How responsible was Churchill for the famine that happened in Bengal in WW2...

How responsible was Churchill for the famine that happened in Bengal in WW2? Some SJWs are saying that Churchill is as bad as Hitler because 4 million Bengals died due to famine? Did the war cause it? Could it have been prevented? Is there debate among historians? And what actually happened?

Other urls found in this thread:

instagram.com/iamyanetgarcia/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Partly, though it was the civilians moving out of Calcutta to avoid bombings (both real and imagined) and into harder areas to distribute food in and an increase of population by 500,000 civilians and several hundred thousand military personnel that caused the problem

> And what actually happened?

Churchill was responsible for the famine that happened in Bengal in WW2.

Is he a god with power over the weather or something?

The point was that he refused to offer any kind of aid whatsoever, he literally just let those people starve to death without moving a single finger to do anything.

Famine relief aid was prioritized to locations essential to the war effort, because you know there was a war going on.
Churchill didn't really like Indians but who knows how much that influenced his decision making process. It was triggered by the Japanese invasion of Burma. Churchill was a great man.

Anybody got anything that tells the story?

tankie-tier argument

Only because of the western induced explosive population growth . If they had never colonized, the population would have been smaller and no famine

>Only because of the western induced explosive population growth
No. That population growth was only from the 1960-70s after colonialism had ended.

In the past few decades the populations stopped from 7 to 2.4.

>In the past few decades the populations stopped from 7 to 2.4.

Didn't even read the OP

Just here to say BREH

Winstin Churchill was a darker man than he is often portrayed, hell he sounds like a straw man in pic related

Churchill warned us of the danger of the Hun.

Neighbouring Burma where much rice was grown, was occupied by the Japanese which greatly exasperated the problem. Ultimately the British had the transport ships available and grain on hand overseas to relive the famine but could not risk losing said ships in contested waters and instead directed ships towards military means. It's not fair to blame a leader for what are ultimately the effects of enemy nations, without the war there would have been relief.

Tbh there were earlier famines in the 19th century which were far more damaging and cases where it was blatantly a disregard for the Indian peoples. This scenario was not on the same level.

>Tbh there were earlier famines in the 19th century which were far more damaging and cases where it was blatantly a disregard for the Indian peoples.
That's not really comparable because in the 19th century the India's was a large scale warzone so there was obviously going to be a famine no matter what and that was unavoidable.
But after 1857 relief was regularly dispersed for whenever there was a famine. Bengal was just a mistake.

How is 19th century war excusable for famine but 20th century war not?

>justice4germans
nice unbiased source

...

...

Bengal has had famines for all of history. It is great for farming which means millions of people but when thereis a bad harvest, monsoon, etc. many of them die. Egypt has always had so many people compared to Mesopotamia and it is the same with the Indus river and Bengal region

...

*famines, disasters, etc.
At the start

Are you obtuse? A war within your borders is much more devastating then a war thousands of kilometres away.

The closest action to the Raj was Burma and that was sealed tight.

...

Never got how Jews are supposed to be the leaders of an anti-capitalist movement and run all the banks at the same time.

marx never criticizes banks

...

No, but he does criticize shit like stocks and securities and those are supposedly ran by "DAS JOOS"

He's a God that controls the food supply and the economics of Bengal.

Its not a "he didn't know" case either. He was repeatedly asked for relief and denied them. Its also not a cause of "he didn't do anything". He took the food supplies from Bengal. Its also not a case of "UK needed it" or "shipping food to Bengal is too far".

"If you can't beat the enemy, control it"

Which one was first, cause the Jews being money grubbing whores came long before Marxism. Merchant of Venice is based on that stereotype.

>Some ultra liberals
M8, hate to break it to you but it's a common rightists talking point as well

>Never got how Jews are supposed to be the leaders of an anti-capitalist movement and run all the banks at the same time.

Eh, not really. The Indian subcontintent had a population of ~150 million when the EIC began it's incursions, ~315 million when WWI broke out and almost 400 million on gaining independence. I'd say the Green Revolution is when India's (and the world's) population really boomed (though no Raj determining food export policies probably helped).

Don't really know how that greentext got there, ignore plz.

Don't know about the Churchill stuff, but I would like to fuck the beaner chick with the big ass

>How are Jews anti-capitalist and run all the banks
The explanation is that the hardest critics of capitalism and those most hard set against it were those most involved in the worst aspects of it. Jews live as an extremely divided diaspora people with heavy socio-economic, linguistic, cultural, and religious divides. Sephardim, Ashkenazi, mizrahi... Orthodox, reform, hasidic , and secular Jews. Its among more secular jews that they favored left wing ideologies.


Of course to /pol/, it's because Jews are a hivemind gaming the system from both ends but from a more objective standpoint , there is an overwhelming amount of jews involved in left wing movement on a per capita basis for a lot of different reasons.

He criticizes financial capitalism you dunce banks are part of that

Imperial Apologists are now as incoherent and nonsensical as raging tankies.

>He took the food supplies from Bengal
The food supplies were all used locally and Bengali black marketers made a killing of fucking with the price controls that were made to prevent a famine. But Indians can't handle that sometimes they were just as bigger cunts as the British so they blame Churchill

What do you mean all used locally and they were bigger cunts?

