History: bengal famine COMMENTS
A new book indicts Britain’s wartime PM for millions of deaths in the 1943 Bengal famine


Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles
Must See
Published
Daily Mail
Digression
2
Sep 20, 2010
The Infamy Of It

Madhusree Mookerjee’s book deepens our understanding of colonialism (Churchill’s Famine, Sep 6). In recent days, there has been a growing body of literature shedding light on Churchill’s unabashed, uncompromising imperialism—for instance, Churchill’s Empire by Richard Toye. Churchill’s views on India and Indians were repugnant, and at different points in his career, he said deeply offensive things about the leaders of India’s freedom struggle. Yet, when he died in 1965, India honoured him with flags flown at half-mast.

H.N. Ramakrishna, Michigan, US

The book sounds promising, but will have a hard time matching up to the gold standard of Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis. The 1943 Bengal famine was just the last of the mega famines in India under the British—a regular occurrence from 1770 (when the Great Bengal Famine wiped off one-third of the population) to the late 1800s. The British empire has never been brought to justice over this methodical genocide during its rule; instead homegrown brown sahibs keep saying ‘things worked better under the British’. Can they counter such facts as: over 50 million Indians were killed by famines in the 1800s; the life expectancy of the average Indian dropped to 30 years; there was a 25 per cent decrease in life expectancy between 1870 to 1920; there was a flight of capital of the order of one million pounds annually for over 100 years to finance Britain’s industrial revolution, its wars and its welfare schemes.

Shubhang, New Delhi

Is it necessary to dredge up old history like this? In 2010, we should be pleased that either in percentage or absolute terms, more Indians today have access to adequate nutrition. The Brits were here to make money and loot, and they did so efficiently.

Gaurab Banerjee, Calcutta

Although I have no sympathies for Churchill, I admire him for his staunch defiance in the teeth of fascist aggression. And for those who only castigate Britain for its colonial misdeeds in India, they did give us a sense of an united India, and helped us, in some way, to undo the evils of our society.

Bonti, Birmingham, US

As per Amartya Sen’s article on the famine, there were enough supplies even in Bengal at that time, but people “did not have the monetary means to acquire food as its price rose rapidly due to factors that include British military acquisition, panic buying, hoarding and price gouging, all connected to the war in the region.”

Amit Thakur, Tokyo

Ms Mukherjee ought to be congratulated for a fantastic piece of research. I hope the British get to know of this.

R. Roy, Birmingham, UK

And what about Sharad Pawar, who lets millions of tonnes of foodgrain rot rather than give it to the starving millions? What a shame!

Amar Bhalla, on e-mail

Churchill had no qualms in acting with duplicity. Even as First Lord of the Admiralty during the first world war, he ordered British ships to fly the neutral US flag, disguised armed navy ships as civilian trawlers (the Q ship programme), and should take responsibility for the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. In Iraq in the 1920s, he was responsible for the mass bombing of civilians and the use of poison gas on the Arabs, who had rebelled against the Ottomans hoping for freedom, only to find themselves enslaved by the British empire. And in WWII, his enthusiasm for the fire-bombing of overwhelmingly civilian German cities like Hamburg and Dresden is well-known. For such a man, the lives of 3 million poor Indians would be loose change.

Biswapriya Purkayastha, Shillong

3
Sep 27, 2010
Blenheim’s Butcher

I congratulate Madhusree Mukherjee on her book on Churchill’s culpability in the Bengal famine (Churchill’s Famine?, Sep 6). It’s a welcome book on India written by an Indian. For the general reader though, a reading of Amartya Sen’s essay on the subject would be instructive and educative as well.

B.B. Mishra, Milan

Winston Churchill can now be given a new moniker—the invisible butcher of Bengal.

Sanjay, Hyderabad

1
Oct 04, 2010
Playing Devil’s Advocate

The article Churchill’s Famine? (Sep 6) was one-sided. It is easy to blame Churchill, who was trying to manage a massive war effort and fighting for his country’s very existence thousands of miles away. The famine was certainly exacerbated by the wartime situation, but responsibility for the tragedy lay squarely with authorities in India (from Viceroy Linlithgow down), and Bengal’s provincial government (comprising a Muslim League ministry and a British governor). They failed abjectly to enforce time-proven famine codes (a legacy of British rule that has since been adapted and served independent India well) and provide proper relief. The whole British population was itself under strict rationing, yet, despite knowing wartime exigencies, Bengali authorities failed to introduce rations in Calcutta, Dhaka and other cities.

