Was the Indian famine orchestrated by the British justified?

Was the Indian famine orchestrated by the British justified?


The British prime minister mercilessly turned down appeals from two successive Viceroys, his own Secretary of State for India and even the President of the US!

Subhas Chandra Bose, who was with the Japanese at the time building the Indian National Army in hopes of freeing India, offered to send rice from Burma, but his offer didn't even get past the censors.

Millions of dead Indians mattered not to the blood-thirsty powers-that-be. What mattered was annihilating the Germans and any other souls who dared resist the hidden world power's plans for global slavery.

Britain's Indian slave army fared no better. Unlike the Axis, who treated their Indian volunteers as equals, the British treated the Indians as their lesser in every way. They earned half of what white soldiers were paid and were discriminated in many other ways, like living conditions, food and worst of all on the battlefield. According to Kundan Singh, a veteran of the Indian National Army, the British kept Indian soldiers on the front lines while white British soldiers remained 'safe behind the wall of Indian soldiers.'

But this was nothing new. Britain treated it's Indian soldiers no different in WWI, even using child soldiers, some as young as ten years old!
Furthermore, British nurses were not even allowed to help wounded Indian soldiers at field hospitals! They were only allowed to supervise orderlies. Imagine that, crossing an ocean to fight another man's war, getting wounded, and then not being good enough to even be treated by a professional.

Winston Churchill left this charming comment to history:
'I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.' - Winston Churchill

it was because the japs threatened sea trade and cut them off from Burma rice, Churchill did nothing wrong

I don't want to defend the fatty but
>The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits
yeah, it's like that since the emergence of life.

Is it wrong that I immediately felt bad about the little dog instead of the person?

they didn't think so

it kinda ended their rule there

How can you claim it was "orchestrated by the british" while by your own admission two viceroys and the secretary of state for india were trying to save the situation?

Churchill was a kike loving sociopath who is burning in hell, that much is already established.

No, I did too

No, it's wrong that you people raise pets as if they can replace children. No wonder your population is dwindling.

psychological studies say that a lot of people have more empathy towards animals than other humans.

Animals are innocent humans are evil, can guarantee that boys done something that is worthy of starvation punishment.

it was not justified, at all.

Except troops were easily sent around to the Indian ocean, yet India was never sent any excess food from either inside the continent or from the Empire, ultimately just leaving people to starve for no reason

It was orchestrated by the British in the sense that nothing was even done about the situation by the central government back in London.

I'm just thinking.. why isn't he eating it?

Feeling empathy for animals but not humans is a common trait among psychopaths.

>What mattered was annihilating the Germans and any other souls who dared resist the hidden world power's plans for global slavery.

Stopped reading here.

Funny how stormniggers suddenly care so much about brown people when it's a good opportunity to make the Allies look bad.

>fat dog
>thin child

Another Dresden style hoax?

>implying the allies weren't a thousand time more racist than Germany

The Allies were trying to exterminate entire races of people?

>They were only allowed to supervise orderlies. Imagine that, crossing an ocean to fight another man's war, getting wounded, and then not being good enough to even be treated by a professional.
Did Indians even fight in Europe?

>American education

So they weren't treated by nurses, but by men working under the direction of nurses?

What are native Americans?
What is slavery?
What is aboriginal?
What is Holodomor?
What is Gulag?
What is bengal famine?
What is opium war in China?

>'I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.' - Winston Churchill

Tbh Churchill was absolutely correct about Indians and he rightful deserves to be recognized as the most based leader of 20th century.
>redpilled
>charismatic
>didn't send his term as a prime minister by sucking some austrian artist's dick
>was more than willing to free europe from the german menace
>ready to take pro-active stance towards ussr in the hopes that cold war and soviet occupation of half of europe could be avoided
>only failed because usa and british people let him down

An Indian unit was used in Europe as an experiment, they failed beyond even the low expectations Brits had for them, and they were not used in Europe afterwards.

>Unlike the Axis, who treated their Indian volunteers as equals,
Sure they did, which is why I stooped reading your post.

Yes the allies tried to exterminate dozens of different ethnic groups within russia.

>A term for a group of people that had been nearly wiped out by colonial governance nearly a hundred and fifty years priorto?
>A practice of pressing and drafting human beings into forced servitude, typically of African (but also of Asian, Arabic and European) descent in modernity; found in nearly all Societies from the Greek-forward and well-abolished in the west by the 20th century?
>The noun for indigenous people, typically in reference to one from Australia or Canada, who had also by and large been wiped out by disease nearly a century priorto?
>A famine in the Ukraine caused by poor agricultural collective management on behalf of their (then) overlord, the Soviet Union, in 1932/1933?
>A term for a system of labour camps maintained in the Soviet Union from 1930 to 1955, in which many people died?
>An agrarian famine caused by a series of things, including inefficient agricultural practice, natural disasters (namely aquatic ones such as cyclones and floods, which bore plant-destroying insects and disease) and the ongoing war against Japan, who had occupied British Southeast Asia's only other food basket, Burma?
>Two trade wars waged by the British and French empires to legalise the Opium trade in China in the late 19th century?

Fuck you and your beggared questions. Of the seven you asked in a vain attempt to seem knowledgeable on the actions of the Allies, only two are tangentially related to the 'Allies' at all, the rest being 'bad shit every country that was a member of the Allies ever did', and all of which have absolutely fuckall relation to 'genocide'.

A fun fact for you: a lot of people dying doesn't amount to genocide. Genocide is planned, methodical (and even non-methodical) in its execution, and targets indiscriminately members of an ethnic group for extermination. Armenia, Rwanda, the Circassian, Timorese.

>BUT MUH HOLODOMOR!
Communist idiocy is not a genocide.

Make a structured fucking argument instead of dot points, faggot.

>Wanted to nuke Russia in a pre-emptive attack
>Agitated Stalin by demanding he do nothing in Greece to support the Communists, then getting butthurt when Stalin objected to him installing commie governments elsewhere
>Terrible peacetime leader

>"MUH REDPILLS!"
I like Churchill too, but /pol/ is the other way, chum

>it's a "the USSR was part of the Allies, even though it went to war with one of them and immediately began an undecided war with the rest as soon as Germany was defeated" episode

Nice argument. This is how commies discuss matters

>having a territorial dispute after the war ended means they were not working together against a common foe, which makes them not allied with each other.

Nice episodic post