They wanted independence from the British empire. Cunts. The savages should all die of hunger

>Imperialist man control weather. Imperialist man make famine. Me angry

>I find meself really interested in mexican weather lately, ahh fuck me dead

This image is grossly inaccurate

bump

Reasons for the Bengal famine:

1. A typhoon hit Bengal and devastated the crops, leading to sharp price rises. (The next typhoon on this scale was in 1970, and even in peacetime, long after the British colonial government had left, 500k people died)

2. The Japanese occupied neighbouring Burma, cutting off rice imports.

3. Refugees fled the Japanese advance, swelling the population of Bengal's cities

4. Bengali merchants hoarded grain. At the time, the Indian national congress stated that there was no food shortage in Bengal, and blamed the price rises on Bengali merchants. While the above reasons are far more important, there probably was some hoarding given the rapid rise in prices. Why sell for ten rupees today what you can sell for 15 rupees tomorrow?

5. British/Indian forces burned land and seized food stores in the path of the Japanese advance. The overall impact of this is negligible, especially since seized food was often transported back to the cities, but should be mentioned for completeness.

Reasons people blame Churchill:

1. Indian academics looking to discredit the British Empire and Britain's best loved Prime Minister. I'm sorry, but this is the main reason. When you look articles on the subject they all come back to the same Indian academics, who mix a bunch of half-truths with outright lies to make their case.

2. He was rude about the Indians and Gandhi in particular. I think he said something like 'If the Indians are starving, why isn't Gandhi on another hunger strike?'. Which is fairly typical of Churchill's acerbic wit, and not really proof of genocidal intent.

3. Grain shipments from Australia were passing through the Indian Ocean at the time of the famine. However, rerouting these would just have meant leaving Greek civilians to starve instead, and the presence of Japanese forces in the area made it too dangerous.

Why do people even love Churchill when he was a total asshole from upper class who thought people as subjects and not citizens?

TL;DR

>Japs invade Burma
>half a million Bengalis who had been living in Burma flee back to Bengal
>tell horrible stories of Nip cruelty
>Bengalis somewhat concerned
>Bengal doesn't make enough food to feed itself; it has to import the surplus from Burma
>Bengal is one of the poorest places on earth, the majority of people are malnourished and only a few weeks away from total destitution even on a good day
>British decide to destroy foodstocks and confiscate boats on the border with Burma, in an effort to prevent a Japanese invasion of Bengal
>British establish rationing system to ensure that food gets to industrial workers in Bengal
>three cyclones and a crop blight hit, Japanese bomb Calcutta
>massive panic ensues, price of rice goes to ten times its original price
>Bengali administration asks for other Indian provinces to send food, but most of them are worried about the same thing happening to them
>when Bihar allows rice exports to Bengal, rice prices in Bihar start to soar too, to the point where there's a serious risk of the famine spreading there
>people sell their livestock, then their ploughs, then the doors to their homes, and then their clothing, then their children
>in 1943, British military takes over relief effort and starvation fatalities start to drop off, but then multiple epidemics tear through the emaciated population

bump

This

Is this the 1st everyone is seeing Mexican weather girl's ass?

Her insta: instagram.com/iamyanetgarcia/

bump

Why destroy foodstocks? Could they not bring it in fast enough before the Japanese got there?

Keep in mind that transportation in Bangladesh sucked, and the British were worried that an attack was only weeks away.

They paid the farmers whose crops they destroyed, but they didn't anticipate that food prices would octuple.

Yes the Japanese captured a lot supplies like that in their campaigns.

So, you don't think Churchill was really responsible?

Famines are literally almost all caused by economic factors rather than natural ones. Even in natural factors exacerbate it, it’s almost some retard diverting food away from an area that causes a famine.

I think it was an unforeseen economic disaster the way the '29 crash was.

The British government was slow to react and made a lot of mistakes, but they were sincerely trying to save lives.

The food wasn't exported because there wasn't even enough to export anyway, it was eaten in Bengal and Burma. And being a profiteering little shit black marketer with the food is being a cunt

zoom out the image, where the jew is a puppet of the anglo

prrrpffffffbrrrraaaaap

There's no A-10 here

So, if they had gotten the food out, millions of people probably would have still died?

bump

neighbouring burma had previously been providing between 40 and 60% of the rice consumed in bengal.

a bad harvest and the fact that burma was for obvious reasons no longer able to supply rice were the principal factors in causing the famine, as food was not exported in large scale from bengal, the british response was lackluster, although so in truth was the indian response - the other indian states had sufficient grain stored to aid but devolution of government in india meant each state had full control over its own grain stores and they were not willing to release any to bengal until compelled by threat of violence by the british.- the principal british problem in stopping the famine was the need to prioritise available shipping to other tasks and feed the army first.

churchill didnt cause the famine, dont think he gave much of a fuck about it either though

the late 19th century famines had happened long after the pacification of india, the anglos have no excuse for still killing millions of indians

to force a dialectic between the two instead of allowing for literally any other option

That sounds retarded