• deHaga@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Churchill had little to do with it, other than not having enough shipping and having to prioritise feeding troops who were fighting Nazis at the time.

      Also from your link…

      The provincial government never formally declared a state of famine, and its humanitarian aid was ineffective through the worst months of the crisis. It attempted to fix the price of rice paddy through price controls which resulted in a black market which encouraged sellers to withhold stocks, leading to hyperinflation from speculation and hoarding after controls were abandoned. Aid increased significantly when the British Indian Army took control of funding in October 1943

        • deHaga@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Oh, are we gonna get into a pissing contest about which system of government has killed more people?

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            No, I was literally just wondering if you had an explanation for it.

            People were asking why Churchill was bad. This is a bad thing he did. So unless there is some hidden justification for it, if seems pretty pertinent

            • deHaga@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              The enemy of my enemy is my friend, until the enemy is defeated.

              There was no way Churchill was going to allow a Soviet base there. It would have been a massive risk to shipping channels and defence.

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Did you even read the article?

                Fuck you for defending this shit. You can’t even say that the guy did a fucked up thing? Really?

                • deHaga@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  Do you know what Stalin did with all the war heroes when they got back from war? Killed the fucking lot because he was scared they’d revolt.

                  Churchill’s actions no doubt had negative effects, but the net effect was good.

                  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 hours ago

                    I don’t care what Stalin did, I’m talking about Churchill and his brutal massacre of the Greek Partisans that had literally just played a pivotal role in defeating the Nazis on the isles.

                    They were not a threat to Britain at all. They were allies, they were part of the allied forces as well as literal allies in battle, but “communism bad” so gotta gun them down in the streets.

      • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        other than not having enough shipping and having to prioritise feeding troops

        That is a choice he made, not something that just happened, and it resulted in at least a million (likely many more) civilian deaths in their own territory.

        The provincial government

        Gee, I wonder who put the provincial government in charge in a British colony? 🙄