Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: THE CRIMES OF EVIL PSYCHOPATH WINSTON CHURCHILL whom the "EVIL WHITES" WORSHIP
85 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Pedidos
Aug 28, 2021, 5:35:02 AM8/28/21
to
In article <yCkWI.1147$2B4...@fx04.iad>
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Flush.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Flush.
Message has been deleted
Muriel McKay
Aug 31, 2021, 3:07:23 PM8/31/21
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 4:21:12 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein
>members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should
>be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter
>and stampede them”.
Personally I don't see what's wrong with bombing enemy terrorists like SF/IRA, after all they bombed our children, but, like everything else in that message, it's a misrepresentation.
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/
'Bombing the Irish
As further evidence, Tharoor quotes Churchill’s suggestion that airplanes should use “machine-gun fire or bombs” against Irish revolutionaries in 1920. The document that contains that quotation says: “If they can be definitely located and identified from the air, I see no objection from a military point of view, and subject of course to the discretion of the Irish Government and of the authorities on the spot, to aeroplanes being dispatched with definite orders in each particular case to disperse them by machine gun fire or bombs, using of course no more force than is necessary to scatter and stampede them.”
Tharoor shies away from quoting the entire document because doing so would reveal Churchill’s prudence in phrases like “subject to discretion” and “no more force than necessary.” You do not have to be a trained historian to recognize Tharoor’s pattern of excerpting and isolating quotations from their context in order to support a sensational claim.'
>Several times in the 1920s various groups in the region now
>known as Iraq rose up against the British.
'various groups eh?' Shouldn't we call them their correct name, i.e.,
uncivilised tribes who were murdering British tax collectors, and
travelling Bishops? Shouldn't we point out that they'd lately
participated in the genocide of the Armenians?
>The air force was then put into
>action, indiscriminately bombing civilian areas so to subdue the population.
No, the RAF bombed the villages of the tribal Kurds - it wasn't indiscriminate.
Let's face it, the Kurds were awful at that stage of their history.
They originally survived by collecting protection money from
the hard-working Armenians but they'd murdered the Armenians,
thereby destroying their own livelihood.
>Churchill was also an advocate for the use of mustard and poison gases.
Another misrepresentation:
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-160/leading-myths-churchill-advocated-the-first-use-of-lethal-gas/
>Whilst ‘Secretary for War and Air’ he advised that “the provision of
>some kind of asphyxiating bombs” should be used “for use in preliminary
>operations against turbulent tribes” in order to take control of Iraq.
Yes, Churchill wanted the RAF to stop bombing the beautifuk Kurds
with explosives and use tear gas. So you're deceitfully misrepresenting
Churchill because you're a POS.
"After the war, with Churchill at the War Office, Britain was faced with the question of using gas against rebel tribesmen in Northwest India and in Mesopotamia, now Iraq. It was never proposed to use chlorine or phosgene, but Churchill confused the matter when he used the general term “poison gas” in a departmental minute in 1919 (italics mine):"
``It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.``
Churchill minute. War Office, 12 May 1919. Martin Gilbert, ed., Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume 4, Part 1 (London: Heinemann, 1977), 649.
"making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas"
Lachrymatory means 'causes tears' = tear gas.
I see Your Side uses tear gas.
https://www.reuters.com/world/indian-police-fire-tear-gas-protesting-farmers-enter-delhis-red-fort-2021-01-26/
Why is it a war crime for Churchill to want to use tear gas when Your Side uses it today?
>Churchill’s bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq)
>was summed up by war criminal ‘Bomber Harris’:
Ha ha ha! He bombed your Nazi cities and now you are crying about
Dresden! Wait, it was Churchill that bombed Dresden; wait, no it was
Attlee! Your Side bombed Dresdumb and you are crying about war
crimes.
https://richardlangworth.com/churchill-bombing-dresden
>“The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means within 45
>minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third
>of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which
>offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no
>effective means of escape”. — Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris.
No. That's not Churchill's bombing, which would have used tear gas instead of 'real bombing'.
Besides, you want to punish the British for the Tasmanian genocide,
so why not accept the above as punishment for the Armenian genocide?
