Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Mao's motivations

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,998
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Doesn't change the fact that DXP got out of that fiasco with slave labour wages to offer bargin basement prices, ie the CCP's iron hand.
    The total lack of any connection with actual history sort of matters, at least a little bit.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    The total lack of any connection with actual history sort of matters, at least a little bit.
    Thank you. Are you still stuck blaming the Republicans instead of Saddam for the Iraq War?

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,629
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    In 1989, it was 1.1 billion people.
    You're talking about the total population. I am talking about the numbers lifted from poverty.

    China lifting 800 million people out of poverty is historic:World Bank

    My numbers are off too, by 50 million.

    I don't think he holds Indians in lower regard. He even worked with Ghandi to fast-track Indian Independence through the British Parliment. However, when it came to shipping Australian food to starving Indians or shipping Canadian VALANTINE tanks to Stalingrad. Stalingrad won out even though the Soviets did not need Canadian VALANTINES. The war effort first and foremost. Everything else second. Let's not forget that he lost ships sailing to Stalingrad. I'm sure those crews would have loved to ship food from Australia to India instead.

    His cold heartiness was not restricted to Indians. The RAF could have stopped a lot of bombing of British cities since the Brits had cracked the German codes. The RAF could have whole squadrons waiting for German bombers before they could cross the Channel. However, doing so would only alert the Germans that their codes had been cracked and would change them, losing this vital Allied advantage.

    I don't think he lost any sleep over this if for nothing else that he was an alcholic and drank himself to sleep everynight.

    Detest him if you wish but never under-estimate his cold-hearted brutality.
    I know about the Enigma machine and Churchill's cold hearted decisions which killed many Colonial soldiers of the time. It was for the greater good, his supporters would say.

    The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill's career
    The dark side of Winston Churchillís legacy no one should forget

    Churchill was cold hearted and racist.

    From England. If the UK did not hold out, there would not have been a D-Day nor any Lend-Lease ot the USSR. The Battle of the Atlantic was a Canadian, ie a British, victory.
    Yes, the various fronts the BIA saw during WWI & WWII was also a British Victory.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,629
    Quote Originally Posted by hboGYT View Post
    That's because of Anglo-American propaganda. Kidding. It's not actual propaganda, but what I believe to be a societal undercurrent that incentivises popular narratives that feed people's biases.

    Same thing here.

    You have, reportedly, up to 600,000 Uighurs being locked up for pre-crimes in relation to Muslim extremism. It then gets spun into, millions of moderate Muslim Uighurs getting exterminated in concentration camps. Sure, the lesser of two evil is still evil, but that spin, repeated on other events, fosters anti-Chinese sentiment, as seen in Youtube's comment sections.
    What the hell is a pre-crime? Have the CPC copied the script from Minority Report? China doesn't have any terrorist attacks, and when it did happen in the past, some people died. I am not saying few lives lost are okay, no, it's not okay. I'm giving you the count of China Vs India. And the very same China sleeps with the Pakistanis, disregarding all norms of basic decency and diplomacy, and keeps shielding Pakistan. Do you know even as we speak, the Indian para-military forces are conducting CASO in Kashmir? Indians (civilians & para-military) die every week, and these deaths are sanctioned from GHQ Rawalpindi.

    Terrorism in China is home-grown, done by those disgruntled muslims who're fed up of the CPC's policies towards Islamic culture and traditions. Terrorism in India is Pakistan sponsored. Do you own research and learn this difference, or go back and read Pakistan related threads.

    It's not just YouTube comments section, if you open your eyes and ears, you'd see the same almost everywhere in the world right now. Even the tiny island of Palau schooled China recently. The CPC has earned that reputation for China hands down.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Churchill was cold hearted and racist.
    Get ready to have your head spin. It's not an easy subject. I really don't know about racist. He was using brown Indians to kill white Germans and yellow Japanese.

    I don't use the greater good arguement. Having your own civilians bombed just so the Germans would not know that the Egnima has been cracked. It was a decision. He made it and that's the way things worked out. Could it had been done better? I don't know but I'm thankful I wasn't the one making that decision.

    https://winstonchurchill.org/resourc...ve-been-worse/
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 15 Jun 19, at 06:51.

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,629
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Get ready to have your head spin. It's not an easy subject. I really don't know about racist. He was using brown Indians to kill white Germans and yellow Japanese.