Even if the British PM was reluctant to sanction shipping, there was a sixfold increase in food imports to Bengal in 1943—scandalously, much of it piled up in depots as nobody, until the arrival of Lord Wavell in mid-’43, thought to ask the army to distribute it where needed. That thousands of troops were engaged in famine relief in undivided Bengal, with the unbeaten and ruthless Japanese army breathing down their necks from across the border with Burma, is hardly a genocidal act of imperialist rulers—though had it been done two months earlier, the death toll would have been halved. Recent research by Mark Tauger shows other parts of India too had food shortages during the war years, but no famine. The suggestion that Lord Irwin would have been more sympathetic toward India might well have been true, but he was one of the appeasers who were willing to sue for peace with Hitler in 1940! And it’s absurd to suggest Churchill was responsible for the Partition (as he was close to Jinnah)—he was out of office in 1945! And before that he had his hands full, even as Wavell kept him at arm’s length from Indian affairs.

Ed Rippeth, Newcastle, UK
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
1/D-81
Aug 28, 2010
06:26 PM
“I now want to understand how imperialism works in the present-day world because I don’t think it ever went away.”

Understandably, she is talking about women!

But which male, if ever, I wonder, will write home about it?

WAKE UP, MALES! SPEAK UP!
Male unblocked
Chennai, India
2/D-88
Aug 28, 2010
07:28 PM
Congratulations to Madhusree for a fantastic piece of research. I hope the British get to know of this. Churchill is still celebrated as a hero here in spite of his various war crimes. His racist nature and hatred for Indians is well known but these new facts uncovered by Madhusree show a cruel and brutal side of this over hyped man.
R Roy
Birmingham, United Kingdom
3/D-92
Aug 28, 2010
07:51 PM
Before Hitler, Churchill and his gang of Tory racists,were the worst imperialist slimebags on the planet. The Belgians and the Portuguese were right up there. But the world only remembers Hitler.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
4/D-97
Aug 28, 2010
08:48 PM
Churchill was a war criminal from the days of World War One,when as First Lord of the Admiralty he ordered British ships to fly the neutral US flag, disguised armed navy ships as civilian trawlers (the Q Ship programme) and was the person singly most responsible for the sinking of the passenger liner Lusitania.

In Iraq in the 1920s he was responsible for mass bombing of civilians and the use of poison gas to subdue the Arabs who had rebelled against the Turks in the hope of gaining freedom but found themselves enslaved by the British.

In World War Two he was responsible for the deliberate bombing of cities with the explicit aim of killing German civilians, and no other purpose.

For such a criminal, the murder of a few million miserable Indians would be less than nothing. A bagatelle.
Biswapriya Purkayastha
Shillong, India
5/D-107
Aug 28, 2010
09:23 PM
This is a well known fact that Churchill wholeheartedly hate to Indians.We Indians some time forget that eugenics movement is the roots of western culture has long unsavory history with very deep roots in their psyche.They never treated nonwhite people respectfully.Genocidal mentality is indubitably at the very heart of western people.Those who read the entire history of mankind White people killed so many time nonwhite people till they doing this dirty business in Iraq and Afghanistan.WHITE RACE IS REALY CANCER TO MANIKND.
Ramesh Raghuvanshi
Pune, India
6/D-118
Aug 28, 2010
10:13 PM
I thought it was common knowledge about Churchill's role in the 1943 famine. The article presents it as though it is a new discovery. Arthur Herman's book "Gandhi and Churchill" has thins info as well.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
7/D-122
Aug 28, 2010
10:40 PM
Madhusree needs to be congratulated for her meticulous research before writing her book.I suppose Churchill was half as bad as Hitler. Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Churchill killed 3 million Indians.I hope he rots in hell.
Hriday
London, United Kingdom
8/D-2
Aug 29, 2010
12:05 AM
The book sounds promising but it will have a tough time matching up to the gold standard of 'Late Victorian Holocausts' written by Mike Davis. The Bengal famine was just the last of the mega famines in India engineered by the British, which were a regular occurence from the 1770s (one third of the population of Bengal killed) to the late 1800s. The British empire has never been brought to justice over the genocide of Indians it conducted during the course of its rule. Instead we have some home grown, literate but uneducated filthy coconuts (brown outside, white inside) who keep saying that 'things at least worked in the times of the British' one can only counter the insane rambling of these flithy twunts by assaulting them with facts such as:

1. Over 50 million Indians killed by famines in the 1800s

2. 90% of the population of the country illiterate in 1947

3. Life expectancy of the average Indian ~30 years

4. 25% decrease in life expectancy between 1870 to 1920

5. Progressive deindustrialization of India under the British and a net rise in the % of population dependent on agricultural labour

6. Flight of capital of the order of 1 million pounds annually for over 100 years to finance Britain's industrial revolution, its wars and its welfare schemes
Shubhang
New Delhi, India
9/D-26
Aug 29, 2010
01:42 AM
"Mukerjee holds Churchill responsible for “deliberately deciding to let Indians starve”."