Is it not the case that you are on the same side as the genocidal
tribal Kurds who want to kill christians?
>Western White CHRISTIAN FILTH is an EVIL VIRUS, which
>AFFLICTED this beautiful planet.
>
>The SOONER this EVIL RACE is ELIMINATED from this planet
>one way or the other, the better.
Funny, I thought Hindus were a peaceful group.
>When it came to his own fellow Brits he was less than
>complimentary
Yes, he was very criticial of British politicians, most of whom adored Hitler, in the 1930s.
For example, to Neville Chamberlain, he said
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.'
- To Neville Chamberlain
Oh! it's _so_ uncomplimentary!
>and displayed a deep hatred for the working classes.
No, he didn't. He laid the foundations of the Welfare State with Lloyd-George.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_welfare_reforms
He was denounced by his fellow toffs as a 'class-traitor' for doing that.
>He suggested “100,000
>degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised”.
Yes, eugenics was very popular one time.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left
"Such talk repels us now, but in the prewar era it was the common sense of the age. Most alarming, many of its leading advocates were found among the luminaries of the Fabian and socialist left, men and women revered to this day. Thus George Bernard Shaw could insist that "the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man", even suggesting, in a phrase that chills the blood, that defectives be dealt with by means of a "lethal chamber".
Now, where has mass sterilization actually occurred?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790
'During the 1975 Emergency - when civil liberties were suspended - Sanjay Gandhi, son of the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, began what was described by many as a "gruesome campaign" to sterilise poor men. There were reports of police cordoning off villages and virtually dragging the men to surgery.
The campaign also made an appearance in Salman Rushdie's novel, Midnight's Children.
An astonishing 6.2 million Indian men were sterilised in just a year, which was "15 times the number of people sterilised by the Nazis", according to science journalist Mara Hvistendahl. Two thousand men died from botched operations.'
>for “tramps and wastrels there ought to be proper
>labour colonies where they could be sent”.
Oh isn't that horrifying.
>Very few in Britain know about the genocide in Bengal
>let alone how Churchill engineered it. Churchill’s hatred for
>Indians led to four million starving to death during the Bengal
>‘famine’ of 1943.
No it didn't - that was your Japanese allies.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2020/churchill-and-the-genocide-myth/
'The true facts about food shipments to Bengal, amply recorded in the British war cabinet and government of India archives, are that more than a million tons of grain arrived in Bengal between August 1943, when the war cabinet first realised the severity of the famine, and the end of 1944, when the famine had petered out. '
'This was food aid specifically sent to Bengal, much of it on Australian ships, despite strict food rationing in England and severe food shortages in newly-liberated southern Italy and Greece. As detailed in Andrew Roberts’s brilliant biography, far from seeking to starve India, Churchill and his cabinet sought every possible way to alleviate the suffering without undermining the war effort.'
>“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people
>with a beastly religion” he would say.
Seems like he only said it once, on the news that Your Side was betraying us.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2020/churchill-and-the-genocide-myth/
'the war cabinet sent its senior Labour minister, Sir Stafford Cripps, known for his friendship with Congress leaders. When the Cripps mission failed to meet their demand for immediate independence, Congress launched the Quit India movement of civil disobedience against the Raj and resolved to offer only passive resistance to the Japanese invasion.'
'On being informed of this in September 1942, an apoplectic Churchill exclaimed to Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” He was referring to Hinduism, rather than Islam, given loyal support for the war effort from the Muslim League. Churchill saw Gandhi’s decision to launch the Quit India movement in the middle of the war as a stab in the back when Britain most needed and deserved loyal support. '
More later.
>He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein
>members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should
>be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter
>and stampede them”.
Personally I don't see what's wrong with bombing enemy terrorists like SF/IRA, after all they bombed our children, but, like everything else in that message, it's a misrepresentation.
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/
'Bombing the Irish
As further evidence, Tharoor quotes Churchill’s suggestion that airplanes should use “machine-gun fire or bombs” against Irish revolutionaries in 1920. The document that contains that quotation says: “If they can be definitely located and identified from the air, I see no objection from a military point of view, and subject of course to the discretion of the Irish Government and of the authorities on the spot, to aeroplanes being dispatched with definite orders in each particular case to disperse them by machine gun fire or bombs, using of course no more force than is necessary to scatter and stampede them.”
