- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,809
- Likes
- 4,619
30 million died in bengal famine aloneChurchill killed at least 5 million in India alone and laid to waste millions more in African colonies
30 million died in bengal famine aloneChurchill killed at least 5 million in India alone and laid to waste millions more in African colonies
Amartya Sen in his book "famines & poverty" conclude that it was more of a hoarding problem rather than an inflationary and supply side problem as claimed by Madhushree Mukhreji.30 million died in bengal famine alone
Well Jinnah would not have been able to accomplish anything without British overt and covert support. Infact, Wavell who was the penultimate viceroy of India had already worked on and approved a partition plan down to which districts would go where which was later used as a blueprint in 1947.Add Jinnah... sare fasaad ki jad... the sepratist of the century responsible of division of India.... we are STILL facing issues he created while others ended.
I think this should be Hideki Tojo, the military dictator at that time.Yes, you are right. The Japanese also carried out large scale massacres in territories they controlled. However, instead of going ballistic, what you could do is post references to support your claims. That way, your points carry a lot more weight and become more credible than posts that are unsupported.
Here are two examples:
The Rape of Nanking (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nanking Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I will add Hirohito to the list.
Please elaborate on why he is evil to you...The death toll in the Bengal famine was 3 million. Nevertheless I would vote for Churchill as the most evil. The reason is that all the others have already been exposed and recognised as evil, but the Europeans and North Americans and Australia still think Churchill as some kind of hero. Really, the Brits still think colonialism was some kind of great tea party. Churchill should be voted as the most evil, if for anything to publicise the atrocities he got away with.
Ohh..common..There is a difference between letting people die in famine and sending them for execution to gulags..In the former case, people can help each other, community supporters might get in, people might migrate and you are free to find a way out. In the latter case, you have one and only one option i.e. death, no matter what you do.Winston Churchill for me. I didnt know if there was a poll and with just reading the title i knew it had to be Churchill. Bloody bastard.
Well Jinnah would not have been able to accomplish anything without British overt and covert support. Infact, Wavell who was the penultimate viceroy of India had already worked on and approved a partition plan down to which districts would go where which was later used as a blueprint in 1947.
If anything Lord Wavell and Churchill had a greater share of realising the partition than Jinnah.
I would recommend the book by ADC to lord mounbatten Narendra Singh Sarila - In the shadow of the great game. Its a critica book to understand the British politics behind the partition. To know more about their schemings, I would also suggest Facts are Sacred by Bacha Khan's son as well which is available online.
Facts Are Sacred by Wali Khan
Both of these authors based a major portion of their work on declassified documents from the British India office as well as US documents.
I talked completely from Indian context.Ohh..common..There is a difference between letting people die in famine and sending them for execution to gulags..In the former case, people can help each other, community supporters might get in, people might migrate and you are free to find a way out. In the latter case, you have one and only one option i.e. death, no matter what you do.
People might come and blame Mr. Gandhi for it as well. He started Quit India Movement when British were in a topsy-turvy situation and Churchill got pissed off. So, the reason behind your reason is Gandhi!!
I know Churchill was one big racist, but he is nowhere in the league of big brother(Mao,Stalin,Hitler).
Definitely, he is no saint. But had it not been him, but his predecessors like Neville Chamberlain many more would have rotten in the concentration camps/gulags.I talked completely from Indian context.
I still take offence to declaring him a saint who let millions die but not called a criminal for it while Hitler is a criminal who killed millions in gas chambers. while hitler sure was criminal, its just that Churchill gets away because he was the PM of the empire and on the winning side of WWII. I am sure the millions who lost their lives because of him may still have their ghosts roaming.
you will get different answers from different countries.Definitely, he is no saint. But had it not been him, but his predecessors like Neville Chamberlain many more would have rotten in the concentration camps/gulags.
Since the thread is to name the most evil person of the century, I just thought we should not get biased due to the Indian connection.
The British contribution to the war effort was pitiful compared to that of the Americans and Soviets, who were the ones that actually won the war.Definitely, he is no saint. But had it not been him, but his predecessors like Neville Chamberlain many more would have rotten in the concentration camps/gulags.
It is impossible to have such a poll and expect an 'objective' answer. Just as Jews would call Hitler the most evil person due to their historical experiences, and Ukrainians Stalin due to theirs, Indians should also answer the question based on their own historical experiences.Since the thread is to name the most evil person of the century, I just thought we should not get biased due to the Indian connection.
Stalin is still revered by many Russians.Stalin was a tyrant for Russians.
Churchill was not alone to punish us. First, blame the nature which caused the famine. Second, blame the hoarders who did earn profits at the cost of people's life. Third, blame ourselves that we were not able to help our own countrymen. In earlier famines due to the likes of Vivekanand and others we did respond very well to the famines. Its only after all our safety mechanisms have failed that we expected the British support and that is where Churchill failed us.Voted Churchill. He surpasses Hitler because Hitler had a rage against jews and deep psychological reasons to go after them.
What did we do to earn the wrath of Churchill? Where do we figure punishable even in the remotest sense. He is a cold blooded murderer of millions in the famines of India. He had a war to fight and so he thought Indians can live without Roti Chaawal
Well, the war of Britain was the first decisive turn in WW2, which made Hitler turn attention to USSR. And no one can deny the role Churchill played in this turnaround minus the historical luck that a German mistakenly bombed London and turned the course of war as Hitler got mad and started bombing London instead of strategic targets.The British contribution to the war effort was pitiful compared to that of the Americans and Soviets, who were the ones that actually won the war.
No denial to this fact.Churchill can never be good for India.
I am sorry if I thought we could be objective in this analysis.It is impossible to have such a poll and expect an 'objective' answer. Just as Jews would call Hitler the most evil person due to their historical experiences, and Ukrainians Stalin due to theirs, Indians should also answer the question based on their own historical experiences.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Evil King Zion | Members Corner | 1 | ||
Dar warns India not to cast an evil eye on Pakistan's economic prosperity! | Pakistan | 14 | ||
Evil resident: Hitler birth house haunts Austrian town | Europe and Russia | 4 | ||
P | Hector Aleem: Pakistan is the hub of Evil Thoughts | Pakistan | 6 |