This must be an eye opener for the couple of Churchill admirers in this forum.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
10/D-91
Aug 29, 2010
03:14 PM
Churchill had the mainstream ( British ) media on his side.
Hitler did not.

Big difference.
Male unblocked
Chennai, India
11/D-114
Aug 29, 2010
08:09 PM
"There was more than enough grain in Australia to feed Indians, ...".

As per Amartya Sen's books on famine, there were enough food supplies even in Bengal at that time (1943) but people "did not have the monetary means to acquire food as its price rose rapidly due to factors that include British military acquisition, panic buying, hoarding, and price gouging, all connected to the war in the region".

Here is what the Wikipedia says about this topic in its article about Amartya Sen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen#Research

Of course since it was mostly related to the war, Churchill, who was alleged to have said famously "If the famine is so bad, why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" (not sure if it's apocryphal), was responsible for many of the decisions. But only "grains from Australia" could have saved the situation sounds a bit stretched.

Of course it's difficult to comment on the book on the basis of its review, but I am looking forward to read this book.

Thanks
Amit Thakur
Tokyo, Japan
12/D-29
Aug 30, 2010
06:03 AM
"We Indians some times forget that eugenics movement is the roots of western culture has long unsavory history with very deep roots in their psyche.They never treated nonwhite people respectfully." Ramesh Raghuvanshi

There isn't much difference between their attitude to race and our attitude to caste. People in glass houses should not thrown stones.
Fedup Indian
Hyderabad, India
13/D-55
Aug 30, 2010
12:38 PM
FEDUP INDIAN,I agree with you Hindu treated very baldy to untouchable people. You must remember Hindu never killed them or erased whole cast from this earth.
Ramesh Raghuvanshi
Pune, India
14/D-21
Aug 31, 2010
02:23 AM
A Nobel for his pulp non-fiction and a bust of him on former US presidents table, though as bad as Hitler and Stalin, Churchills image will remain intact for atleast next 100 years with the backing of western media. His comment on Bengal famine was "If so many Indians are dying of famine, how come Gandhi fellow has not died yet"
ram
andhra, India
15/D-29
Aug 31, 2010
02:57 AM
Throughout the English speaking west Churchill is still revered as a hero. Churchill was a racist and imperialist who found support from the western media unlike Hitler.

When sections of modern Indians take pride in the "glorious" colonial past and the heritage of the commonwealth games, we need lessons from history to remind how the imperial rule treated Indians.
DC
NEW YORK, United States
16/D-64
Aug 31, 2010
01:13 PM
Is it at all necessary to write a book like this? In 2010, we should be rather more pleased that either in absolute terms (obviously) or percentage terms (even better), more Indians today have access to adequate nutrition than was the case during British rule. The Brits were here to make money and they did. As soon as we figured out how to kick them out, we did. Even if Ms.Mukerjee's book rivals The Davinci Code in popularity, nothing new or strange seems to have been stated by her. Nevertheless, all the best to Ms.Mukerjee.
Gaurab Banerjee
Kolkata, India
17/D-119
Aug 31, 2010
09:47 PM
"Is it at all necessary to write a book like this? In 2010,"

Yes, because there is still a lot of ignorance and mindless glorification of Churchill, even though the man was a die hard colonialist and racist pig. It's as if, in a way, that India( and Africa, SE Asia and the Caribbean) didn't even exist, that causes people to glorify Churchill. Well, India does exist, it counts, and this book makes that clear.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
18/D-41
Sep 01, 2010
04:12 AM
And Budhhadeb Bhattacharya is responsible for killing and raping of tribals in West Bengal so that he can steal their land for his refugee relatives from East Bengal.

