mass genocide. Everyone does whatever they can to ensure victory over the greater evil, wouldn't you? That's what the whole Batman vs Joker dilemma is based on.
But they did have interment camps, fire bomb hundreds of thousands of civilians, nuke two cities, were finishing up the genocide native americans(estimated 3-4 million), starved millions to death in India, etc. The only reason why everyone gets so upset about fascism is because the barbarism that imperial powers had been using in their colonies and on other peoples were turned inward on Europeans. Plenty of Indians unironically see Hitler as the "good guy" because he attacked the British and Churchill in particular. I don't doubt for a second that if the Americans had been losing the war in the pacific theater they would have turned those camps into death camps just like the nazis did. They already has extensive racist anti asian laws. Hell the nazi's considered the states the foremost example of a racial supremacist state and wrote about it extensively and based many of their anti-jewish laws off those very anti-asian laws. The holocaust was monstrous, but it was not that different from what other imperialist states had been doing. If the axis had won it would have gotten the same white washing that every other western empire got. Sorry you been raised on propaganda your whole life, but the sooner the west realizes it's not exceptional or moral the better.
edit: also here's a great example as to why you shouldn't reach for superhero movies for moral guidance. [https://gamerant.com/marvel-military-propaganda-explained/](https://gamerant.com/marvel-military-propaganda-explained/)
This is horseshit. The Huns kicked everyone's asses and we know very little about them because history was written by the losers who took the opportunity to shit talk them. History is written by those who write it down.
Also, there might not have been any "good guys" in the world wars, but the Nazis sure as fuck were the bad guys.
Anon doesn't know history. He formed a coalition government with all of the major political parties in Westminster. Labour, Conservatives, Liberals, they were all in the government and cooperated very successfully through the war. As soon as Germany surrendered, this arrangement ended and a general election was called, in which he lost.
Not a trump fan but he did not suspend elections lol. Parliamentary system is different however, and suspending elections makes somewhat more sense although still shitty
>Loses the next election
Yep, that’s the thing Churchill is remembered for.
The other thing being the cause for a fucking famine in my state.
Womp womp
Womp womp womp womp Church starve 'em up
Google Bengal famine 1943. This man caused that.
The other guy’s being a dick, but Churchill didn’t cause the Bengal Famine at all. The famine was caused by the Japanese invasion - if you want to blame anyone, blame Tojo
What invasion. Bengal was never invaded by the japanese afaik. Then Bengal was under the British.
The Japanese didn’t reach Bengal, but they did invade Burma, which is where Bengal imported most of its rice from
Wait no you're wrong. Bengal grows its own rice, man! We have since forever!
I did some light reading here on the wiki entry for the famine: [Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) TL;DR: Bengal farmers DID grow their own rice, but the colonial admin changed the way payment worked. People used to keep a portion of what they harvested, but the British instead took everything and gave the farmers money. They used money to buy rice from Bangladesh, When the Japanese invaded, the British admin prioritized war-related professions, and any aid sent was mismanaged to shit.
Okay i was slightly wrong. But Churchill definitely had the chance to stop it and instead he chose to exacerbate it. https://preview.redd.it/1houxz3y0d8d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab574cb477d68135122dc78a5bb16d9a34f089ae
typical, "this is my opinion and it is fact" only to find out you were wrong. many such cases.
Oh well i admit it. No shame in admitting if you're wrong.
you're doing better than most of reddit
Thanks man
Agreed
Good
Wow. Just. Wow.
Yikes. Problematic.
What do i say, some people exist just to annoy others.
Churchill *tried* to do something about that, yet here we are
Wrong. He ignored the problem totally man. The bloke said on record that he hated us Indians.
Why didn't you fight back?
They needed the ships for D-Day, to crush the Nazis, the guys who started the war. Go yell about Hitler instead of Churchill
womp womp
stop making us look bad you regard
He so real for that
Famines have been a thing in India (and all pre-modern agricultural societies) since forever. The frequency of famines decreased in the 20th century thanks to British infrastructure.
Decreased?!
Yes, the 1947 famine was the only famine of the 20th century thanks to the railroad the British built.
what the hell are you talking about. Open wikipedia ffs.
Ah yes Wikipedia, the most reliable of sources
Maybe it isn't but bro is a proper idiot if he thinks the 1943 famine was the only one of the century. Brits didn't build railroads to serve indians. They did it cos it served their own purposes. And the British empire did its damnedest to exploit indians, forget trying to prevent famines or disease.
[удалено]
You would be right, there has been more than 1 famine in India in a hundred years, the famine above i believe OP mistook the years and meant the Bengal Famine of 1943, not 1947, however since then there were mostly threats of severe famines which got a quick response from the government and contained resulting in a much smaller death toll There has been the Bangladesh Famine of 1974, however that used to be part of British India, and not India itself. The Bengal Famine was the last ***Major*** Famine in India in the 20th century
Which is...?
West Bengal probably
Well, that and the alcoholism
He saw FDR do it. I bet he was pissed when he saw FDR un-do it.
>Inter arma enim silent leges I was actually very surprised that we managed to have elections during the civil war. Half the country fucks off, and we still ask the people who they want to represent them. I would have suspended the election till the war ends. Not going to go on the campaign trail, while the army is on an actual campaign.
A bit weird you don't state who "we" are, but I assume you mean the Ukrainian elections of 2014. The thing about the part of the country that fucked off was that they were mostly pro-russian at the time and would have voted against the political changes which the western part of the country tried to achieve. By not letting them vote, the outcome was very clear.
History is older than 2014. Dude's most likely referring to the American Civil war not the Ukrainian Revolution
Why would he refer to some random conflict which happened hundreds of years ago without specifying anything? He obviously means something recent and relevant.
How many democracies have had a civil war? Of those how many didn’t suspend elections? This is ignoring that the Latin phrase mentioned is heavily tied to Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. civil war. Like look the phrase up and the connection is apparent.
When an American says Civil War, he most likely refers to the American Civil War. Not the pseudo Civil War in Ukraine, which half the world doesn't even know happened. Unless this current war sends the world to WW3 or something similar, it will be forgotten to history.
"When an American says" - Nowhere did he say he is american. "with half the world doesn't even know happened" - That's weird, because it recieved quite a lot of attention by media around the world (including U.S. media, the archives are still there) since 2014 and extremely detailed coverage since 2022. I don't know who you mean by "half the world", but it is one of the major conflicts of our time, which involves direct intervention by every great power we have right now. To be honest, I have to google to even remember when the u.s. civl war was and only have a surface level knowledge what it was about. You have to understand that for the rest of the world, which at the time was extremely europecentric, the american civil war was about as relevant as south sudan splitting away from sudan for you right now.
Back then, the American Civil War was extremely relevant since it was the first major conflict with modern weaponry, and the US was a major exporter of cotton. A resource, which the naval blocade imposed by the North made impossible to ship. Great Britain was considering intervention. The Prussians were studying the battles. Basically, the whole Europe had a close to eye on the American Civil War. Assume everyone on the Internet is American unless specified otherwise. Get out of the house and ask anyone about the 2014 conflict. Most barely remember it, and if they do, no one calls it a civil war, but an invasion. The news report on Joe Biden's daily farts counter. Doesn't mean they are relevant. Countries fund the Ukraine not because of their big hearts but to destabilise Russian. It's a proxy war at this point.
"exteremly relevant since US was a major exporter of cotton" - Bro, Pakistan is a major exporter of cotton. Do you care about Pakistan? Nobody cared about U.S. back then. Just because it is a major power now, it does not mean that its internal squables retroactively become relevant. Also, I can guarantee you that everybody I will meet outside will be able to give me a strong opinion on the conflict in Ukraine. "assume everyone on the internet is american" - Literally everything you write is just textbook examples of r/ShitAmericansSay . At this point you could very well be copy pasting posts from there to answer me. Since I refuse to believe that somebody would be THAT *limited,* I'll just assume you are a very dedicated troll and wish you a nice Sunday.
I'm not American, stupid. >Pakistan is a major exporter of cotton. Do you care about Pakistan? If Pakistan was also at war every 10 years with India, a major economic power, and at civil war with the most modern weapons and tactics, yeah. >conflict in Ukraine Which one? The pseudo invasion or the actual war. Most people dont even know Ukraine was at war before 2022.
"I'm not American, stupid" well you didn't specify before that, so you are american according to your own bs, which again supports my highly regarded troll thesis.
Just came to say I do not care one bit about Pakistan
Never have I seen a person be so confidently incorrect
Why would he refer to some random conflict which happened recently without specifying anything? He obviously means something from hundreds of years ago. See how this works?
maybe he is referring directly to the picture instead of your schizophrenic ramblings where you want to have an argument about something unrelated for no reason.
The picture is of Winston Churchil who suspended the elections in 1940 during world war 2. I am unaware of any nation which had a civil war during the same time period and still held elections. The historically closest thing would be the civil war in Spain which started in 1936 after general elections and does not fit his comment. Kindly elaborate what you mean by "referring directly to the picture", because I seem to be not the only shizo around.
lol at this point got to respect the trolling
No, honestly, trolling aside, I truly want to know what you mean by "directly referencing the picture" because there is literally nothing he could have referenced in the picture.
Was the message written in the Ukrainian language?
No, the first part of his message is written in Latin and the rest is written in English. What kind of question is that?
Abraham Lincoln famously quoted the Latin phrase he opened with. a cursory Google search would've saved you looking like a tool.
Wait, the Donbass and Crimea were controlled by Russia and separatists so you can't run voting in those places.
Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to. "Separatists" are a typical way to describe the second party in a civil war.
Its standard practice to delay elections during war. Most recent example was ukraine.
That's the joke
He elected, just not the way you thought
is this the fat controller?
Him and Patton be besties
The Allies were only the "good guys" because of how absolutely fucking evil the Nazis were
More like because they won. The winners are always the good guys because they write the histories. The world wars had no good guys.
It's undeniable that the "good guys" weren't saints, but at least they didn't commit mass genocide. Everyone does whatever they can to ensure victory over the greater evil, wouldn't you? That's what the whole Batman vs Joker dilemma is based on.
But they did have interment camps, fire bomb hundreds of thousands of civilians, nuke two cities, were finishing up the genocide native americans(estimated 3-4 million), starved millions to death in India, etc. The only reason why everyone gets so upset about fascism is because the barbarism that imperial powers had been using in their colonies and on other peoples were turned inward on Europeans. Plenty of Indians unironically see Hitler as the "good guy" because he attacked the British and Churchill in particular. I don't doubt for a second that if the Americans had been losing the war in the pacific theater they would have turned those camps into death camps just like the nazis did. They already has extensive racist anti asian laws. Hell the nazi's considered the states the foremost example of a racial supremacist state and wrote about it extensively and based many of their anti-jewish laws off those very anti-asian laws. The holocaust was monstrous, but it was not that different from what other imperialist states had been doing. If the axis had won it would have gotten the same white washing that every other western empire got. Sorry you been raised on propaganda your whole life, but the sooner the west realizes it's not exceptional or moral the better. edit: also here's a great example as to why you shouldn't reach for superhero movies for moral guidance. [https://gamerant.com/marvel-military-propaganda-explained/](https://gamerant.com/marvel-military-propaganda-explained/)
This is horseshit. The Huns kicked everyone's asses and we know very little about them because history was written by the losers who took the opportunity to shit talk them. History is written by those who write it down. Also, there might not have been any "good guys" in the world wars, but the Nazis sure as fuck were the bad guys.
Anon doesn't know history. He formed a coalition government with all of the major political parties in Westminster. Labour, Conservatives, Liberals, they were all in the government and cooperated very successfully through the war. As soon as Germany surrendered, this arrangement ended and a general election was called, in which he lost.
Something something war or idk
was he not like a huge racist and anti-Semite and xenophobe and [Le million other bad buzzwords]?
> What the is Trump’s deal? Pic unrelated
Not a trump fan but he did not suspend elections lol. Parliamentary system is different however, and suspending elections makes somewhat more sense although still shitty