Talk:Great Bengal Famine of 1943

Hi David, I suspect that wp may be lowballing the numbers of deaths of Bengalis. Conservapaedia isn't the only open source with a conservative bias, and what could be more conservative than discounting the numbers killed by conservative icon W. Churchill?Thorvelden (talk)

Wikipedia?

So beyond the possibility of the "good guys dont get talked bad about!" trend for histories... Why do we need this article?--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 18:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Churchill "complicity"

As far as I can make it out, a historian has claimed that Churchill was complicit in the famine because of supposed racist views. The evidence for the latter comes down to a possible misquote in someone else's letter of something WSC may have said when drink. As for his complicity: a) there were many practical reasons why aid wasn't sent. the Allies were close to losing he battle of the Atlantic, so shipping was a real problem b) the aid would have arrived after a good harvest and grain finally appearing from other parts of India - so may not have made any difference. In any case it is doubtful whether it would have saved a large part of the millions that died c) of the many causes for the famine, the hold ups in supplies from other parts of India must surely be important d) of the lamentably poor evidence for what WSC's motives are, it still seems he actually changed his mind several times about what to do about Bengal. At the time he does seem to have been getting info that things were worse in Greece. e) WSC may have simply made another mistake - albeit a tragic one - amongst 1000s of decisions weekly. This does not in itself make him a racist. And bear in mind that his sending the aid may not have made a difference f) there is no evidence that racism swayed his decisions, that is an interpretation assumed as correct by a historian who hates Churchill

Should I go on? The evidence is pitiful. This section should be removed--86.151.69.50 (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"As far as I can make it out, a historian has claimed that Churchill was complicit in the famine because of supposed racist views." No, currently the article refers to "London", i.e. the entire British political establishment (of which Churchill was "merely" the head).

"a) there were many practical reasons why aid wasn't sent. the Allies were close to losing he battle of the Atlantic, so shipping was a real problem" - and yet no British citizens starved(!)

"b) the aid would have arrived after a good harvest and grain finally appearing from other parts of India - so may not have made any difference. In any case it is doubtful whether it would have saved a large part of the millions that died" Argument by assertion - source please.

"c) of the many causes for the famine, the hold ups in supplies from other parts of India must surely be important" And since the entire British Raj was ultimately subservient to London, this absolves Westminster and Number 10 of responsibility how?

"d) of the lamentably poor evidence for what WSC's motives are, it still seems he actually changed his mind several times about what to do about Bengal. At the time he does seem to have been getting info that things were worse in Greece." Sounds interesting, but miss the point, because Churchill's racism is not used to explain the famine.

"e) WSC may have simply made another mistake - albeit a tragic one - amongst 1000s of decisions weekly. This does not in itself make him a racist. And bear in mind that his sending the aid may not have made a difference" Churchill apologetics, sounds pretty similar to arguments trying to absolve Soviet leadership and Stalin in particular for the Holodomor.

"f) there is no evidence that racism swayed his decisions, that is an interpretation assumed as correct by a historian who hates Churchill" Pot meet kettle. Now the IP is using the same Bulverism (s)he accuses this article of making use of - brilliant.

"Should I go on?" No, I think you've made your point badly enough as it is.

"The evidence is pitiful." Well, since you have presented no evidence, I really don't think you're in position to complain.

"This section should be removed" Considering what you've presented so far... nope, don't think so

ScepticWombat (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Cattle

Oh the things Fun:You have two cows will teach you. PacWalker 02:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Relief to India.

I have a few issues with the way this article implies that no relief was sent. Not only was relief sent, it also doesn't appear that the USA even offered relief or assistance in relief in the first place. We can see within the correspondence between Churchill and FDR that Churchill in fact requested wheat shipments that were denied.

"I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India and its possible reactions on our join operations. Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,00 people died. ...I have had much hesitation in asking you to add the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our join plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia..." -Churchill to FDR.

"Upon receipt of your telegram I immediately directed that the matter be taken under urgent consideration by the appropriate authorities of this Government. ...The American Joint Chiefs of Staff have reported, however, that they are unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping necessary to meet the request because of the adverse effect such a diversion would have upon military operations already undertaken or in prospect." -FDR to Churchill

You are able to view these telegrams in whole here. Pages 117 and 155 respectively.

Specifically within these telegrams, Churchill makes reference to the large amounts of grain they were attempting to send from Australia, something which was not mentioned within this article which implies that no relief was ever even attempted to be sent. In addition, the idea that Canadian or American wheat imports would be effective or likely to arrive in time to cause any substantive help is a bit silly when you consider the extent of Japanese control in the Pacific, stretching all the way to the island of Papua.

I don't believe that Churchill was a saint, and I also understand that RationalWiki is written from a specific point of view, but this willful ignoring of facts relating to this event isn't a good way to get the message across, and this article clearly needs some changing.

204.184.29.215 (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)