RIP Sir Winston Churchill! You were a great statesman for your people! You were NOT repeat NOT killing your own!
Surya Sharma
Kolkata, India
19/D-53
Sep 01, 2010
06:33 AM
Looks very promising. Will read this. For once, the discussions/comments also are interesting, and not meaningless accusations at one another.
Jairam
Hong Kong, Hong Kong
20/D-69
Sep 01, 2010
09:47 AM
wonder if this will put the lid on so many desi coconut claims as to how india 'benefitted' during colonial rule.
nandakumar
chennai, india
21/D-30
Sep 04, 2010
09:35 AM
Although I have no sympathies for this man... and do not like him at all, I have to admire him for his fighting attitude by which he defended his country....
And those who are saying that the british didn't do anything for us.... I agree they plundered us materially broke our confidence as a people and nation the psychological damage was a lot more.... but one thing they did do....and I am glad for it.... they gave us the identity of India...before that we were not united, they caused us to become united, forced us to look at our own society and correct the evils being done against untouchables and women....made us re-examine our religions. There is still such a linguistic divide between people even today....I am glad it was the British and not the Germans....
Itnobars
Birmingham, United States
22/D-45
Sep 04, 2010
01:03 PM
>>but one thing they did do....and I am glad for it.... they gave us the identity of India

and Hitler gave the Jews the impetus to create Israel, should they revere him for it?
Shubhang
New Delhi, India
23/D-102
Sep 05, 2010
11:29 PM
Great Job Ms. Mukerjee going even by the introduction of your book. Congratulations. I will definitely read your book. In fact it occurred 1st time to me that some one is writing not on the traditional line but away from the traditional line, a history by an Indian from the Indian perspective. It may be probably worth, also including the analysis of Mr. Amartya Sen of the Great Famine for the sake of completeness. It is just a suggestion without reading the book. Probably that is already covered in your book. I will be anxiously looking forward for your next book and quite curious about it reading your statement “I now want to understand how imperialism works in the present-day world because I don’t think it ever went away”. It would be also interesting if you can research why we Indians, supposed to be a great power economically, even before arrival of English rule, became such a meager force politically and militarily to protect ourselves from the Hawks of imperialist and got shrunk into our own cocoon compromising with all the misery. How did this mass psyche could make home in our mentality. Uncovering it will be probably a great lesson from History for we Indians.
B.B.Mishra
Milan, Italy
24/D-15
Sep 06, 2010
03:59 AM
To the world, Churchill was the great hero who vanquished the monster Hitler. But he was no less prejudiced and bigoted than Hitler in his maniacal hatred of dark-skinned (non-European) peoples.
Then again, at that time and even up to the near present, all Europeans saw themselves as The Superior Race- their manifest destiny to dominate and take what they wanted by any means, as dark-skinned people were either sub-humans or not humans at all (especially being non-Christians)- just some form of lower animals to be enslaved and made to serve their white masters.
So what if a few million coolies died horribly from starvation in Bengal? The 'great' Churchill hadn't the slightest twinge of worry or remorse- he had his good meals, his port and cigars. Good riddance- who cares about the deaths of a few million miserable darkies- not me, he says!
Bodh
Springfield, United States
25/D-4
Sep 08, 2010
12:28 AM
Bodh, excellent. But the question remains, why is Churchill still thought highly of, as someone who led the UK? Surely, people would know of his racist views( or did they?) and his position on India and other British colonies. Even if they are not informed of the specifics of Churchill's role in the Bengal famine.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
26/D-114
Sep 08, 2010
04:54 PM
Churchill was the Butcher of Bengal
Sanjay
Hyderabad, India
28/D-94
Sep 16, 2010
03:11 PM
Can I offer a dissenting view?

It is easy to scapegoat Churchill who was trying to win a world war many thousand miles away. Looked at today, some of his quotes are very dubious, but then so were Gandhi's views of black South Africans and Hitler. The Bengal famine was certainly exacerbated by the wartime situation but the responsibility for the tragedy lay squarely with the authorities in India (ie from Viceroy Linlithgow down), and the Bengali provincial authorities (headed by the Muslim League and a British governor). They failed abjectly to enforce time-proven famine codes and provide proper relief, (famine codes being a legacy of British rule which has since been adapted and served independent India well). Churchill himself, along with the whole British population, was on rations, yet the Bengali authorities failed enforce rations in Calcutta or Howrah. Even if Churchill was reluctant to sanction shipping, there was a six-fold increase in food imports to Bengal in 1943, yet much of it piled high in depots as nobody, until the arrival of the new Viceroy Wavell, thought to ask the army to distribute it where it was needed. That thousands of troops were involved in famine relief with the deadly and then unbeaten Japanese army on the Bengal border is not the act of genocidal imperialist rule. Had this been done two months earlier, the famine death toll would have been halved. As recent research by Mark Tauger shows, many other areas of India experienced major food shortages in WW2 - but no famine.