Tharoor shies away from quoting the entire document because doing so would reveal Churchill’s prudence in phrases like “subject to discretion” and “no more force than necessary.” You do not have to be a trained historian to recognize Tharoor’s pattern of excerpting and isolating quotations from their context in order to support a sensational claim.'
>Several times in the 1920s various groups in the region now
>known as Iraq rose up against the British.
'various groups eh?' Shouldn't we call them their correct name, i.e.,
uncivilised tribes who were murdering British tax collectors, and
travelling Bishops? Shouldn't we point out that they'd lately
participated in the genocide of the Armenians?
>The air force was then put into
>action, indiscriminately bombing civilian areas so to subdue the population.
No, the RAF bombed the villages of the tribal Kurds - it wasn't indiscriminate.
Let's face it, the Kurds were awful at that stage of their history.
They originally survived by collecting protection money from
the hard-working Armenians but they'd murdered the Armenians,
thereby destroying their own livelihood.
>Churchill was also an advocate for the use of mustard and poison gases.
Another misrepresentation:
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-160/leading-myths-churchill-advocated-the-first-use-of-lethal-gas/
>Whilst ‘Secretary for War and Air’ he advised that “the provision of
>some kind of asphyxiating bombs” should be used “for use in preliminary
>operations against turbulent tribes” in order to take control of Iraq.
Yes, Churchill wanted the RAF to stop bombing the beautifuk Kurds
with explosives and use tear gas. So you're deceitfully misrepresenting
Churchill because you're a POS.
"After the war, with Churchill at the War Office, Britain was faced with the question of using gas against rebel tribesmen in Northwest India and in Mesopotamia, now Iraq. It was never proposed to use chlorine or phosgene, but Churchill confused the matter when he used the general term “poison gas” in a departmental minute in 1919 (italics mine):"
``It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.``
Churchill minute. War Office, 12 May 1919. Martin Gilbert, ed., Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume 4, Part 1 (London: Heinemann, 1977), 649.
"making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas"
Lachrymatory means 'causes tears' = tear gas.
I see Your Side uses tear gas.
https://www.reuters.com/world/indian-police-fire-tear-gas-protesting-farmers-enter-delhis-red-fort-2021-01-26/
Why is it a war crime for Churchill to want to use tear gas when Your Side uses it today?
>Churchill’s bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq)
>was summed up by war criminal ‘Bomber Harris’:
Ha ha ha! He bombed your Nazi cities and now you are crying about
Dresden! Wait, it was Churchill that bombed Dresden; wait, no it was
Attlee! Your Side bombed Dresdumb and you are crying about war
crimes.
https://richardlangworth.com/churchill-bombing-dresden
>“The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means within 45
>minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third
>of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which
>offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no
>effective means of escape”. — Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris.
No. That's not Churchill's bombing, which would have used tear gas instead of 'real bombing'.
Besides, you want to punish the British for the Tasmanian genocide,
so why not accept the above as punishment for the Armenian genocide?
Is it not the case that you are on the same side as the genocidal
tribal Kurds who want to kill christians?
>Western White CHRISTIAN FILTH is an EVIL VIRUS, which
>AFFLICTED this beautiful planet.
>
>The SOONER this EVIL RACE is ELIMINATED from this planet
>one way or the other, the better.
Funny, I thought Hindus were a peaceful group.
>When it came to his own fellow Brits he was less than
>complimentary
Yes, he was very criticial of British politicians, most of whom adored Hitler, in the 1930s.
For example, to Neville Chamberlain, he said
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.'
- To Neville Chamberlain
Oh! it's _so_ uncomplimentary!
>and displayed a deep hatred for the working classes.
No, he didn't. He laid the foundations of the Welfare State with Lloyd-George.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_welfare_reforms
He was denounced by his fellow toffs as a 'class-traitor' for doing that.
>He suggested “100,000
>degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised”.
Yes, eugenics was very popular one time.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left
"Such talk repels us now, but in the prewar era it was the common sense of the age. Most alarming, many of its leading advocates were found among the luminaries of the Fabian and socialist left, men and women revered to this day. Thus George Bernard Shaw could insist that "the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man", even suggesting, in a phrase that chills the blood, that defectives be dealt with by means of a "lethal chamber".
Now, where has mass sterilization actually occurred?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790
'During the 1975 Emergency - when civil liberties were suspended - Sanjay Gandhi, son of the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, began what was described by many as a "gruesome campaign" to sterilise poor men. There were reports of police cordoning off villages and virtually dragging the men to surgery.
The campaign also made an appearance in Salman Rushdie's novel, Midnight's Children.
An astonishing 6.2 million Indian men were sterilised in just a year, which was "15 times the number of people sterilised by the Nazis", according to science journalist Mara Hvistendahl. Two thousand men died from botched operations.'
>for “tramps and wastrels there ought to be proper
>labour colonies where they could be sent”.
Oh isn't that horrifying.
>Very few in Britain know about the genocide in Bengal
>let alone how Churchill engineered it. Churchill’s hatred for
>Indians led to four million starving to death during the Bengal
>‘famine’ of 1943.
No it didn't - that was your Japanese allies.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2020/churchill-and-the-genocide-myth/
'The true facts about food shipments to Bengal, amply recorded in the British war cabinet and government of India archives, are that more than a million tons of grain arrived in Bengal between August 1943, when the war cabinet first realised the severity of the famine, and the end of 1944, when the famine had petered out. '
'This was food aid specifically sent to Bengal, much of it on Australian ships, despite strict food rationing in England and severe food shortages in newly-liberated southern Italy and Greece. As detailed in Andrew Roberts’s brilliant biography, far from seeking to starve India, Churchill and his cabinet sought every possible way to alleviate the suffering without undermining the war effort.'
>“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people
>with a beastly religion” he would say.
Seems like he only said it once, on the news that Your Side was betraying us.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2020/churchill-and-the-genocide-myth/
'the war cabinet sent its senior Labour minister, Sir Stafford Cripps, known for his friendship with Congress leaders. When the Cripps mission failed to meet their demand for immediate independence, Congress launched the Quit India movement of civil disobedience against the Raj and resolved to offer only passive resistance to the Japanese invasion.'
'On being informed of this in September 1942, an apoplectic Churchill exclaimed to Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” He was referring to Hinduism, rather than Islam, given loyal support for the war effort from the Muslim League. Churchill saw Gandhi’s decision to launch the Quit India movement in the middle of the war as a stab in the back when Britain most needed and deserved loyal support. '
More later.
max.it
Aug 31, 2021, 3:35:15 PM8/31/21
to
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 12:07:22 -0700 (PDT), Muriel McKay
<tsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 4:21:12 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
>>He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein
>>members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should
>>be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter
>>and stampede them”.
>
>Personally I don't see what's wrong with bombing enemy terrorists like SF/IRA, after all they bombed our children, but, like everything else in that message, it's a misrepresentation.
That was 1920. During that time the only people killing children in
<tsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 4:21:12 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
>>He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein
>>members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should
>>be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter
>>and stampede them”.
>
>Personally I don't see what's wrong with bombing enemy terrorists like SF/IRA, after all they bombed our children, but, like everything else in that message, it's a misrepresentation.
Ireland were murderers and the British army with the black and tans.
The only people letting rip into the crowd with machine guns at
football matches were the British. The only people burning cities
towns and villages were the British.
Two things that piss me off.
1. Christian preachers who don't know their scriptures.
2. Assholes who know fuck all squared about Irish history.
I'll give you an A+ on 2, and refer you to the Trinity college Dublin
history department.
max.it
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Muriel McKay
Aug 31, 2021, 4:52:46 PM8/31/21
to
On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 12:35:15 PM UTC-7, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 12:07:22 -0700 (PDT), Muriel McKay
> <tsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 4:21:12 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >
> >>He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein
> >>members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should
> >>be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter
> >>and stampede them”.
> >
> >Personally I don't see what's wrong with bombing enemy terrorists like SF/IRA,
> >after all they bombed our children, but, like everything else in that message, it's a misrepresentation.
Sorry, couldn't resist trolling you max.it.
