>>569440 >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html Remember, most whites of the Era were Nazi-like in ideology. Racial purity and racial supremacy were the norm, not an exception. Don't let history white wash away the darker past.
>>569363 Mandela is more about redemption than anything else. He had everything to turn South Africa into a bigger Zimbabwe, instead he actually build a decent country for African standards because he realised you can't simply repress the richest class, it makes capital flight.
I'm surprised nobody said a thing about mother Teresa yet.
>>569440 >>569460 >"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." >Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.
>>569471 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html You have to have a very deeply rooted hatred for this to happen. Remember, India provided a large force of military to help the british war against the germans(as well as the japanese in asia and gremans in africa). I can understand a passive hate with India not contributing anything, but this was an active hate.
>>569397 He saw black people as subhuman, he saw whites as vile. He did peaceful rebellion because he could not succeed violently, not because he wanted to (this isn't some conspiracy theory bullshit, all these things are just fact, look it up). Also, this is some contemporary moral bullshit, but he totally fucked little girls.
>>569466 Is Theresa really considered moral by most anymore? Unlike Gandhi or Dalai Lama, her horribleness is so blatant and readily available in popular blogs and magazines that surely most people know she's not all that by now.
>>569526 Every interesting info is readily available in popular blogs and magazines anon. Most people don't like to read at all, and even if they do they have to be lucky to find the right website talking about the right thing.
>>569460 >Racial purity and racial supremacy Specifically the problem is racial hatred. If someone wants to live in a trailerpark cut off from the outside world and fuck their cousins then technically there is nothing wrong with that until they start to bother other people (inbreeding might become a problem but being a liberal you are probably too scared to admit that genetic disease is a real thing).
>>569471 >>569500 The article doesn't mention the fact that Churchill would have rather sent food to Greece, and that the famine came from administrative mistakes which Churchill had nothing to do with. Plus, UK was still at war, and even Amartya Sen thought that there was actually no food shortage, which means that sending food wasn't considered as a solution.
>>569591 British extracted resources from India. Churchill used that resource for Greece. The Field Marshall wanted the food for India, Churchill denied it and opposed it on the grounds that its a natural culling.
The war was happening. The majority Indians supported the British empire, but with the country wide famine, Churchill fucked over India.
>>569627 Hitler was ineffective in every way before and during the war so it doesn't matter anyway. No one should praise any statesman just because they wished their country to be strong. Especially not those who used his tactics.
Compared to that, Churchill was untrustworthy but his position was different than Hitler's. He was defending his country. These two don't even compare.
>taking leftist propaganda at face value Firstly, notice how none of those sources mention that the only reason there was a food shortage in Bengal in the first place was because the Japanese invasion of Burma cut off rice supplies from there(unfortunately right at the time when bad weather destroy much of Bengal's harvest). But they aren't white so who cares, right?
Secondly, they also don't mention that India had had democracy at a provincial level introduced during the 1930s. Since the Bengal famine was only a local problem the natural solution would have been to bring in food from other provinces of India rather than ship it in from half way around the world. Unfortunately, Indian officials 1) kept themselves popular with their electorate by keeping food prices in their province as low as possible and 2) were hugely corrupt and made money by setting up internal customs barriers and then taking bribes to let goods through. The other Indian provinces fought tooth and nail against shipping their surpluses to Bengal. In fact, the Indian national congress declared quite emphatically that there was no food shortage in Bengal, and that if any people were going hungry it was only the result of hoarding by Bengali merchants.
Churchill, meanwhile, was thousands of miles away and was being pushed to his limit trying to the Nazis at bay. It's important to note that the official statistics gathered by the government as to the crop yields in Bengal were so inaccurate that they might as well have been made up. With no firm information to the contrary, it's probable that Churchill simply accepted the more convenient explanation offered by the Indians which didn't force him to divert desperately needed war materiel. Then he went back to what, for him, were more important matters, i.e. WW2.
>>569632 >British extracted resources from India. actually the British paid for everything they imported from India during WW2, so India actually ended the war with pretty healthy finances while Britain went bankrupt.
>Churchill used that resource for Greece. Also, the article actually says that Churchill preferred to use food shipped from Australia to feed the Greeks rather than the Indians, not that Britain was taking food from India.
>>569640 >Fr. Peter Gumpel, an official at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, told me that far from overlooking criticism of Mother Teresa, the allegations were taken quite seriously, and answered:
>There are mistakes made in even the most modern medical facilities, but whenever a correction was needed, Mother and the Missionaries showed themselves alert and open to constructive change and improvement. >What many do not understand is the desperate conditions Mother Teresa constantly faced, and that her special charism was not to found or run hospitals”the Church has many who do that”but to rescue those who were given no chance of surviving, and otherwise would have died on the street. >But it is “absolutely false,” he stressed, to claim that she rejected or neglected available medical care for those still treatable, or good palliative care for the terminally ill. “Beware of anecdotal stories circulating from disgruntled people or those with an anti-Catholic agenda,” he warned.
Even if what you said is true, Teresa just being around the dying as you mentioned would of been 10000x more than anything than others would have done.
The truth is, as stated in the article above, Hitchens not ONCE interviewed a patient of Mother Teresa. Don't get me wrong, Hitchens is my favorite Orator, but Hell's Angels and Missionary Position are shit.
>>569511 >gandhi tried doing a violent revolution American education. >>569667 yes and said ships regularly went by india. The americans and canadians both offered to send food for fucking free because of the humanitarian crisis but churchill specifically said know.
>>569667 no, traders and private entrepreneurs ended up making bank, not the indian state. >>569654 >democracy at a provincial level >completely shut down because the governments largely resigned in protest due to britain's conduct during the war. fuck off with this revisionist bullshit. churchill was a bloodthirsty maniac who wound up on the right side of history.
>>569703 Churchil's role was critical as he was the leader and one that actively denied request for aid. This was not a one time (oh its a shitty indian request) but rather a repeated request from british officials in india asking for aid.
>>569714 >critical He had absolutely no influence on the causes of the famine, and there were various other ways to fix the famine, plus many good reasons for Churchill not to send it >>569712 The aid wouldn't have saved 3 millions, and wasn't actually needed. Proper management of the available ressources was needed.
>>569743 >the aid wouldn't have yeah, poor people don't need food, what they need is a proper logistics trail right when they are starving to death. you had south american countries burning grain as fuel halfway around the world. >other states in india. They weren't frontline states that had the then largest port in the bay of bengal. if the japs had a more solid logistical trail, they would have been welcomed as liberators in bengal around that time.
>>569743 There is no debate about the cause of famine. There is debate about the prevention of 3 million death. Churchill was a leader that could save 3 million or let them die. He choose to let them die. One of the many "good reasons" Churchill said was natural culling of population. You had many british officials asking for AID from Churchill and he actively and manually as both personally and officially denied them any AID.
The man was responsible for the death of those people. He could have saved those people but choose not to because of the "good reasons" like racial superiority and population culling.
>>569751 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7991820/Winston-Churchill-blamed-for-1m-deaths-in-India-famine.html the author of the book mentioned did her homework >>569766 doesn't that have more to do with their current president being a tard?
>>569760 >He could have saved those people but choose not to because of the "good reasons" like racial superiority and population culling. or it was the fact he desperately needed every ship he could get to fight the war, and the Indians themselves said that there was no real problem.
>completely shut down because the governments largely resigned in protest due to britain's conduct during the war. this is a lie. The national congress went on strike because Britain wouldn't grant independence, but the provincial governments (where most of the actual power lay) continued to function more or less as normal.
>>569798 >the indians themselves >the INC which had this time had resigned from provinical governments at this time >indian provincial governments >having any power the primary power lay with the bureaucracy and british viceroy appointed officials that repeatedly asked for aid. the BIA implementing a scorched earth policy in chittagong didn't help either
>>569760 >because of the "good reasons" like racial superiority and population culling. Do mention the others anon, not the two quirky ones from that article. Like "Favoring the only country in Europe that didn't fall to Nazis over a country which could have fixed its situation by other ways". Of course Churchill caused the deaths of people, but saying that he let 3 millions people die just because he hated Indians is preposterous. Are you suggesting he had the available workforce to bring the food necessary to feed 3 million people for several months? In WW2?
>>569757 I don't know which parts of this post are sarcastic and which aren't, but bringing food somewhere isn't going to fix anything if the same incompetents who wasted the previous reserves are going to handle it too
>>569807 wavell did a pretty good job with the limited foodstocks he had. he specifically asked for more food that was denied. >>569809 well in ww2 the british made a deal with the muslim league that they would give them an independent pakistan. hence the later recruits were largely ML drummed up blokes.
Also the british promised home rule to indians, and they were happy about it.
>>569820 Other countries were allied also busy with the war. Churchill wouldn't have given a shit if Australia was somehow connected by land to send aid to India, but they had to use ships, and 1943 was also the worst year of this conflict : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic When I said "workforce", it also included ships. Plus the amount of food for 3 millions people over several months. It was all a matter of prioritizing rather than stubbornly refusing like the article implied
>>569806 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Government_inaction >The Government of India Act 1935 had removed most of the Government of India's authority over the Provinces, so they had to rely on negotiation.
Even the provincial government of bengal itself was slow to organise famine relief, and the rest of India flat out refused to help.
As has been mentioned, Churchill had his own problems with ensuring the allies won WW2. Maybe if Churchill had been more interested in pushing for a solution there wouldn't have been so many deaths, but then again given how pressed British resources were maybe it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Either way, it's grossly unfair to pin the blame on Churchill when it was the Japanese who cut off food supplies in the first place, and the Indian politicians who were actually in India and in a position to see what was going on chose to turn a blind eye.
Let's face it, all this is just one more round of the left's favourite game: find a way to blame the white man. I understand that the Indians are still butthurt over the colonial period and will seize any excuse to paint the British as monsters, but it really makes my skin crawl seeing just how willing liberals in the west are to demonize historical figures just because they might inspire some sliver of patriotic feeling in a white person.
>>569863 >historical figures >refuses to send ships from australia to india >same ships go around delivering food to the mediterranean along india's southern coast. The article doesn't mention that the civilian government in india elected by indians was largely relegated to secondary tasks while administration and ministering of aid was done by the ICS and officials appointed by the viceroy. Read the rest. Wavell who commanded the BIA effort to provide famine relief asked for more food from the government under churchill and was refused.
>>569885 why divert food from the Greeks - who were also starving - when the other Indian provinces could easily have helped bengal out?
>The article doesn't mention that the civilian government in india elected by indians was largely relegated to secondary tasks while administration and ministering of aid was done by the ICS and officials appointed by the viceroy. yeah, because it isn't true. The provincial indian governments had real power
>>569904 >why divert food from starving greeks because the food was being sent from australia and around India into an active war theater. >they had real power they were a joke, the primary power resided with the bureaucracy. >other states could have helped them out. they did during the famine, but it wasn't enough. which is specifically why they asked for more food.
>>569920 no, their fellow curryfags like the ramkrishna mission also built hospitals and treated the dying with human dignity, but you would rather spam POO IN LOO 50000 times and then whine about shitskins being useless and yet destroying europe.
>>569941 >those untouchables are literally dying on the street >omg yindoos do nothing while brave catholic faces down the horror of calcutta. >except when the ramkrishna mission actually does stuff like sending said untouchables to different parts on india where they can get specialized treatment and creates hospices for them to live in while they undergo treatment.
>>569922 >other states could have helped them out. >they did during the famine no they didn't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Motives > ‘And at the Third Food Conference in Delhi on the 5 to 8 July, … the suggestion that "the only reason why people are starving in Bengal is that there is hoarding" was greeted at the Conference by the other Provinces with applause.’
>>569956 And exactly why is this a contest cowfucker? Obviously your mission couldn't help all your shitskin people or else no one would accept Christian hospices that only provides a more comfortable death when compared to the streets.
That doesn't change that plenty who couldn't receive the help from Ramkrishna appreciated what this Catholic group provided.
>>569975 >people clap >it means they stop sending food. they did send food, but it was primarily traders who were operating for profit. The local governments didn't send food because they were making sure their own populace wasn't starving >>569977 >what this catholic group provided yeah, die comfortably in a bed is much better than going through treatment for the disease itself. The catholic church latched onto Mother theresa because it was taking a beating in public perception because they diddled little boys. If you want to jack off to someone jack off to the earlier mission run hospitals in india that actually saved lives.
>>570079 >no one cares but they did, which is why MT faced a lot of hostility when she first started her entire hospice thingy. She could have used all that money to create a newer and better hospital to serve those people, or set up a logistics trail so that they could go other hospitals and get treatment
>>570147 a lot of calcutta's poor did go via the routes I mentioned for specialized treatment or went to the sometimes often underfunded government hospitals in calcutta where they could be treated for free. MT largely set up hospices for the stragglers in a fuckhuge city in a country with a rapidly expanding population, and even then preferred sending them to get treated like the church article mentioned. She was a good woman but completely overrated
>>570519 >He cheated on his wife this is true >>570519 >really liked da wyte wimmin (REALLY liked the wyte wimmin), took either money or training from Commies, and beat some hookers up. These things are made up by the same folks who bought you COINTELPRO
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.