What's new

When You Kill Ten Million Africans You Aren’t Called ‘Hitler’

i won't be advocating here but there was a world war going on....i would have been much more sympatethic to this if it wasn't.



As for hoarding, it's more or less debunked in the paragraph below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Why_Bengal_was_refused_food

"Most contemporary commentators thought the Hindu-Muslim conflict a serious factor.[55] It was even claimed by a leading politician that ‘Bengal had been deliberately starved out by other provinces’ which refused to permit the export of grain"

Western propaganda,white man lies !! in 3,2....
 
That's true but some posters here are just beeing childlish,mostly they're upset that they didn't do the colonising themselves.

There's a funny guy on the first page of the thread saying that peace loving indians didn't come to Europe to colonise.I guess he didn't get the memo :They didn't come because they were primitive and couldn't,not because they were lovers of peace.For God's sake those poor indians in S. America were terring the hearts out from their captives while they were still alive!! Nice peace loving culture :o:

Totally agree. Europeans brought a civilization that is less brutal and more efficient than the native culture. The book "guns, germs and steel" explain why its the Europeans that colonized the world.
 
Fun Fact: The Congo Free State is the private property of King Leopold II. It's not until later that words of the atrocity reach the Belgium government they decide to nationalize their colony.

12ac7260fee4a8f29d3b5649ee7d5959.jpg

Fun fact ?? More like proof that Leopold was a mad man,a lone wolf that was stopped by the same belgians from carying out his atrocity when the truth came out.
 
That is not true. Some guy posted India superpower 2030 video on storm front and plenty of white people showed up.

Stormfront probably has a different target audience then PDF.....and this thread here was probably meant to stimulate the hatred towards the white man.

And as such, 2 white people talking facts and in general disagreeing with the premise of this thread (not talking about Leopold here, but the premise hidden in between the lines) are most likely unwanted.

Disturbing elements would be a nice way of putting it.
 
Well, people tend to have a narrow-minded view when dealing with their own history, but I believe there is more self-introspection and acknowledgement among Westerners in academic circles and school curricula about the historical wrongdoings as distinct from the non-Western world.
I can encounter plenty of Africans who will crucify the whites for the slave trade, but turn a blind eye with regards to the African and Arab participation, plenty of Turks who deny the Armenian genocide altogether, plenty of Arabs who justify the Arab slave trade by saying that Arab slavery wasn't so harsh as the European version, plenty of Pakistani who will glorify Central Asian invaders, and plenty of Japanese who will either downplay or minimise war crimes during World War 2, as it described in their text books. But I rarely encounter a fellow German who justifies the Holocaust, a Dutch who will declare that colonial rule in Indonesia was actually beneficial for the local population, a Belgian who denies the Congolese genocide or an American who claims that slavery was a necessary evil.
The centre of gravity for the theme is a bit off in the article.
 
Last edited:
Of course not whoever said I did. All races should be blamed when Genocide enter the door.

[QUOTEAs for Leopold, isn't he just one of many? Were the French model colonist? Were the British more lenient? Maybe to the Indians here as they adopted English and their government.]

To compare the British & French model to King Leopold Model is like comparing Hitler to Jesus. Which is the point of this article. Why doesn't the word Leopold is not synonymous with Hitler?

I will not deny that British & the French model at least offer the colonized people the benefit of western civilizations.
Fun Fact: The Congo Free State is the private property of King Leopold II. It's not until later that words of the atrocity reach the Belgium government they decide to nationalize their colony.

12ac7260fee4a8f29d3b5649ee7d5959.jpg
[/quote]

He is indeed a murderer. And he is known for his atrocities. Just read up on his wikipedia article.
 
i won't be advocating here but there was a world war going on....i would have been much more sympatethic to this if it wasn't.



As for hoarding, it's more or less debunked in the paragraph below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Why_Bengal_was_refused_food

Those are just excuses of apologists.

Read this.

Churchill’s Dark Side: Six Questions for Madhusree Mukerjee

The Japanese occupation of Burma in March 1942 cut off rice imports, of between one and two million tons per year, to India. Instead of protecting the Indian public from the resultant food shortage, the War Cabinet insisted that India absorb this loss and, further, export rice to countries that could no longer get it from South East Asia. As a result, after war arrived at India’s borders, the colony exported 260,000 tons of rice in the fiscal year 1942-43.

Meanwhile India’s war expenditures increased ten fold, and the government printed paper money to pay for them. In August 1942 a representative of India’s viceroy told the War Cabinet that runaway inflation could lead to “famines and riots.”

In December 1942, Viceroy Linlithgow warned that India’s grain supply was seriously short and he urgently needed 600,000 tons of wheat to feed soldiers and the most essential industrial workers. The War Cabinet stated that ships were not available. In January 1943, Churchill moved most of the merchant ships operating in the Indian Ocean over to the Atlantic, in order to build up the United Kingdom’s stockpile of food and raw materials. The Ministry of War Transport cautioned him that the shift would result in “violent changes and perhaps cataclysms” in trade around the Indian Ocean. (In addition to India, the colonies of Kenya, Tanganyika, and British Somaliland all suffered famine in 1943.) Although refusing to meet India’s need for wheat, Churchill insisted that India continue to export rice.

With famine raging, in July 1943 Viceroy Linlithgow halted rice exports and again asked the War Cabinet for wheat imports, this time of 500,000 tons. That was the minimum required to feed the army and otherwise maintain the war effort. The news of impending shipments would indirectly ease the famine, he noted: any hoarders would anticipate a fall in prices and release grain, causing prices to fall in reality. But at a meeting on August 4, the War Cabinet failed to schedule even a single shipment of wheat for India. Instead, it ordered the buildup of a stockpile of wheat for feeding European civilians after they had been liberated. So 170,000 tons of Australian wheat bypassed starving India—destined not for consumption but for storage.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom’s stockpile of food and raw materials, intended for shoring up the postwar British economy, reached 18.5 million tons, the highest ever. Sugar and oilseeds overflowed warehouses and had to be stored outdoors, under tarpaulins.

Of course Churchill knew that his priorities would result in mass death. In one of his tirades against Indians, he said they were “breeding like rabbits” anyway. On behalf of Indians, the War Cabinet ignored an offer of 100,000 tons of Burmese rice from freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose (who was allied with the Japanese), discouraged a gift of wheat from Canada, and turned down rice and wheat volunteered by the United States.

The War Cabinet eventually ordered for India 80,000 tons of wheat and 130,000 tons of barley. (Barley was useless for famine relief because it had no impact on prices.) The first of these meager shipments reached India in November. All the while, the Indian Army consumed local rice and wheat that might otherwise have fed the starving. The famine came to an end in December 1943, when Bengal harvested its own rice crop—at which point Churchill and his friend Cherwell renewed their demand for rice exports.
 
Fun fact ?? More like proof that Leopold was a mad man,a lone wolf that was stopped by the same belgians from carying out his atrocity when the truth came out.

That's what I've been saying since I've put the fucking Poem!



THE CONGO by Vachel Lindsay:


Listen to the yell of Leopold’s ghost
Burning in Hell for his hand-maimed host.
Hear how the demons chuckle and yell
Cutting his hands off, down in Hell.

Do no one here actually read the Poem?
 
Those are just excuses of apologists.

Read this.

Churchill’s Dark Side: Six Questions for Madhusree Mukerjee

The Japanese occupation of Burma in March 1942 cut off rice imports, of between one and two million tons per year, to India. Instead of protecting the Indian public from the resultant food shortage, the War Cabinet insisted that India absorb this loss and, further, export rice to countries that could no longer get it from South East Asia. As a result, after war arrived at India’s borders, the colony exported 260,000 tons of rice in the fiscal year 1942-43.

Meanwhile India’s war expenditures increased ten fold, and the government printed paper money to pay for them. In August 1942 a representative of India’s viceroy told the War Cabinet that runaway inflation could lead to “famines and riots.”

In December 1942, Viceroy Linlithgow warned that India’s grain supply was seriously short and he urgently needed 600,000 tons of wheat to feed soldiers and the most essential industrial workers. The War Cabinet stated that ships were not available. In January 1943, Churchill moved most of the merchant ships operating in the Indian Ocean over to the Atlantic, in order to build up the United Kingdom’s stockpile of food and raw materials. The Ministry of War Transport cautioned him that the shift would result in “violent changes and perhaps cataclysms” in trade around the Indian Ocean. (In addition to India, the colonies of Kenya, Tanganyika, and British Somaliland all suffered famine in 1943.) Although refusing to meet India’s need for wheat, Churchill insisted that India continue to export rice.

With famine raging, in July 1943 Viceroy Linlithgow halted rice exports and again asked the War Cabinet for wheat imports, this time of 500,000 tons. That was the minimum required to feed the army and otherwise maintain the war effort. The news of impending shipments would indirectly ease the famine, he noted: any hoarders would anticipate a fall in prices and release grain, causing prices to fall in reality. But at a meeting on August 4, the War Cabinet failed to schedule even a single shipment of wheat for India. Instead, it ordered the buildup of a stockpile of wheat for feeding European civilians after they had been liberated. So 170,000 tons of Australian wheat bypassed starving India—destined not for consumption but for storage.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom’s stockpile of food and raw materials, intended for shoring up the postwar British economy, reached 18.5 million tons, the highest ever. Sugar and oilseeds overflowed warehouses and had to be stored outdoors, under tarpaulins.

Of course Churchill knew that his priorities would result in mass death. In one of his tirades against Indians, he said they were “breeding like rabbits” anyway. On behalf of Indians, the War Cabinet ignored an offer of 100,000 tons of Burmese rice from freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose (who was allied with the Japanese), discouraged a gift of wheat from Canada, and turned down rice and wheat volunteered by the United States.

The War Cabinet eventually ordered for India 80,000 tons of wheat and 130,000 tons of barley. (Barley was useless for famine relief because it had no impact on prices.) The first of these meager shipments reached India in November. All the while, the Indian Army consumed local rice and wheat that might otherwise have fed the starving. The famine came to an end in December 1943, when Bengal harvested its own rice crop—at which point Churchill and his friend Cherwell renewed their demand for rice exports.

This thread is about Leopold II. if you want to discuss an Indian famine, please kindly open up another thread.
 
That's what I've been saying since I've put the fucking Poem!



Do no one here actually read the Poem?

Sry if i didn't understand you but if you look a few pages back i was trying to say the same thing when i've said that the Congo was more a fiefdom of Leopold than a belgian colony at that time.It was covered by "the whites are evil" rhetorics though.
 
Those are just excuses of apologists.
i gave you an answer to all of that above. There were no ships to carry the stuff. They were needed to carry war materials from the US to Britain.

I think you just resent Churchill for saying a few statements too many about India and are trying to pin everything on him regardless of facts, which were natural disasters, mismanagement and the general feeling of defeat in the battle of Atlantic for which those ships were needed.

It was a priority call for Churchill, i'm sure you'd do the same to Brits if the roles were reversed and India would be strangled by sea. Considering your attitude i don't doubt one bit you'd let them starve.

i'm not trying to justify it, i just try to put it in perspective.
 
i gave you an answer to all of that above. There were no ships to carry the stuff. They were needed to carry war materials from the US to Britain.

I think you just resent Churchill for saying a few statements too many about India and are trying to pin everything on him regardless of facts, which were natural disasters, mismanagement and the general feeling of defeat in the battle of Atlantic for which those ships were needed.

It was a priority call for Churchill, i'm sure you'd do the same to Brits if the roles were reversed and India would be strangled by sea. Considering your attitude i don't doubt one bit you'd let them starve.

That's your own 'wikipedia fed' views and trying to be apologist for Churchill.
 
That's your own 'wikipedia fed' views and trying to be apologist for Churchill.

Oh i suppose a blog from an Indian which you quoted is the epitome of impartiality. Please gypsy, now you're getting rude.

And whatever i quoted from wiki has sources that include Indian authors. it would do you good if you read stuff once in a while.
 
Oh i suppose a blog from an Indian which you quoted is the epitome of impartiality. Please gypsy, now you're getting rude.

And whatever i quoted from wiki has sources that include Indian authors. it would do you good if you read stuff once in a while.

It was the interview of the writer of the well-known book "Churchill's secret War", even British media published news about it. But you know nothing apart from your wikipedia fed knowledge. you already showed your knowledge about the topic.

BBC News - What David Cameron did not apologise for
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom