Why did didn't Britain feed the Irish when the potato crop failed?

Why didn't the conquistadors give the Indians guns?

Is the baby black?

Perfidious albion strike again.

Why didn't the black guy who knocked up this young girl use a condom instead?

Irish were white africans in british eyes.

>breed uncontrollably
>violent
>drunks

sometimes true compassion is not doing the immediately beneficial thing, if you understand me
so it was the most moral thing in a time where compassion was by male reasoning and not by irrational outbursts, a scientifically shrewd decision

Why didn't obama feed africa when their un-farmed dirt land didn't yield any crops?

Why does Russia have to be culpable for Hungerciding the Ukrainians, and Perfidious Albion doesn't for the Irish?

Why didn't America feed the Japanese when the 1945 rice crop failed?

because millions of whites on gibs will die off you boke

>Why did didn't Britain feed the Irish when the potato crop failed?

they did, just not enough, largely because ireland continued to export food.

You forgot the punch line.

Hm, this image evokes a strange emotion.

The government didn't do shit.

The relief efforts were all done by rich liberals and they couldn't possibly handle it all.

The non-potato food was being exported from Ireland while people were starving because the landowners still needed to make a profit.

The British government deployed the army to guard the food exports for the landowners.

Pic related
>location of British Army units and mass graves of famine victims

There was only so much a few rich British Quakers could do.

And nothing of value was lost, as shown in your cowardice during WWII.

me too

Why didn't Bolivia just keep their coastline?

Because they're filthy potato nig nogs, whose population was too large and too full of invalids for the island of Ireland or the rest of the British Isles to support. They worshiped the potato and refused to diversify to ward against disease and adopt advanced farming techniques to ward against soil exhaustion. And they blame us for not helping them!

How many times in history have we tried to educate them? Tried to show them how to sustain themselves? And how many times have they slapped us in the face as a result? They should have been expelled to America or disposed of for British lebensraum!

For a genuine answer - the British embraced Malthus's ideas. They believed famines were a natural part of the cycle of life, a result of out of control population growth stemming from "immorality". Charity to alleviate a famine would cause greater suffering in the long term as it only delayed the inevitable.

Throw in a bit of contempt for Popery, a dash of racism and sprinkle with the self interest of rich land owners who wanted to preserve laws against grain imports for their own benefit.

>irishholocaust.org
well that seems like it would be a totally reliable source.

Give it up Paddy. No one's buying it.

>The government didn't do shit.
the government's first response was to send several shiploads of food. They also tried to organise state-run employment programs to give Irishmen jobs to keep them out of poverty (which was practically unheard of at the time)

>The relief efforts were all done by rich liberals and they couldn't possibly handle it all.
that was how social care worked in those days, by private charity. The idea that the national government (as opposed to local parish councils or private citizens) should be responsible for providing support to the poor is a concept that didn't really start to take root until the 20th century.

>The British government deployed the army to guard the food exports for the landowners.
There are only one of two instances of troops having to deal with rioters.

>The non-potato food was being exported from Ireland while people were starving because the landowners still needed to make a profit.
food was also imported in great quantities during the famine, paid for by the money gained from exporting higher-end goods like beef.

>Why does Russia have to be culpable for Hungerciding the Ukrainians, and Perfidious Albion doesn't for the Irish?
Because the Russians fucked up Ukrainian agriculture with collectivisation and then when this went bad they stole all the food that was left. The famine in 19th century Ireland was a natural disaster, exacerbated by poor farming practices on the part of the Irish. The government in England might not have responded particularly effectively, but they can hardly be blamed for the spread of the potato blight.

>For a genuine answer - the British embraced Malthus's ideas.
Yet another lie spread by bigoted Irish people.

There were people who were influenced by Malthusian theories who thought that Ireland had simply reached its natural carrying capacity; it was simply a matter of geography for them: Ireland only had so much arable land and could only support so many people. But these were only a minority and there's no evidence that they had a significant impact on Britain's response to the crisis. There were plenty who denounced these ideas as unchristian.

For an actual answer you need to know something about British politics in the 1840s. The government in power at the beginning of the crisis, under Prime Minister Robert Peel, had been elected specifically on a platform of free trade. Prior to this tariff systems had been in place, which protected the interests of the landed gentry by making food imports more expensive. Which would have been great for the common man, but then the potato blight hit Ireland - having formed around the principle of free trade it would have been politically and ideologically impossible for Peel's government to interfere in the Irish economy by, say, shutting the ports.

The next problem was that Peel's push for free trade was so divisive that his government collapsed. This left a power vacuum. For the later years of the famine Britain was in the hands of what was more or less a caretaker government with barely the power to govern prosperous England, let alone lead a massive effort to rectify Ireland's problems.

They did
It wasn't enough
Social care wasn't a thing back then

fpbp

> it would have been politically and ideologically impossible
Though disagreement may be too strong of a term I have to question this part of your assessment. People both then and now talked much about free trade whiling dabbling with protectionism behind the scenes so I have doubts about it being totally impossible Did Peel at least accomplish removing many barriers before the government collapsed? If so I why didn't traders simply supply the Irish with food?

>Did Peel at least accomplish removing many barriers before the government collapsed?
Yes, due in no small part to the Irish famine, which caused many MPs who'd been on the fence to decide that there was an urgent need for reform.

It did lead to a rise in food imports to Ireland, just nowhere near enough to offset the gaping hole in the food supply left by the potato blight.

> People both then and now talked much about free trade whiling dabbling with protectionism behind the scenes so I have doubts about it being totally impossible
obviously you don't know too much about the period. A lot of Peel's government had an almost religious commitment to free trade. They wholeheartedly believed that the people were best off when the government didn't meddle in the economy. The fight to repeal the tariff system had been going on for decades and had become increasingly bitter, to the point where some MPs only voted to repeal because they were afraid there would be a revolution if they didn't. After they finally won the fight in 1846 they could hardly turn around and say 'okay, we know we said we were for free trade, but now we're going to use the government to close Ireland's ports.'

And the landowning class that opposed them was hardly going to push for the government to interfere in how Irish landowners sold their agricultural produce. Meaning that both sides of the political spectrum at the time would never have been able to close Irelands ports and seize and redistribute the remaining food supplies.

>The government didn't do shit.

Good, the government getting involved has never accomplished anything. The US getting involved in the Haiti recovery just made things worse, and that was with the advantages of modern technology.

>obviously you don't know too much about the period
I don't. Its hard to imagine people being so bitter over tariffs that those for them were willing to tank the government in protest of repealing them.

Why didn't Pinochet stop throwing Commies out of helicopters?

a meme is born

Brits also refused to aid in the Indian famines in their areas in Bengal because it would have cut into their profits.

>"You're the father. Too late to back out now, bitch."

>Why did didn't Britain feed the Irish when the potato crop failed?
oliver cromwell's ghost wouldn't let them

>Its hard to imagine people being so bitter over tariffs that those for them were willing to tank the government in protest of repealing them.
Tariffs = higher food prices. Workers in Britain's industrial cities in the 19th century were terribly malnourished. Getting the tariffs repealed was literally a matter of life or death for them. There was an entire movement dedicated to repealing the Corn Laws (as the tariff system was known), backed by rich industrialists who felt higher food prices were driving up wages.

On the other side, the power of landed gentry who comprised the bulk of Peel's own party was fundamentally based on the income they got from agriculture. Conceding to the repeal of the corn laws at best meant that the traditional aristocracy would be ceding even more power in a Britain that was increasingly being run by nouveau riche industrialists. At worst, for some of them it would mean bankruptcy and ruin as cheaper foreign imports drove down the price for their produce to the point where their estates couldn't compete.

Both sides were bitterly entrenched. Peel had to rely on votes from opposition MPs to pass the repeal, but when he did the Tory party split and as a result spent the next twenty years much weakened as a political force. This left government in the hands of the Whigs, who had been in opposition at that point precisely because they were incapable of forming an effective government; the stresses of trying to govern under these circumstances would eventually lead to their dissolution and partial reconstitution as the Liberal party.

Essentially the repeal of the Corn Laws - which the Irish famine played a major part in - broke the backs of both of Britain's traditional main political parties.

Cromwell never hated the Irish. He hated Catholics.

The Ottomans were going to give Ireland tonnes of money to help out but Queen Victoria straight up said that you can't give more money than I gave to help out because it would make me look bad. Instead the Ottomans sent two ships full of food. In response the British tried intercepting the ships to turn them away such that they couldn't save any of those dirty starving fucking Catholics. The two ships only made it to port by sneaking in under nightfall. England also forbade Ireland from growing any potato that was resistant to the blight.

England wanted the Irish dead and they worked within the confines of their desired public image to do it.

>England also forbade Ireland from growing any potato that was resistant to the blight.
Why didn't they just forbid them growing potats in the first place?

Why help fight with the one who has oppressed you for so long?

No wonder De Valera signed the book of condolence for Hitler.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend

Government got involved, in the negative way though.

Ignoring them is one thing that could be attributed to "feigning ignorance". But actively blocking other countries from helping is another.

It was a genocide planned by the government. Millions died due to active government action.

>If so I why didn't traders simply supply the Irish with food?
because the irish couldnt afford to buy food, enough food to survive the famine was already being grown in ireland if the irish had been able to afford to buy food then the landowners wouldnt have exported the food they would have sold it in ireland instead

because england didn't force the irish to cultivate almost exclusively potatoes, nor did the english cause the several years of particularly bad conditions which made the blight that much worse.

>The Ottomans were going to give Ireland tonnes of money to help out but Queen Victoria straight up said that you can't give more money than I gave to help out because it would make me look bad.
this is repeated a lot, but the actual evidence for it put it more or less in the category of urban legend. The legend can't even agree on whether it was the British ambassador or the Sultan's own advisors who asked him to lower his contribution in order to avoid embarrasing the queen. In any case even if you take the story at face value, the Sultan was only going to donate £10,000 (compared to the Queen's £2000), which was a reasonable sum but not 'tonnes of money', and certainly wouldn't have done much to offset the effects of the famine. For context, the largest English private charity which collected funds to help Ireland during the famine donated just under £400,000.

>England also forbade Ireland from growing any potato that was resistant to the blight.
If you're going to make stuff up, why not make stuff up that is at least plausible.

When you take more than a cursory look at what is said about Ireland's great famine, it becomes clear that a lot of it is simply bigoted anti-British propaganda.

>enough food to survive the famine was already being grown in ireland
Do you have a source to back this up?

>well that seems like it would be a totally reliable source.

Why don't you go to the source they provided in the bottom right and fucking prove they're lying, they cited what they used. Dismissing evidence with citations because "the website sounds biased!!!!" isn't valid.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Irish_food_exports_during_Famine

is a good summary, although as its a wiki page its best to follow the source links for a better picture.

>Of all the words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these: "I'm out of men"
- Georgy Zhukov

If Ireland was run by Irishmen interested in the interests of Irishmen, they would have distributed food before selling it cheap to Britain.

Most famines are the result of bad policy. Even as recently as 2001 in Argentina, food was being exported while farm workers were unable to afford it. Literally the Argentinian police was protecting Monsanto shipments from hungry Argentinians.

>The legend can't even agree on whether it was the British ambassador or the Sultan's own advisors who asked him to lower his contribution in order to avoid embarrasing the queen.
Key word, embarrasing, because that was what the English aid was, embarrasing. England wanted the Irish dead. That is inarguable. They said the famine was because of Irish Catholic sinfulness and that if England helped it would only make things worse. That's genocide on tier of what the Soviets did to the Ukraine.

If they weren't Catholic, he would have had another excuse for his hatred.

Why didn't the Union give the Confederacy slaves?

Why didn't the Allies give the Nazis Jews?

We thought it was a Malthusian catastrophe and that the natural solution would be to allow a die-back of the Irish.

Weren't entirely wrong, just had to set our sights a little wider.

punching that belly would be the only real solution

The Pharaoh did. God says in the bible he would change the ruler's mind later on to have an excuse to punishhim.

Because there is no archaeological evidence for Jews living in Egypt during that timeframe.

Nigga didn't have any Jews to free.

one thing that happened was the land became dirt cheap, so landlords started buying it up all the fields they could find, so as the people starved they were also getting bought out of their own land, so export crops production soared, so much wheat was getting produced the prices dropped dramaticaly, basicaly it worked like any bubble, so fucktons of wheat got dumped in the sea to raise prices, while people starved

the market has a way of dealing with everithing

she didn't?

nvm i misread

Why didnt the US government warn the 3,000 people that were about to die before they carried out the twin tower bombings?

two words.

White Niggers.

Yes, this is what Irish were called. Still called today. Irish have more injustices than blacks, Jews still top dog, but yeah, Irish were pretty much dirt to anyone at this time.

They did and they did.

The Anglos control the weather; see Spanish Armada

Why did Stalin send his only son to the gulag?

something something homo something something prison rape