As for the suggestion that Lord Irwin (better known as Halifax) would have been a more sympathetic ruler for India, possibly he may have been. But he was also ready to surrender Britain to the Germans in 1940. Strangely, the Brits preferred Churchill. And its madness to suggest because Churchill was a close friend of Jinnah (how did this come about if he was a racist?) that he's responsible for the partition - he was safely out of India's way two years before, while even before then, Wavell kept Churchill at arm's length from India's affairs.
Ed Rippeth
Newcastle, United Kingdom
29/D-148
Sep 16, 2010
10:55 PM
Arthur Herman, author of Gandhi & Churchill, has written a review of Churchill's Secret War. Because of its distortions, I feel compelled to respond. Please find my response at
http://madhusree.com/Emperor2.pdf
Madhusree Mukerjee
Montclair, USA
30/D-123
Sep 17, 2010
09:06 PM
Yes Madam Mukherjee, myself have noted Arthur Herman's views (The book in question is about to release..) very much diligently presented by Nel Fleming. By the way, here in Maharashtra, we all the members of a Marathi Net Platform are discussing (right now) about your book and there are more than 500 respondents (of course, writing in Marathi) are congratulating you on your strenuous studies. If you are well conversant with Marathi language, I will manage to post the discussion.
Indraraj Pawar
Kolhapur, India
31/D-34
Sep 24, 2010
10:02 AM
If the "heroes" of the Whites can deliberately and sadistically starve millions of women and children to death, I dread to think what their villians are capable of.
Sanjay
Hyderabad, India
32/D-45
Oct 27, 2010
03:58 AM
Finished reading the book yesterday, took me a week, had to read most lines at least twice, much like a heavily research laden Science article.

This book hits close to my family(Father's side mainly) and Bengalis(like myself).

My Father's family were small Zaminders and book keepers(as the last name Mazumder would indicate) in Faridpur, now Bangladesh. The family migrated to Calcutta when my Father was in his teens(he was born in 1926 or so; he passed away in 1981). My Father joined the British Indian army in 1942, that eventually went to Burma, he was in his early twenties. In his words "..joined the army, there were no other jobs to be had and there was plenty to eat in the army...The British used us in the Burmese theater as ditch fillers...that is when we fell down, the ditches would get filled with our bodies, over which the British army would march on..."

From my grandmother and others heard the stories of people crying "Ma phyan dow go...Ma madt dow go.." all day long in the streets.

This book filled in lots of holes I had in my understanding of how the holocaust could have happenned to an otherwise green Bengal. Thanks Madhusree for taking the time and the having the resolve to getting to the bottom of this. I thank you!
Indy Mazumder
Palo Alto, United States
33/D-97
Nov 10, 2010
11:11 PM
RIPPETH:

What nauseatingly callous, laughably contemptible white-washers of British criminality the exposure of the mass murderer Churchill has revealed !

Churchill was told by BRITISH authorities that famine was impending in India, and asked for emergency food aid. The records show (read Patrick French's hostory, or Madhusree Mukerjee's more recent one) that he and hios rabidly racist crew SNEERED at the prospect of millions of Indians starving to death, and refused all aid, even when Canada and Australia offered it. Mukerjee has shown there was a glut of shipping available at the time. Churchill was simply intent on inflicting millions of deaths on Indians.

The British are WORSE than the Nazis, because the Germans have at least accepted their crimes. The British continue the cover up.

Churchill's reputation and bogus glory are FINISHED. They are not coming back.
Ali Murtali
AURANGABAD, India
34/D-110
Nov 11, 2010
10:56 PM
COSTELLO, MacBRAYNE, RIPPETH:

The known facts are plain enough and speak all too eloquently:

Churchill was repeatedly and urgently asked for food shipments by the British authorities in India who thought these were necessary to deal with a raging famine. Churchill repeatedly denied the requests, remarking to his cronies that Indians were contemptible anyway.

Mukerjee has shown there was no lack of food or of ships available. All that was lacking was humanity on the part of Churchill, any sense of a duty to what were subjects of the British crown.

If all this is not enough to indict Churchill as a major criminal, indifferent to massive numbers of deaths of innocent people under British rule, I wonder what is.

The fact is, Churchill was not the benign figure we have all been made to think over the decades. He had a dark and terrible side to him. It is best to come to terms with this, rather than the kind of desperate apologetics that you have indulged in.

