The difference being that one was an act of cruel apathy, their lives were valued less than the war effort (one could even argue that the British hoped to ultimately save lives), while the other actively reveled in and advanced the industrialised mass murder of entire peoples.
Please, do not compare these two. One is cruel and wrong, the other is unfathomable evil.
Edit: King Leopold is for some reason still respected in some places I am told, which is disgusting. But I repeat, one was done to make a profit (at the cost of inconceivable suffering) while the other wasn’t even done for profit - suffering WAS the goal.
The difference being that one was an act of cruel apathy, their lives were valued less than the war effort (one could even argue that the British hoped to ultimately save lives), while the other actively reveled in and advanced the industrialised mass murder of entire peoples.
I think this is letting Churchill off a bit too easily.
At the time, India was under British rule. Both the British government, and the Crown knew what was going on in Bengal, and chose inaction. Churchill himself openly held anti-Indian sentiment calling them “a beastly people with a beastly religion” and that any sort of relief sent would accomplish little to nothing as as Indians are “breeding like rabbits.”
This man actively chose to let people under his rule starve.
It’s also worth pointing out that India was a significant presence during WWII, “By the end of the war, it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945”, and a significant contributor to the state of things is how hard the British colonial rule pressed the local industries for the sake of the war. The military sucked up a lot of produce leaving scraps for the domestic market, which was significantly upcharged so only the rich classes could afford anything.
In the system that the British Government used to procure goods through the Government of India, industries were left in private ownership rather than facing outright requisitioning of their productive capacity. Firms were required to sell goods to the military on credit and at fixed, low prices. However, firms were left free to charge any price they desired in their domestic market for whatever they had left over.
Further, the British government censored media, forbidding them from reporting on the famine. Things didn’t really take a turn until The Statesman published photos of the famine, which made it around the world and the British government stood there with egg on their face.
You’re absolutely right. I was trying to be concise and in turn made it sound pretty accusatory.
There has been a number of investigations by both the British and Indian governments since the famine. The general consensus is that it was caused by bad management and unresolved socio-economic issues over any purposeful acts of cruelty.
I personally don’t think Churchill actively encouraged the famine in India, but he was an ardent supporter of maintaining the empire by any means necessary.
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong have all committed atrocities far worse. And I do agree that Leopold belongs on that list too.
Churchills attitude and comments about it suggests otherwise. He was hailed as an evil cruel racist, not in retrospect, but during the war. Churchill wasn’t well liked, as people think he was during his time. The people that think Churchill was one of Britain best PMs have only a basic understanding of British history. Churchill was immediately voted out as soon as elections resumed. When he got back in a PM his party had less votes than the opposition.
You could make that same argument for stalin and the holodomor which is often used as the main proof of his evilness. Same with mao, most of the deaths attributed to them are from failed policies that caused mass famines. Do you think Churchill is on the same level as them? Because most of the west views the first two as mass murdering tyrants and Churchill as a hero.
You could say there worse because they ran oppressive authoritarian states, but the British empire was just as authoritarian to anyone who wasn’t white.
The difference being that one was an act of cruel apathy, their lives were valued less than the war effort (one could even argue that the British hoped to ultimately save lives), while the other actively reveled in and advanced the industrialised mass murder of entire peoples.
Please, do not compare these two. One is cruel and wrong, the other is unfathomable evil.
Edit: King Leopold is for some reason still respected in some places I am told, which is disgusting. But I repeat, one was done to make a profit (at the cost of inconceivable suffering) while the other wasn’t even done for profit - suffering WAS the goal.
I think this is letting Churchill off a bit too easily.
At the time, India was under British rule. Both the British government, and the Crown knew what was going on in Bengal, and chose inaction. Churchill himself openly held anti-Indian sentiment calling them “a beastly people with a beastly religion” and that any sort of relief sent would accomplish little to nothing as as Indians are “breeding like rabbits.”
This man actively chose to let people under his rule starve.
It’s also worth pointing out that India was a significant presence during WWII, “By the end of the war, it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945”, and a significant contributor to the state of things is how hard the British colonial rule pressed the local industries for the sake of the war. The military sucked up a lot of produce leaving scraps for the domestic market, which was significantly upcharged so only the rich classes could afford anything.
Further, the British government censored media, forbidding them from reporting on the famine. Things didn’t really take a turn until The Statesman published photos of the famine, which made it around the world and the British government stood there with egg on their face.
Churchill on the other hand, ate well.
Churchill was nevertheless a PoS. For example he was also responsible for the Greek civil war post-ww2
And Gallipoli. He resigned after the bloodiest failure of WW1. Disaster or Debacle, it was bad.
You’re absolutely right. I was trying to be concise and in turn made it sound pretty accusatory.
There has been a number of investigations by both the British and Indian governments since the famine. The general consensus is that it was caused by bad management and unresolved socio-economic issues over any purposeful acts of cruelty.
I personally don’t think Churchill actively encouraged the famine in India, but he was an ardent supporter of maintaining the empire by any means necessary.
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong have all committed atrocities far worse. And I do agree that Leopold belongs on that list too.
Sorry, I just noticed it sounds like I was accusing you of comparing them. Thank you for the explanation!
Churchills attitude and comments about it suggests otherwise. He was hailed as an evil cruel racist, not in retrospect, but during the war. Churchill wasn’t well liked, as people think he was during his time. The people that think Churchill was one of Britain best PMs have only a basic understanding of British history. Churchill was immediately voted out as soon as elections resumed. When he got back in a PM his party had less votes than the opposition.
You could make that same argument for stalin and the holodomor which is often used as the main proof of his evilness. Same with mao, most of the deaths attributed to them are from failed policies that caused mass famines. Do you think Churchill is on the same level as them? Because most of the west views the first two as mass murdering tyrants and Churchill as a hero.
You could say there worse because they ran oppressive authoritarian states, but the British empire was just as authoritarian to anyone who wasn’t white.