    I don't use the greater good arguement. Having your own civilians bombed just so the Germans would not know that the Egnima has been cracked. It was a decision. He made it and that's the way things worked out. Could it had been done better? I don't know but I'm thankful I wasn't the one making that decision.

    https://winstonchurchill.org/resourc...ve-been-worse/
    It's not an easy subject, which is why I didn't copy+paste the definition of 'racist' from a dictionary. But Sir, he was a politician and a Brit. It was war. He was defending Britain, and its interests. He was saving some white men from other white men and the Japs.

    Since we have opposing views on Churchill being racist, I will take your definition of a racist. Take up any example you see fit, the KKK, Nazis, Stalin or anything, and define it. Once it's defined, there will be clear differences between hatred and being a racist.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,998
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Thank you. Are you still stuck blaming the Republicans instead of Saddam for the Iraq War?
    Whoa, nice change of subject.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    It's not an easy subject, which is why I didn't copy+paste the definition of 'racist' from a dictionary. But Sir, he was a politician and a Brit. It was war. He was defending Britain, and its interests. He was saving some white men from other white men and the Japs.

    Since we have opposing views on Churchill being racist, I will take your definition of a racist. Take up any example you see fit, the KKK, Nazis, Stalin or anything, and define it. Once it's defined, there will be clear differences between hatred and being a racist.
    Yeah, the problem with racism is that Churchill threw English men, women, and children under German bombs. He also dethroned and exiled an English King. For India, the actual history strongly suggest otherwise.

    Without Churchill, India’s Famine Would Have Been Worse

    by Arthur Herman

    Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II, by Madhusree Mukerjee. Basic Books, 368 pp., $28.95, Amazon $19.11.

    ____

    Mr. Herman is the author of Gandhi & Churchill (2008), a finalist for the 2009 Pulitzer Prize, and is now a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Voltaire once said the problem with the Holy Roman Empire was that it was neither holy nor Roman nor an Empire. One could say of Churchill’s Secret War that it is neither secret, a war, nor has it much to do with Churchill.

    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 up to forty miles inland. Rice that should have been planted that winter 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 on the edge of 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 portion of the subcontinent faced starvation. The governments in New Delhi and Bengal were unprepared, and as the heat intensified, people began to die. It was the greatest humanitarian crisis the British Raj had faced in more than half a century.

    One might easily 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 and Churchill 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 Great Famine in the Ukraine or Mao the mass starvations during China’s “Great Leap Forward.” Instead, the claim is that Churchill’s callous racist attitudes, developed during his years in India in the 1890s and typical of the British imperialist ruling elite, not only blinded him to the human suffering but led him to make decisions that prolonged and aggravated the death toll. This included deliberately halting shipments of food that might have relieved the suffering while insisting that food exports from India to Britain continue despite a famine that by mid-October 1943 was killing 2000 a month in Calcutta.

    Today, of course, no accusation against a statesman of the recent past carries more gravity than that of racism. But Churchill’s position in mid-1943 needs to be appreciated before we begin accusing him—as Mukerjee does—of war crimes.

    During that crucial summer, the Anglo-Americans had just managed to prevail in the Atlantic U-boat war, although neither Churchill nor Roosevelt yet knew how decisively. Germany had suffered a decisive setback at Kursk on the Eastern Front, Japan at Guadalcanal in the Pacific, but both remained deadly opponents. Japan was still poised on the border of India, where a massive uprising instigated by Gandhi against British rule had just been suppressed. Meanwhile, both America and Britain were bracing for their impending landings in Italy.

    How likely was it that Churchill would respond to the news of the Bengal famine-the seriousness of which was yet unrealized by his India advisers Viceroy Linlithgow and Secretary for India Leo Amery-as anything more than an unwelcome distraction?

    Past doubt, Churchill’s feelings toward India at that time were far from charitable. He and British officials had narrowly averted disaster by suppressing the Quit India movement, which had threatened to shut down the country even as the Japanese threatened it with invasion. And, like most Englishmen of his generation, Churchill held views on Indians and other non-whites that are very far from our thinking today.

    Yet the truth runs more deeply against Mukerjee than she is willing to admit. Her evidence of Churchill’s intransigence on India stems mainly from Leo Amery’s diary, where he recorded every one of the Prime Minister’s furious outbursts whenever Amery brought up the famine in the War Cabinet-whether Churchill meant what he said or not.

    Amery privately decided that “on the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane,” and recorded in August 1944 Churchill’s remark that relief would do no good because Indians “breed like rabbits” and will outstrip any available food supply. “Naturally I lost patience,” Amery records, “and couldn’t help telling him that I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s, which annoyed him no little.”

    This invidious comparison of Churchill with Hitler is the thematic hinge of the book. Unfortunately for the author, the actual record contradicts her account at almost every point.

    When the War Cabinet became fully aware of the extent of the famine, on 24 September 1943, it agreed to send 200,000 tons of grain to India by the end of the year. Far from seeking to starve India, Churchill and his cabinet sought every way to alleviate the suffering without undermining the war effort. The war—not starving Indians or beating them into submission—remained the principal concern.

    Reading Mukerjee’s account, one might never know there was a war raging in Europe and the rest of Asia. Germany barely rates a mention. Japan appears mainly as the sympathetic ally of anti-British Indian nationalists like Subhas Chandra Bose. In reality, Japan and Germany had far more dire plans for India than any ever hatched in Britain.

    Even Amery had to admit, during the Quebec Conference, that the case against diverting vital war shipping to India was “unassailable.” Far from a racist conspiracy to break the country, the viceroy noted that “all the Dominion Governments are doing their best to help.” While Churchill and the War Cabinet vetoed a Canadian proposal to send 100,000 tons of wheat to India, they did push for Australia to fulfill that commitment.

    The greatest irony of all is that it was Churchill who appointed, in October 1943, the viceroy who would halt the famine in its tracks: General Archibald Wavell immediately commandeered the army to move rice and grain from areas where it was plentiful to where it was not, and begged Churchill to send what help he could. On 14 February 1944 Churchill called an emergency meeting of the War Cabinet to see if a way to send more aid could be found that would not wreck plans for the coming Normandy invasion. “I will certainly help you all I can,” Churchill telegraphed Wavell on the 14th, “but you must not ask the impossible.”

    The next day Churchill wired Wavell: “We have given a great deal of thought to your difficulties, but we simply cannot find the shipping.” Amery told the viceroy that Churchill “was not unsympathetic” to the terrible situation, but that no one had ships to spare with military operations in the offing. On April 28th Churchill spearheaded an appeal to Roosevelt and the Americans, but they too proved resistant to humanitarian appeals with the invasion of Europe pending.

    Another irony: the harvest of 1943 was one of the largest in India’s history. Claims of starvation and civil unrest seemed, from the fastness of 5000 miles away, far-fetched, as they did in Washington. And Wavell thanked Churchill for “your generous assistance” in getting Australia to send 350,000 tons of wheat to India—although still short of the 600,000 tons thought necessary.

    These ironies are lost on Ms. Mukerjee. If Churchill had truly intended to maintain the Raj in India by undermining nationalists like Gandhi and Bose, he could have done no better than to divert vital resources. But Churchill’s attention was focused on another goal: winning the war. Amery admitted as much in a note to Wavell on 26 June, three weeks after D-Day: “Winston, in his position, will naturally run any risk rather than one which immediately affects the great military stakes to which we are committed.”

    That Churchill could be ruthless in pursuing his main objective the citizens of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin and a dozen other German cities were about to find out. But no racist or imperialist motives can be imputed there.

    Of all the people who ignored the Bengal famine, perhaps the most curious case is Ms. Mukerjee’s hero, Mohandas Gandhi. For all his reputation as a humanitarian, Gandhi did remarkably little about the emergency. The issue barely comes up in his letters, except as another grievance against the Raj-which, in peacetime, had always handled famines with efficiency.

    In February 1944 Gandhi wrote to Wavell: “I know that millions outside are starving for want of food. But I should feel utterly helpless if I went out and missed the food [i.e. independence] by which alone living becomes worthwhile.”

    Gandhi felt free to conduct his private “fast unto death” in order to force the British out, even as the rest of India starved because he felt he was playing for far bigger stakes. As was Winston Churchill.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Whoa, nice change of subject.
    How long have you been on WAB? It's one of the quirks of this place.

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,998
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Yeah, the problem with racism is that Churchill threw English men, women, and children under German bombs. He also dethroned and exiled an English King. For India, the actual history strongly suggest otherwise.




    How long have you been on WAB? It's one of the quirks of this place.
    Come on, you know I call out those who change the subject only when the debate isnít going their way. Long tradition, dating back to the days of the China Defense Forum.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  10. #40
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Come on, you know I call out those who change the subject only when the debate isnít going their way. Long tradition, dating back to the days of the China Defense Forum.
    The context again is the CCP's iron hand of lifting a billion+ people out of proverty.

    The economy did crash after Tianamen.
    The recovery was bargin basement prices for foreign investments.
    The price was slave labour wages.

    The CCP's iron hand.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •