The glorious 12th

Odhinn

janfebmar wrote: »

Says you/odhinn/davycc etc who only want to talk about criticisms of Churchill.

So you admit his racist policies caused at least 3 million deaths?

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Am i reading this correctly....your blaming a famine in india overseen by churchill on a famine several decades later in a different country??



What a strange corner youve painted yourself into

Do you think east Bengal in early 1940s is a different place to East Bengal -since called Bangladesh in the 1970s ? Has the penny dropped yet?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Says you/odhinn/davycc etc who only want to talk about criticisms of Churchill.

And what did you start this conversation about...you only wanted to look at one thing Russell did.

There are plenty disputing the claim that Churchill was a great man and his statue has been attacked in the same way as Russell's.

Nobody here has suggested Churchill was all bad by the way...I would have no truck with taking his statue down either.

But if you want Russell's down then you have to take all statues down that people find offensive. Or else stand accused of being a hypocrite.

janfebmar

Odhinn wrote: »

So you admit his racist policies caused at least 3 million deaths?

It was 4 million a while ago. Do you accept he sent food there not enough food, but some food?

Odhinn

janfebmar wrote: »

It was 4 million a while ago. Do you accept he sent food there not enough food, but some food?

No, he insisted that food be exported despite the consequences.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Do you think east Bengal in early 1940s is a different place to East Bengal -since called Bangladesh in the 1970s ? Has the penny dropped yet?

Indeed actually reading up on this 1940s famine by the british is eerily simiar to the irish famine

The scarcity, Mukherjee writes, was caused by large-scale exports of food from India for use in the war theatres and consumption in Britain - India exported more than 70,000 tonnes of rice between January and July 1943, even as the famine set in. This would have kept nearly 400,000 people alive for a full year. Mr Churchill turned down fervent pleas to export food to India citing a shortage of ships - this when shiploads of Australian wheat, for example, would pass by India to be stored for future consumption in Europe. As imports dropped, prices shot up and hoarders made a killing. Mr Churchill also pushed a scorched earth policy - which went by the sinister name of Denial Policy - in coastal Bengal where the colonisers feared the Japanese would land. So authorities removed boats (the lifeline of the region) and the police destroyed and seized rice stocks.

I.actually had no idea it was as bad



It seems bangladesh existamce is brought about by similar britiah policy as was applied with terrible effect here....partition


Im.failing to see how this excuses causing a famine overseen by the british there though

FrancieBrady

Odhinn wrote: »

No, he insisted that food be exported despite the consequences.

And there is no doubt or ambiguity about what he said either.

“starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks” and Indians were, in any case, “breeding like rabbits”

janfebmar

janfebmar wrote: »

Churchill done a lot more for Ireland than Dev. He saved us from Nazis because, as explained earlier, if UK fell, Hitler would have invaded us too, like he did other neutral countries. No, I would prefer more beds in hospitals or even houses for Irish homeless than wasting money on further statues.

Wow! Just, wow.

Would you please explain the difference in being murdered by the Black and Tans, and being murdered by the Nazis?

Hint: You end up dead, regardless....

_blaaz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wow! Just, wow.

Would you please explain the difference in being murdered by the Black and Tans, and being murdered by the Nazis?

Hint: You end up dead, regardless....

Near certain black and tans were churchills brain child.....we should be more thankful.for sending a murderous band of drunken rapist ex criminals here :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

_blaaz wrote: »

Indeed actually reading up on this 1940s famine by the british is eerily simiar to the irish famine





I.actually had no idea it was as bad



It seems bangladesh existamce is brought about by similar britiah policy as was applied with terrible effect here....partition


Im.failing to see how this excuses causing a famine overseen by the british there though

It is shockingly familiar when you dig down into it and read the Indian versions which put the death toll much higher than the British figure janfebmar is predictably touting.

It took a long time for our version of what happened in our own famine to get out there too. Indians are just beginning

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is shockingly familiar when you dig down into it and read the Indian versions which put the death toll much higher than the British figure janfebmar is predictably touting.

It took a long time for our version of what happened in our own famine to get out there too. Indians are just beginning

I find it interesting that an Indian friend of mine quotes the number of deaths as 4 million, too.

We were discussing the famine after the release of "Black 47", and practically everything I explained to him resulted in the same response - "It was the same in India"....

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Near certain black and tans were...:

You were absolutely certain Bangladesh ( where there was a famine taking one and a half million people) had nothing to do with the famine in India , until I pointed out - it took three times and further explanation until the penny dtopped with you - that the famine in the early forties was in the Bengal area , and east Bengal was renamed Bangladesh by the time of the famine there in the 1970s.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You were absolutely certain Bangladesh ( where there was a famine taking one and a half million people) had nothing to do with the famine in India , until I pointed out - it took three times and further explanation until the penny dtopped with you - that the famine in the early forties was in the Bengal area , and east Bengal was renamed Bangladesh by the time of the famine there in the 1970s.

Did they put a statue up to the person who exacerbated the situation out of racist disregard?

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

You were absolutely certain Bangladesh ( where there was a famine taking one and a half million people) had nothing to do with the famine in India

Because it deosnt??? How deos it??...they were decades apart ffs

until I pointed out - it took three time and further explanation until the penny dtopped with you - that the famine in the early forties was in the Bengal area , and east Bengal was renamed Bangladesh by the time of the famine there in the 1970s.

Im.still failing to see how this excuses a british caused famine there???(using near identical tactics used in ireland a century before,its like.we were practice for.em)

Your point whatever it is your attempting to say isnt very coherent?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did they put a statue up to the person who exacerbated the situation out of racist disregard?

Churchill was long dead by the time of the famine in the seventies in Bengal so you cannot blame him for that, much as you would like to.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Churchill was long dead by the time of the famine in the seventies in Bengal so you cannot blame him for that, much as you would like to.

Noone is???


Its the 1940s famine he exacerbated people are talking about....pure strawman arguement your lodging here

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

excuses a british caused famine there?

So it was the British who caused the famine in East Bengal in the early forties, while it was fighting a world war, but who caused the famine in East Bengal, causing 1.5 million deaths, in the 1970s , long after it became independent?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Churchill was long dead by the time of the famine in the seventies in Bengal so you cannot blame him for that, much as you would like to.

You didn't answer the question as usual.

And as we know here, the effects of colonialism last decades after it officially ends.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

So it was the British who caused the famine in East Bengal in the early forties, while it was fighting a world war,

Yes....have you not read the links where they exported food and deliberately didnt send food and seized/destroyed stores of food


They were running it then,so ergo they are responsible for it....pretty simple stuff,taking responsibilty for your actions tbh mate

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as we know here, the effects of colonialism last decades after it officially ends.

Agreed, the infrastructure put in place is a great start to the new country. Look at Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Agreed, the infrastructure put in place is a great start to the new country. Look at Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc.

These aremt new countries??


They existed long before colonisation?

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Yes....have you not read the links where they exported food...

Indeed I have, here is one from our own Cork Examiner:

Quote "The “food” which Ireland exported both before and during the Famine was mainly oats. Oats, as Dr Johnson famously stated in his dictionary, are “usually given to horses”. In the contemporary period the preparation of oats for human consumption took four to five hours. Oats were used in some of the workhouses, and the flax growing area in the North, but It is doubtful whether the average Irish farmer would have had either the knowledge, or the means, of rendering them palatable.

One also wonders what the likes of Shane Minogue would be saying now if the British had only supplied the starving Irish people with food which, in that period, was “usually given to horses”.

Both before and during the Famine, Ireland was exporting and importing significant quantities of wheat. The reason for this is that there are two types. The bulk of the wheat grown in Ireland then, as now, would have been winter wheat. This requires a mild damp climate. It is sown in the autumn, and is only suitable for feeding cattle. The wheat used for bread-making is known as spring or hard wheat, and requires harsh winters and hot dry summers. The presumption, therefore, is that Ireland was exporting the winter wheat which it grew best, and was importing the additional amount of spring wheat it needed for bread-making, as it does today.

In 1844, the year before the Famine, Ireland exported 94,000 tonnes of wheat and 314,000 tonnes of oats, and imported 23,000 tons of wheat. Net exports: 385,000 tonnes.

In 1847, at the height of the Famine, Ireland exported 39,000 tonnes of wheat, and 98,000 tonnes of oats , and imported 199,000 tonnes of wheat, 12,000 tonnes of oats and 682,000 tonnes of maize. Net imports of 756,000 tonnes, a change of 1,140,000 tonnes. The country lacked the milling, the baking, and the transport infrastructure needed cope with the change in the diet of almost half the population. The maize had to be milled twice.

Given the exceptional circumstances, that the response was inadequate cannot be denied. But how much more could have been processed is open to question.

The suggestion, often made elsewhere, that the problem could have been easily solved by ceasing all “food” exports lacks credibility."

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Indeed I have

Such a rubbish post....no links in relation to irish famine have been posted...but several to churchills faminr in india have been


Why you feel need to try fool.people into thinking that they have....while your despertely throwing sh1t to.get out of corner youve painted yourself into regards churchills indian famine is beyond me....but your very very bad at deflection (like.my 3 year old niece is better than you at it:D)

FrancieBrady

British Tory voters have form in ignoring racists. They have just elected another one who no doubt will get a statue one day too.
Boris:

What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies… No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird

it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes," adding that any female student who appeared at school or in a lecture "looking like a bank robber" should be asked to remove it.

Yis are welcome to him too.

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

These aremt new countries??


They existed long before colonisation?

lol. Says the person who knew absolutely nothing about Bangladesh and who had to have it explained 3 or 4 times until the penny dropped.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

lol. Says the person who knew absolutely nothing about Bangladesh and who had to have it explained 3 or 4 times until the penny dropped.

Indeed i had forgot about this......perhaps you can outline how a country that didnt exist at the time is at fault for churchills indian famine??

FrancieBrady

_blaaz wrote: »

Indeed i had forgot about this......perhaps you can outline how a country that didnt exist at the time is at fault for churchills indian famine??

If any more pennies drop I'll be able to go for a pint!

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Such a rubbish post....no links in relation to irish famine have been posted..

Here it is again, you must have missed it. From our own (Cork) Examiner:

Quote "The “food” which Ireland exported both before and during the Famine was mainly oats. Oats, as Dr Johnson famously stated in his dictionary, are “usually given to horses”. In the contemporary period the preparation of oats for human consumption took four to five hours. Oats were used in some of the workhouses, and the flax growing area in the North, but It is doubtful whether the average Irish farmer would have had either the knowledge, or the means, of rendering them palatable.

One also wonders what the likes of Shane Minogue would be saying now if the British had only supplied the starving Irish people with food which, in that period, was “usually given to horses”.

Both before and during the Famine, Ireland was exporting and importing significant quantities of wheat. The reason for this is that there are two types. The bulk of the wheat grown in Ireland then, as now, would have been winter wheat. This requires a mild damp climate. It is sown in the autumn, and is only suitable for feeding cattle. The wheat used for bread-making is known as spring or hard wheat, and requires harsh winters and hot dry summers. The presumption, therefore, is that Ireland was exporting the winter wheat which it grew best, and was importing the additional amount of spring wheat it needed for bread-making, as it does today.

In 1844, the year before the Famine, Ireland exported 94,000 tonnes of wheat and 314,000 tonnes of oats, and imported 23,000 tons of wheat. Net exports: 385,000 tonnes.

In 1847, at the height of the Famine, Ireland exported 39,000 tonnes of wheat, and 98,000 tonnes of oats , and imported 199,000 tonnes of wheat, 12,000 tonnes of oats and 682,000 tonnes of maize. Net imports of 756,000 tonnes, a change of 1,140,000 tonnes. The country lacked the milling, the baking, and the transport infrastructure needed cope with the change in the diet of almost half the population. The maize had to be milled twice.

Given the exceptional circumstances, that the response was inadequate cannot be denied. But how much more could have been processed is open to question.

The suggestion, often made elsewhere, that the problem could have been easily solved by ceasing all “food” exports lacks credibility."

You do not understand the Irish famine, what hope have you of understanding the Bengal famine of the early forties when you did not know (and did not believe ) what country East Bengal now is, even after it was pointed out to you three times?

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Here it is again, you must have missed it.s?

Except this link.hasmt been posted (and ive read the orginal un-heavily edited by you article,seceral years ago in a book on famine, while travelling)

So im.regretably,for you...im not going to take history lessons off a propagandist


Perhaps you can explain why churchill ordered seizing and destruction of food in famine hit india though and stop trying to blame the irish for a famine in india...that is weird even by your standreds?

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Except this link...

Easily googled. Then again, I do not think you are really capable of much independent thinking or research, given three or 4 times I told you to google "Bengal famine 1974" to find out more about the Bengal famine of 1974 (which caused 1.5 million deaths), and you thought you were getting the wrong results, until I educated you that East Bengal is now called Bangladesh. lol.

_blaaz wrote: »

So im.regretably,for you...im not going to take history lessons off a propagandist

Oh, but I think you have, over the years, without even realising it.

_blaaz wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain why churchill ordered seizing and destruction of food in famine hit india

destruction of food? He did'nt actually.

_blaaz wrote: »

though and stop trying to blame the irish for a famine in india...that is weird even by your standreds?

I did not blame us Irish for the famine in India. I pointed out that everything is not as black and white as you were led to believe. Except even that went over your head.

Did you know here in Ireland, In 1844, the year before the Famine, Ireland exported 94,000 tonnes of wheat and 314,000 tonnes of oats, and imported 23,000 tons of wheat. Net exports: 385,000 tonnes.

In 1847, at the height of the Famine, Ireland exported 39,000 tonnes of wheat, and 98,000 tonnes of oats , and imported 199,000 tonnes of wheat, 12,000 tonnes of oats and 682,000 tonnes of maize. Net imports of 756,000 tonnes, a change of 1,140,000 tonnes.