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 12:07:22 -0700 (PDT), Muriel McKay
> <tsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 4:21:12 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >
> >>He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein
> >>members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should
> >>be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter
> >>and stampede them”.
> >
> >Personally I don't see what's wrong with bombing enemy terrorists like SF/IRA,
> >after all they bombed our children, but, like everything else in that message, it's a misrepresentation.
> That was 1920.
No, that was 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bombings
'The Warrington bombings were two separate bomb attacks that took place during early 1993 in Warrington, Cheshire, England. The first attack happened on 26 February, when a bomb exploded at a gas storage facility. This first explosion caused extensive damage, but no injuries. While fleeing the scene, the bombers shot and injured a police officer and two of the bombers were caught following a high-speed car chase. The second attack happened on 20 March, when two smaller bombs exploded in litter bins outside shops and businesses on Bridge Street. Two children were killed and a total of 56 people were injured.'
> During that time the only people killing children in
> Ireland were murderers and the British army with the black and tans.
> The only people letting rip into the crowd with machine guns at
> football matches were the British.
'Thus he [Churchill] responded to postwar IRA terrorism by creating a force of
Black and Tans -- former British soldiers who became terrorists themselves.'
page xxxi, THE LAST LION: WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL; ALONE
>The only people burning cities towns and villages were the British.
'In early November, Black and Tans "besieged" Tralee in revenge for the IRA abduction and killing of two local RIC men. They closed all the businesses in the town, let no food in for a week and shot dead three local civilians. On 14 November, Black and Tans were suspected of abducting and murdering a Roman Catholic priest, Father Michael Griffin, in Galway. His body was found in a bog in Barna a week later.'
So you are, predictably enough, ignoring IRA violence, and blaming the B&Ts for everything.
> Two things that piss me off.
> 1. Christian preachers who don't know their scriptures.
> 2. Assholes who know fuck all squared about Irish history.
Two things that piss me off.
1. Arseholes who support SF/IRA
2. FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> I'll give you an A+ on 2, and refer you to the Trinity college Dublin
> history department.
> max.it
I see Rangers kicked Celtic's arse recently.
Must admit, that made me happy.
max.it
Aug 31, 2021, 5:19:44 PM8/31/21
to
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 13:52:45 -0700 (PDT), Muriel McKay
You didn't troll me. you were just ignorant and subsequently
corrected.
You can't get a more balanced view than theTCD history department.
Now nicely fuck off into my BoZoBin. I have no time for genocidal
apologists.
corrected.
You can't get a more balanced view than theTCD history department.
Now nicely fuck off into my BoZoBin. I have no time for genocidal
apologists.
Muriel McKay
Aug 31, 2021, 6:04:20 PM8/31/21
to
>you were just ignorant
I understand that you'd want to deny it, but the IRA really did murder
two British children in 1993.
> and subsequently corrected.
In your imagination.
Tharoor really did abstract parts of Churchill's message to make it seem more brutal than it was.
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/
'Tharoor shies away from quoting the entire document because doing so would reveal Churchill’s prudence in phrases like “subject to discretion” and “no more force than necessary.” You do not have to be a trained historian to recognize Tharoor’s pattern of excerpting and isolating quotations from their context in order to support a sensational claim.'
> You can't get a more balanced view than the TCD history department.
https://winstonchurchill.org/
> Now nicely fuck off into my BoZoBin.
I've wanted that all along!
I don't want you reading my messages.
You make my flesh crawl!
>I have no time for genocidal apologists.
1. Real historian Dr. Zareer Masani
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2020/churchill-and-the-genocide-myth/
'Churchill and the genocide myth
Zareer Masani says the wartime prime minister has been unfairly vilified over the 1943 Indian famine'
2. Real historian Andrew Roberts
https://www.andrew-roberts.net/
https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/status/1049567473589207040?lang=en
'Churchill wasn't responsible for the Bengal Famine, as ch 28 of my 'Churchill: Walking with Destiny' shows. Nor was he a murder/ war criminal, etc as is easily disprovable by the sources. The gas used against the Iraqis was tear gas. Kelly's Space is between his ears. '
3. Real historian Sir Martin Gilbert
https://www.martingilbert.com/
https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/bengali-famine/
' “Churchill was not responsible for the Bengal Famine,” Sir Martin replied. “I have been searching for evidence for years: none has turned up. The 1944 Document volume of the official biography [Hillsdale College Press] will resolve this issue finally.”'
4. Real historian Richard Langworth
https://richardlangworth.com/bengal-hottest-diatribe
'Despite vast evidence to the contrary, notably in Hillsdale’s The Churchill Documents, Winston Churchill continues to be blamed by the ignorant who haven’t done their homework. The critics don’t say he caused the famine. They say he did nothing to help, and even hindered the help that was offered.
In reality, Churchill and the British War Cabinet did their level best to alleviate Bengal’s plight. They considered Canada, Iraq, Australia and the USA, with varying options, for shipments of wheat and even barley. Australia proved the largest source. In the end they eased the tragedy, thanks to Field Marshal Wavell, the Indian Viceroy Churchill had appointed.'
5. Real historian Arthur Herman
https://www.hudson.org/experts/1005-arthur-herman
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-149/books-arts-a-curiosities-absent-churchill-indias-1943-famine-would-have-been-worse/
'Ms. Mukerjee, who writes for Scientific American and is no historian, has gotten herself entangled in three separate and contentious issues: Britain’s battle with Indian nationalists like Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose; Churchill’s often tempestuous views on India; and the 1943-44 Bengal famine. Out of them she attempts to build a plausible cause-and-effect narrative. All she manages is to mangle the facts regarding all three, doing a disservice to both historical and moral truth.
In mid-October 1942 a devastating cyclone ripped through the coastal regions of east Bengal (today lower Bangladesh), killing thousands and decimating the autumn rice crop. Rice that should have been planted was instead consumed. When hot weather arrived in May 1943, the rice crop was a fraction of normal for Bengal’s peasantry, who had spent centuries living near starvation.
Turning bad news into disaster were the Japanese, who had just overrun Burma, the main source of India’s rice imports. Within a month, the entire southeastern subcontinent faced starvation. The governments in New Delhi and Bengal were unprepared, and as the heat grew, people began to die. It was the greatest humanitarian crisis the Raj had faced in more than half a century.
One might blame the disaster on the Japanese, but there were other problems of India’s own making. Many local officials were either absent (Bengal’s governor fell ill and died), distracted by the eruption of Bose’s Quit India movement; or simply too slow and corrupt to react. Bengal’s Muslim majority ministry did nothing, while many of its Hindu members were making huge profits trading in rice during the shortage. Finally, the magnitude of what was happening did not reach the attention of London until it was too late.
No Churchill critic, not even Ms. Mukerjee, has yet found a way to blame Churchill for actually triggering the famine—in the way that, for example, Stalin caused the famine in the Ukraine or Mao the mass starvations during China’s “Great Leap Forward.”'
I'll let you have the last word.
> max.it
Message has been deleted
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Sep 1, 2021, 12:22:29 AM9/1/21
to
because YOU are all nothing but COWARD PUSSIES who will run and hide
behind their whore moms and CRY, I don't wanna die, IF ASKED to fight
their opponents with the "same/equal weapons"
ENTIRE rsc,uksc'ers should UNDERSTAND that the GENOCIDAL BRITISH
WHITEFILTH "INJECTED Self loathing, Slavishness and Inferiority Complex"
into INDIAN and pretty much EVERY NON-White minds for fucking CENTURIES.
SO, lot of Indians like that mukherjee, this Psychopath Mckay quoted
STILL SUFFER from that DISEASE of SELF LOATHING and hence ABSOLVE the
GENOCIDAL BRITISH RACIST THIEVES and WINSTON CHURCHILL of their
ABOMINABLE HORRENDOUS CRIMES.
WINSTON CHURCHILL is a PURE GENOCIDAL EVIL RACIST THIEVING MANIAC.
MERCILESSLY MASSACRE THE CIA, NSA n FBI AGENTS LIKE FUCKING PIGS for
SECRETLY CHIPPING Amrikkkans with MIND CONTROL CHIPS
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.sport.cricket/c/rATE8TaLIcg/m/B77TudfbAQAJ
0 new messages