The Churchill glory story is over.
Ali Murtali
AURANGABAD, India
35/D-78
Nov 12, 2010
04:49 PM
The known facts are plain enough and speak all too eloquently:

Churchill was repeatedly and urgently asked for food shipments by the British authorities in India who thought these were necessary to deal with a raging famine. Churchill repeatedly denied the requests, remarking to his cronies that Indians were contemptible anyway.

Mukerjee has shown there was no lack of food or of ships available. All that was lacking was humanity on the part of Churchill, any sense of a duty to what were subjects of the British crown.

If all this is not enough to indict Churchill as a major criminal, indifferent to massive numbers of deaths of innocent people under British rule, I wonder what is.

The fact is, Churchill was not the benign figure we have all been made to think over the decades. He had a dark and terrible side to him. It is best to come to terms with this, rather than the kind of desperate apologetics that you have indulged in.

The Churchill glory story is over.
Ali Murtali
AURANGABAD, India
36/D-135
Nov 17, 2010
11:03 PM

RIPPETH:

In the businress of covering up for a genocidal racist, aren't you? Can't give up the bogus Churchill legend?

Someone remarked of Hitler: "Untold millions of blameless died as a result of the toxic brew of incompetence, racial obsession and utterly fantastical beliefs."


You will conclude the same about Churchill by the time you have finished the new startlingly revealing book on Churchill by the distinguished US journalist Madhusree Mukerjee: "Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War Two" (Basic Books). You will never view Churchill in the same way again.

The author shows how three MILLION Bengalis died in the Bengal Famine of 1943 after Winston Churchill DELIBERATELY decided not
send food shipments, though India was part of the British Empire and had contributed two million soldiers to the war effort, as well as much war material and (ironically) even food.

Churchill accompanied his chilling decision with ferocious racial abuse of Indians, recorded by his colleagues.
 

Ali Murtali
AURANGABAD, India
37/D-39
Nov 19, 2010
01:25 PM

Just who are the British to give snivelling advice to Indians how to sort out the problems of their own country?

What is the worth of THEIR national hero?

British commemorations of their World War Two dead are utterly ludicrous, because they overlook the Indian elephant in the room: the simple fact kept out of British histories that over 90 per cent of the dead on the British side due to World War Two was Indian - the three MILLION victims of the Bengal Famine deliberately allowed to happen by Winston Churchill.

Someone remarked of Hitler: "Untold millions of blameless died as a result of the toxic brew of incompetence, racial obsession and utterly fantastical beliefs."

The same could be said validly of Churchill. Mukerjee shows how three MILLION Bengalis died in the Bengal Famine of 1943 after Winston Churchill DELIBERATELY decided not to
send food shipments, though India was part of the British Empire and had contributed two million soldiers to the war effort, as well as much war material and (ironically) even food.

Churchill accompanied his chilling decision with ferocious racial abuse of Indians, recorded by his colleagues

I request all Indians to bring this splendid and heroic piece of historical research and analysis of a scandalously covered up Holocaust to the notice of as many people as possible.

Ali Murtali
AURANGABAD, India
38/D-41
Nov 19, 2010
01:27 PM

Churchill was bogus from beginning to end.

The Anglo-French tried mightily to get Hitler to attack the Soviet Union by concluding the Munich agreement with him. Unfortunately for them, Stalin outsmarted them by doing his own deal with Adolf.


The Anglo-French then were forced to make a pretence of fighting Germany - what even THEY called the "Phony war". It was just play acting by the Allies until Hitler called their bluff by invading France. Even then, the Allies did no serious fighting: just ran away as fast as their cowardly heels could take them.


The racist braggart Churchill then pranced around comically, depicting as heroic the laughable evacuation of a pathetically diorganised rabble of British troops left alone contemptuously by the Nazis on the Dunkirk beaches.

Churchill got conceited and tried out an adventure in Norway and got thoroughly smashed.


There were some silly escapades by the inefficient Brit armies with the Italian comic opera forces in North Africa and Ethiopia.


Then Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, a serious enemy, and sealed his defeat.

Such is the REAL history of Churchill's exploits. He was a bragging, gluttonous, cowardly con artist from start to finish, efficient only in starving millions of hapless Indians.

Attlee, asked what Chuchill had done in the War, sneered accurately: "Talked".
 

Ali Murtali
AURANGABAD, India
39/D-88
Nov 08, 2011
06:48 PM
Sangeetha
Chennai, India
40/D-56
Nov 09, 2011
01:32 PM

Churchill was an A-Hole.

Somshankar Bose
Madison, United States
  Order by BACK TO ARTICLE 
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: