Who is the most Evil individual from the 20th century ?

Most evil of the 20th Century

  • Mao Zedong

    Votes: 19 14.7%
  • Joseph Stalin

    Votes: 12 9.3%
  • Adolf Hitler

    Votes: 26 20.2%
  • Winston Churchill

    Votes: 46 35.7%
  • Henry Kissinger

    Votes: 5 3.9%
  • Hirohito

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • Jinnah

    Votes: 11 8.5%
  • Pol Pot

    Votes: 5 3.9%
  • Idi Amin

    Votes: 2 1.6%
  • Yahya Khan

    Votes: 2 1.6%

  • Total voters
    129

LalTopi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
583
Likes
311
Ok, I will attempt to cure your ignorance.


Anyone with half a brain can see that the concept of India existed for 5000 years (or more) Your countryman Christopher Columbus landed in America and started calling the natives India's. do you want to know when that happened?

And regarding historical GDP, who cares what an insignificant british internet troll thinks. Facts are not established by clowns like you. Your ancestors did try the whole Aryan invasion bull and indoctrinated us with that. now with genome mapping we know that was a crock of shit.
Trackwhack - where is your mole gone? I was hoping to get the other side's view on Churchill.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
Sakal. You bring up some good points, but I still think you have a tendency to draw broad and often incorrect conclusions based on disconnected and sometimes irrelevant facts. See my comments inline below. I prefer to get back to Churchill and the thread title now so will stop my general commentary - but feel free to continue with your general theories if you must.
Well, Churchill was just another Britisher who believed in the great glory of the empire even though it was a financial drain on the economy. It was ego and not financial benefits that was behind his stand. Look at some of the last balance sheets of the Raj and you will realize what I mean(although some people here would question their validity itself!). People like him exist in all nations.

Again, for clarification I brought up caste to reflect illiteracy in the nation before the British. This was the point I made to someone who said illiteracy was also one of the ills because of the British. I close this point now.
 

LalTopi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
583
Likes
311
Well, Churchill was just another Britisher who believed in the great glory of the empire even though it was a financial drain on the economy. It was ego and not financial benefits that was behind his stand. Look at some of the last balance sheets of the Raj and you will realize what I mean(although some people here would question their validity itself!). People like him exist in all nations.

Again, for clarification I brought up caste to reflect illiteracy in the nation before the British. This was the point I made to someone who said illiteracy was also one of the ills because of the British. I close this point now.
Do you have a link/summary of the balance sheets? I would be interested and it is related to the topic re Churchill.
Most commentary I have read says that Britain was still getting positive cash flow.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
Do you have a link/summary of the balance sheets? I would be interested and it is related to the topic re Churchill.
Most commentary I have read says that Britain was still getting positive cash flow.
I forgot the link to the analysis going back till the 1947, but here is information till 1920s: 27D2. Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India PARTIV

Ambedkar had written quite a lot about it. If I find the other source, I would let you know. But even the above link shows that it was not uncommon for provincial govts. to go in deficit. Go through further sections of the book for more details.
 

LalTopi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
583
Likes
311

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
I dont keep posting about them. Never have. You are insignificant and thats why I am not even on that forum. Your accusation of keep on posting about them does not hold any water at all. Stop playing stupid. May work with high school dropouts in the UK. Not here.
A complete inability to face the facts. You went on about them four times before I called you on it.

I was told Indians were proud of their politeness and civility and prepared to apologise when they were wrong. Seems I was wrong to believe that
 

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
So one More vote for that Pig, Scum, -------, And "expletives too wrong to be used even for me", Winston Churchill- :mad:.

My blood boils more, the more I read about the History, the useless Indian History Books never thought of mentioning.

I think we should revise our own History Books, to show us the facts before Thinking of revising other's.

I distinctly remember reading a Chapter on Winston's Speech as a war hero to a British school, in my Tenth Standard, in English. It goes on to show how Winston and Britain saved the world from Evil Nazis. If the Spineless pig who created that syllabus had any amount of shame and Self Respect, I think he would not have included that in that Syllabus.

Indian History Books-----> :puke:
Nothing like re-writing history books to suit your own agenda. Still, I'd rather live with the truth. He made some bad calls, but he was a product of his time and definitely stopped us acquiescing like France.
 

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
STOP RIGHT THERE

I don't know whether india would have been one nation or many nation states like europe, if they never came here. I could not care less anyway. but when you start of with the whole railways and roads thing, its the equivalent of pissing on our past.

before the brits got here, even when we were ruled by feudal kings and mughals, for hundreds of years we were economically self sufficient and a lot of periods, we were rich.

The 200 years of the british left us the poorest place on the planet. So, please lets not glorify the railways and ports they built to transport our wealth to europe.
Really? Poorer than Afghanistan? Poorer than Guatemala? Poorer than Mexico?

If you're going to quote facts, try and get them right. If you seriously think India (as in the Indian sub continent) would have kept 20 or 25% of the world trade if the Brits hadn't arrived and the Portugese, the French, the Russians or even the Chinese hadn't conquered you, you need to get a good dose of reality.

You'd still be imo, a buch of squabbling states with just as many if not more problems than you have now.

British rule wasn't the best, but it did give you one country and quite a few other things. Quite probably VD as well :cool:
 

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
Agreed.

Trains and port would have been built by the local kings although a bit later but we'd be way richer off.

Remember the british didn't merely loot us! they dismantled our industries so that we couldn't even earn. If they had only looted us then we would have recovered much earlier but we were left where we had no industries and 90% of the population was illitrate. Thus there impact lasts till today.
Fixed that for you, no charge and to prove that 65 years of independence hasn't helped :cool:
 

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
........... for 2000 years upto the Briitish coming to India, we contributed nothing less than 25% of the worlds output. At the end of 200 years of British rule, that number went down to less than 1%. Go figure.
That Canadian [cough] 'academic' has a lot to answer for.:rolleyes: One, just one example. The global trade contribution of the United states of America in 1700 was? The global trade of the United States in 1947 was?

I suppose you want to blame the Brits for that as well? :taunt:

Get some reality.
 

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
That's because Britain used to be a capitalist country. NOw socialism prevails. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, businessmen are looked down upon as they earn a lot for the skills they have. Otoh footballers and celebrities who have no brains can earn as much as they wish. You work hard and make a million you are infinitesimally worse than who earns a million by winning a lottery: sad but true.
I agree. More people could quote you who wins BGT (a dog ffs!) than who runs the country.

Sadly, we've got four generations of skivers who 'know their rights' but contribute nothing to society. Bevin would be rolling in his grave.
 

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
Touche.
Well done. Well deflected.
Eh? These were in response to your quotes on Churchill

In fact since coming back and reading your posts I notice that you are quite adept at evading the real issue - making witty remarks, glib observations, allusions of racism. Also you seem to be relishing in your victory - although not sure whether you have noticed, but since you joined the thread the votes for Churchill (as the most evil) have actually gone up by quite a margin. But maybe that is what you really wanted to achieve - just to wind up the natives and go back and gloat to your chums. However, you will no doubt have noticed that it is not just in Indian fora that people are questioning the the spoon fed colonial version of history, but in Britain as well. Indeed with the likes of Scharma and Paxman the revisionist agenda is leading the way. So the ultimate joke will be on you and your mates.
Where have I said that I disagree with some points on colonial history? Some I agree with. Churchill was a man of his time, looking for adventure, pissing people off, making mistakes etc.

Allusions of racism? Please show me where I have said anything racist or even alluded to it? I've had racist comments made to me, but then again 'sticks and stones ....'

I had a good idea that as soon as the voting opened again, Churchill would be panned. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Any more than saying Gandhi was a water bearer. Facts are facts and he (Churchill) made some bad calls, albeit he's not entirely to blame IMO.

I was invited on here. I, unlike Ray, Pmaitra, Bangelore and Mad Indian, have no intention of going back to Arrse and gloating to anyone. Frankly, 90+% couldn't care less.

You should never judge me by your own lack of standards.

From my perspective, I did vote for Churchill as the most evil - but mainly as he was the one who got away with his deeds and is still revered by the likes of yourself. I read Madhushree Mukherjee's work and was quite shocked. Also, as her work was based on original official British documents (supplemented with interviews with Bengalis who lived through the famine), her work seems highly credible. Having said that, I am willing to change my mind if the facts have been misrepresented and Churchill is indeed innocent.
You can't change history, only that you can interpret facts and events differently. If India had no starvation and malnutrition after 1947, it would be a massive point against him. If the local govt and the caste system had allowed aid to be distributed, that would be a point for him.

Still, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

So what say you? can you leave aside the wit and glib retorts and provide us with an alternative view based on facts?
Okay, you show me where it was entirely Churchill's fault for the famines in India in the 20th century
 

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
Please read more on the history of India. I find your statements quite disturbing. Though I don't blame all of current ills on Brits I sure do pose this question to you , on what basis did Britain end up with so much wealth that they could afford the zenith of socialism fOr over 60 years.
The Marshall plan for a start. We'd never have had enough money to start the NHS and America knew it.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Fixed that for you, no charge and to prove that 65 years of independence hasn't helped :cool:
grammer nazi...i couldn't care less about spellings. english isn't my mother tongue but since it is yours you shouldn't be making any mistakes. i see that you forgot to add a fullstop after you completed your sentence. :D
 

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
Still, this doesn't change the fact that Indian subcontinent's GDP was 25-30% of the world's total.
It's now 30%? Are you sure it's not 50%? 60%? 100%? I never said it didn't, but you're comparing GDP of 1700 with that of 1947. It's like saying Germany's (which didn't exist either) was 10% in 1700 and in 1947 was 0.0001%. Use a proper comparator

Indian subcontinent has cycled between centralized empires and warring states. The Westphalian idea of a "nation state" is new concept anyways.
It is, so why are you comparing a none Westphalian state of 1700 to a Westphalian state of 1947

Mughal Empire was not a colonial power. It was based in India and the subcontinents wealth was not siphoned off to foreigners.
Really? The Mughals came from where? Their origin? Any nation which expands it's border into another nation imposing its will etc on that neighbour is colonsing is it not? Colonization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Scalieback

Professional
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,092
Likes
249
Err... Japan also had a caste system with 4 divisions and untouchables Burakumin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Unlike the Chinese, Japan's system wasn't meritocratic.
Do they still? 67 years after the end of World War 2 they don't seem to have a caste system anymore. In fact, they're a huge economy aided by the masses of wealth pumped into them at the end of the war. Same as Germany.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top