By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
London mayor Sadiq Khan promised today that he will begin the process of pulling down ‘inappropriate’ statues around London — after Bristolians dumped the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in the river at the weekend.
To investigate London’s landmarks, Khan has created a ‘Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm’ which will review statues and street names in the capital to make sure they reflect the diversity of its people. Khan said he expected the commission to find that it’s ‘not appropriate to be memorialising, or to be celebrating’ certain figures, especially those with a racist past and links to the slave trade.
In 2018, he proudly unveiled a statue of the suffragist Millicent Fawcett — the first-ever statue in Parliament Square of a woman. At the time, Khan declared that ‘from the very first week of my Mayoralty, I supported Caroline Criado Perez’s campaign to put up a statue of a woman in Parliament Square, and I’m so proud that the day of its unveiling is now upon us.’
But while Fawcett is mostly celebrated today for the campaign for women’s suffrage, less well-known is her ardent support of the British Empire. Fawcett was such a fan of Empire, that in 1901 she was commissioned by the government to lead an investigation into British concentration camps in South Africa during the second Boer war, after high mortality rates and appalling conditions were reported there.
When she arrived, Fawcett thought the camps were deeply necessary for the war, and her eventual report said the commission had a ‘generally favourable’ view of them. She also suggested that many of the deaths were caused by the ‘unsanitary habits’ of the Boers. Around 28,000 Boers died in the camps.
Fawcett didn’t have much thought for the participation of Black Africans in society after the war either. In 1899, she wrote that after the settlement of the war; ‘I hope we are too deeply pledged to the principle of equal privileges for all white races to abandon it.’
Do you think Sadiq will include his pet project in the list of 'inappropriate' statues he intends to tear down? It begs the question as to whether he is engaging with this exercise simply to boost his personal popularity, considering he proudly unveiled such a statue himself less than two years ago.
Good to see president Macron thanking the British people for their help in liberating France. He made a point in thank Winston Churchill for his great leadership during the war. Meanwhile out London Mayor boards up his statute and wants an committee's to decide it's future.
Good job the government ordered him to take down the hoardings for the state visit of Macron.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 10:17 - Jun 19 by felixstowe_jack
Good to see president Macron thanking the British people for their help in liberating France. He made a point in thank Winston Churchill for his great leadership during the war. Meanwhile out London Mayor boards up his statute and wants an committee's to decide it's future.
Good job the government ordered him to take down the hoardings for the state visit of Macron.
He's being diplomatic. In a similar sense, we roll out the red carpet for human rights abusers like Xi Jingping and Mohammed bin Salman.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 12:12 - Jun 19 by Kerouac
You don't think a Frenchman like Macron is likely to be grateful for this country's assistance in WWII?
Churchill actually achieved something with his life, how about you?
Lots of people are appreciative of Churchill's efforts in WW2 while also recognising he was a massive racist who was complicit in the deaths of around 3 million people in Bengal.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 10:17 - Jun 19 by felixstowe_jack
Good to see president Macron thanking the British people for their help in liberating France. He made a point in thank Winston Churchill for his great leadership during the war. Meanwhile out London Mayor boards up his statute and wants an committee's to decide it's future.
Good job the government ordered him to take down the hoardings for the state visit of Macron.
"an committee's to decide it's future"
Six words, three mistakes. If you're going to live here, at least learn the fücking language.
5
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 13:51 - Jun 19 with 1741 views
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 10:17 - Jun 19 by felixstowe_jack
Good to see president Macron thanking the British people for their help in liberating France. He made a point in thank Winston Churchill for his great leadership during the war. Meanwhile out London Mayor boards up his statute and wants an committee's to decide it's future.
Good job the government ordered him to take down the hoardings for the state visit of Macron.
Apparently one of the protesters stripped off and tried to shag Churchill’s statue last week.
He’s been charged with statue Tory rape.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 12:20 - Jun 19 by Drizzy
Lots of people are appreciative of Churchill's efforts in WW2 while also recognising he was a massive racist who was complicit in the deaths of around 3 million people in Bengal.
Pardon me. Why don't you explain to everybody how Churchill is responsible for 3 million deaths in Bengal.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 16:11 - Jun 19 by Kerouac
Pardon me. Why don't you explain to everybody how Churchill is responsible for 3 million deaths in Bengal.
Sure thing.
The 1943 Bengal famine caused approximately 3-4 million deaths in Bengal and was one of the only famines in history to occur without severe weather conditions. Researchers conducted an analysis of historical soil and weather data to prove this. It was an entirely man-made famine.
Churchill was warned in 1942 about potential deficits of grain, particularly in Bengal. He chose not to take heed of this warning and, terrified of Japanese advancement in Myanmar, the British Raj used thousands of boats to take the grain away from Bengal (which had a surplus) so the Japanese would not have supplies should they invade. As part of the "Denial Policy", they destroyed these same boats, decimating the transport infrastructure of the region. Over 46,000 boats were destroyed.
From 1942-1943 grain stocks were still leaving India to other parts of the world to help with the war effort. Some of it necessary, some of it definitely not. Notably, grain exports from Australia passed by Bengal to bolster stockpiles in Yugoslavia and Greece rather than Bengal were the famine had taken hold.
The British government, headed by Churchill, failed to declare famine fast enough. The wartime cabinet repeatedly denied requests for emergency imports grain in early 1943 citing a lack of ships despite destroying 84,000 of them.
Churchill commented in a memo in March 1943: "A concession to one country at once encourages demands from all the others" as Britain had 18.4m tons of grain stockpiled. The famine ended at the end of 1943 with the rice harvest, thanks to adequate weather and emergency grain shipments that arrived in November after the deaths of 3-4 million people.
In response to information about the scale of the famine, Churchill asked "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" and blamed the famine on Indians "breeding like rabbits". He had a well-documented contempt for Indian people and was complicit in one of the swiftest genocides in history.
I won't post the pictures here but a quick search of images taken of Bengali people shows it to be as horrifying as anything seen in Auswitchz.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 17:02 - Jun 19 by Drizzy
Sure thing.
The 1943 Bengal famine caused approximately 3-4 million deaths in Bengal and was one of the only famines in history to occur without severe weather conditions. Researchers conducted an analysis of historical soil and weather data to prove this. It was an entirely man-made famine.
Churchill was warned in 1942 about potential deficits of grain, particularly in Bengal. He chose not to take heed of this warning and, terrified of Japanese advancement in Myanmar, the British Raj used thousands of boats to take the grain away from Bengal (which had a surplus) so the Japanese would not have supplies should they invade. As part of the "Denial Policy", they destroyed these same boats, decimating the transport infrastructure of the region. Over 46,000 boats were destroyed.
From 1942-1943 grain stocks were still leaving India to other parts of the world to help with the war effort. Some of it necessary, some of it definitely not. Notably, grain exports from Australia passed by Bengal to bolster stockpiles in Yugoslavia and Greece rather than Bengal were the famine had taken hold.
The British government, headed by Churchill, failed to declare famine fast enough. The wartime cabinet repeatedly denied requests for emergency imports grain in early 1943 citing a lack of ships despite destroying 84,000 of them.
Churchill commented in a memo in March 1943: "A concession to one country at once encourages demands from all the others" as Britain had 18.4m tons of grain stockpiled. The famine ended at the end of 1943 with the rice harvest, thanks to adequate weather and emergency grain shipments that arrived in November after the deaths of 3-4 million people.
In response to information about the scale of the famine, Churchill asked "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" and blamed the famine on Indians "breeding like rabbits". He had a well-documented contempt for Indian people and was complicit in one of the swiftest genocides in history.
I won't post the pictures here but a quick search of images taken of Bengali people shows it to be as horrifying as anything seen in Auswitchz.
[Post edited 19 Jun 2020 17:05]
We were in the middle of WWII for Christ's sake!
The Japanese were about to invade India. We really didn't have enough ships, do you realise how many tonnes of UK shipping was being sunk a year. It really could have been managed better by those actually in India, governing.
You want to pop out statements like Churchill killed 3 million Bengalis, as if that was a deliberate act. Why didn't he enact these policies pre-WWII if he hated Indians so much. The Bengali famine was a result of the circumstances of the time.
It's easy for you to claim he is responsible, try putting yourself in his shoes.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 18:36 - Jun 19 by Kerouac
We were in the middle of WWII for Christ's sake!
The Japanese were about to invade India. We really didn't have enough ships, do you realise how many tonnes of UK shipping was being sunk a year. It really could have been managed better by those actually in India, governing.
You want to pop out statements like Churchill killed 3 million Bengalis, as if that was a deliberate act. Why didn't he enact these policies pre-WWII if he hated Indians so much. The Bengali famine was a result of the circumstances of the time.
It's easy for you to claim he is responsible, try putting yourself in his shoes.
I've put forward my argument for his complicity.
Your retort seems to be that he had no choice despite all the evidence to the contrary.
British exceptionalism and ignorance at its finest. Imagine being an apologist for an avoidable genocide which killed between 3 and 4 million people.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 18:36 - Jun 19 by Kerouac
We were in the middle of WWII for Christ's sake!
The Japanese were about to invade India. We really didn't have enough ships, do you realise how many tonnes of UK shipping was being sunk a year. It really could have been managed better by those actually in India, governing.
You want to pop out statements like Churchill killed 3 million Bengalis, as if that was a deliberate act. Why didn't he enact these policies pre-WWII if he hated Indians so much. The Bengali famine was a result of the circumstances of the time.
It's easy for you to claim he is responsible, try putting yourself in his shoes.
If 3-4 million British people where about to starve to death action would have been taken to prevent it, war on or not. And you know it.
0
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 19:07 - Jun 19 with 1616 views
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 18:50 - Jun 19 by Humpty
If 3-4 million British people where about to starve to death action would have been taken to prevent it, war on or not. And you know it.
No I don't know it. I can barely imagine what it takes to keep as many plates spinning as those people did under the pressure of German invasion, anything we wanted to transport anywhere was at risk, people's lives were at risk everywhere, the Japanese seemed about to invade India.
Life, and accomplishing things in life, is not nearly as straightforward as you make out.
...but I'm sure you and Drizz would have coped, defeated Fascism, you're such wonderful special people after all.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 19:07 - Jun 19 by Kerouac
No I don't know it. I can barely imagine what it takes to keep as many plates spinning as those people did under the pressure of German invasion, anything we wanted to transport anywhere was at risk, people's lives were at risk everywhere, the Japanese seemed about to invade India.
Life, and accomplishing things in life, is not nearly as straightforward as you make out.
...but I'm sure you and Drizz would have coped, defeated Fascism, you're such wonderful special people after all.
You're thicker than I thought then.
0
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 19:29 - Jun 19 with 1585 views
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 19:07 - Jun 19 by Kerouac
No I don't know it. I can barely imagine what it takes to keep as many plates spinning as those people did under the pressure of German invasion, anything we wanted to transport anywhere was at risk, people's lives were at risk everywhere, the Japanese seemed about to invade India.
Life, and accomplishing things in life, is not nearly as straightforward as you make out.
...but I'm sure you and Drizz would have coped, defeated Fascism, you're such wonderful special people after all.
Jesus Christ.
Add genocide apologist to your list of c*ntish traits.
Retrospective analysis showed the scale of this genocide was fuelled by policy failure and a reflection of Churchill's own horrendous racism towards Indian people.
Your paltry defence of 3-4 million avoidable deaths is frankly shameful. I think I speak for the majority of this forum when I say it's time for you to kindly f*ck off. This forum is a far better place without you.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 19:29 - Jun 19 by Drizzy
Jesus Christ.
Add genocide apologist to your list of c*ntish traits.
Retrospective analysis showed the scale of this genocide was fuelled by policy failure and a reflection of Churchill's own horrendous racism towards Indian people.
Your paltry defence of 3-4 million avoidable deaths is frankly shameful. I think I speak for the majority of this forum when I say it's time for you to kindly f*ck off. This forum is a far better place without you.
Wonder what other genocides Kerouac would be an apologist for, what with his anti-semitic views now being a matter of fact and record.
NOUN the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. "a campaign of genocide" · [more] synonyms: racial killing · massacre · wholesale slaughter · mass slaughter · wholesale killing · indiscriminate killing · mass murder · mass homicide · mass destruction · annihilation · extermination · elimination · liquidation · eradication · decimation · butchery · bloodbath · bloodletting · pogrom · ethnic cleansing · holocaust · Shoah · slaying · battue · hecatomb
So you are saying that Winston Churchill went out of his way during WWII to DELIBERATELY murder 3million+ Indians (who died in a famine caused by a multitude of factors peculiar to that time) because he was a racist.
...and you make this claim about a man who was leading the fight against Fascism in Europe, who was one of the few who was brave enough to call Hitler out for what he was while the Labour Party demanded appeasement... Adolf Hitler, who did DELIBERATELY murder 6 million Jews...
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 22:14 - Jun 19 by Kerouac
For my leftist fans...
Genocide [ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd]
NOUN the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. "a campaign of genocide" · [more] synonyms: racial killing · massacre · wholesale slaughter · mass slaughter · wholesale killing · indiscriminate killing · mass murder · mass homicide · mass destruction · annihilation · extermination · elimination · liquidation · eradication · decimation · butchery · bloodbath · bloodletting · pogrom · ethnic cleansing · holocaust · Shoah · slaying · battue · hecatomb
So you are saying that Winston Churchill went out of his way during WWII to DELIBERATELY murder 3million+ Indians (who died in a famine caused by a multitude of factors peculiar to that time) because he was a racist.
...and you make this claim about a man who was leading the fight against Fascism in Europe, who was one of the few who was brave enough to call Hitler out for what he was while the Labour Party demanded appeasement... Adolf Hitler, who did DELIBERATELY murder 6 million Jews...
You are batshit f*cking crazy.
No. Once again you're making things up about those who disagree with you, as you do in nearly every post you make.
Churchill's goal wasn't to kill millions of Indians through famine. His goal was to win the war, but some of the actions he took resulted in those deaths. And if we were talking about millions of British people instead of Indians, those actions would not have been taken.
0
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 22:23 - Jun 19 with 1521 views
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 22:20 - Jun 19 by Humpty
No. Once again you're making things up about those who disagree with you, as you do in nearly every post you make.
Churchill's goal wasn't to kill millions of Indians through famine. His goal was to win the war, but some of the actions he took resulted in those deaths. And if we were talking about millions of British people instead of Indians, those actions would not have been taken.
Can you read?
I gave you the definition of the word 'Genocide' from the dictionary for f*cks sake...care to explain how I am an apologist for genocide when by your own words it wasn't genocide?
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 22:23 - Jun 19 by Kerouac
Can you read?
I gave you the definition of the word 'Genocide' from the dictionary for f*cks sake...care to explain how I am an apologist for genocide when by your own words it wasn't genocide?
He was warned about the grain shortage a year in advance.
Grain continued to be exported from India to Europe despite knowledge of the famine.
There was no need to destroy Bengal's existing supply of food and the boats that distribute it.
Grain from Australia passed by Bengal to add to existing stockpiles in the Mediterranean.
Repeated emergency requests for food were denied.
Deliberate and callous acts from a man who had nothing but contempt for the Indian race.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 22:23 - Jun 19 by Kerouac
Can you read?
I gave you the definition of the word 'Genocide' from the dictionary for f*cks sake...care to explain how I am an apologist for genocide when by your own words it wasn't genocide?
Care to show me where I mentioned genoicide?
0
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:00 - Jun 19 with 1490 views
London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 22:35 - Jun 19 by Drizzy
He was warned about the grain shortage a year in advance.
Grain continued to be exported from India to Europe despite knowledge of the famine.
There was no need to destroy Bengal's existing supply of food and the boats that distribute it.
Grain from Australia passed by Bengal to add to existing stockpiles in the Mediterranean.
Repeated emergency requests for food were denied.
Deliberate and callous acts from a man who had nothing but contempt for the Indian race.
More complicated than that...
The truth–documented by Sir Martin Gilbert and Hillsdale College–is that Churchill did everything he could in the midst of world war to save the Bengalis; and that without him the famine would have been worse.
On receiving news of the spreading food shortage Churchill spoke to his Cabinet, saying he would welcome a statement by Lord Wavell, his new Viceroy of India, that his duty “was to make sure that India was a safe base for the great operations against Japan which were now pending, and that the war was pressed to a successful conclusion, and that famine and food difficulties were dealt with.”
Churchill then wrote to Wavell personally: Peace, order and a high condition of war-time well-being among the masses of the people constitute the essential foundation of the forward thrust against the enemy….The hard pressures of world-war have for the first time for many years brought conditions of scarcity, verging in some localities into actual famine, upon India. Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages….Every effort should be made by you to assuage the strife between the Hindus and Moslems and to induce them to work together for the common good. Again Churchill expressed his wish for “the best possible standard of living for the largest number of people.”
Next Churchill turned to famine relief. Canada had offered aid, but in thanking Prime Minister MacKenzie King, Churchill noted a shipping problem: “Wheat from Canada would take at least two months to reach India whereas it could be carried from Australia in 3 to 4 weeks.”
At Churchill’s urging, Australia promised 350,000 tons of wheat. King still wanted to help. Churchill feared a resultant loss of war shipments between Canada and Australia,9 but King assured him there would be no shortfall. Canada’s contribution, he said, would pay “dividends in humanitarian aspects….”
The famine continued into 1944, causing Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery to request one million tons of grain. Churchill, who had been studying consumption statistics, now believed India was receiving more than she would need. He remained concerned about the shipping problem, “given the effect of its diversion alike on operations and on our imports of food into this country, which could be further reduced only at the cost of much suffering.”
The Cabinet cited other causes of the famine rarely mentioned in latter-day denunciations of Churchill: the shortages were “partly political in character, caused by Marwari supporters of Congress [Gandhi’s party] in an effort to embarrass the existing Muslim Government of Bengal.” Another cause, they added, was corrupt local officials: “The Government of India were unduly tender with speculators and hoarders.”
Amery and Wavell continued to press for wheat, and in the Cabinet of February 14th Churchill tried to accommodate them. While shipping difficulties were “very real,” Churchill said, he was “most anxious that we should do everything possible to ease the Viceroy’s position. No doubt the Viceroy felt that if this corner could be turned, the position next year would be better.” Churchill added that “refusal of India’s request was not due to our underrating India’s needs, but because we could not take operational risks by cutting down the shipping required for vital operations.”
The war pressed Britain on all sides; shipping was needed everywhere. Indeed, at the same time as India was demanding another million tons, Churchill was fending off other demands: “I have been much concerned at the apparently excessive quantities of grain demanded by Allied HQ for civilians in Italy, which impose a great strain on our shipping and finances,” he wrote War Secretary Sir James Grigg. “Will you let me have, at the earliest possible moment…estimates of the amount of food which is really needed….” Churchill and his Cabinet continued to struggle to meet India’s needs. While certain that shipping on the scale Amery wanted was impossible without a “dangerous inroad into the British import programme or a serious interference with operational plans,” the Cabinet grasped at every straw, recommending:
(a) A further diversion to India of the shipments of food grains destined for the Balkan stockpile in the Middle East. This might amount to 50,000 tons, but would need War Cabinet approval, while United States reactions would also have to be ascertained;
(b) There would be advantage if ships carrying military or civil cargo from the United States or Australia to India could also take a quantity of bagged wheat.
A month later Churchill was hoping India had turned the corner when his Minister of War Transport, Frederick Leathers, reported “statistically a surplus of food grains in India.” Still, Leathers emphasized “the need for imported wheat on psychological grounds.” What were they? Amery explained that “the peasant in 750,000 villages” might hold back “his small parcel of grain” if no outside aid was in sight. He said he could ship 200,000 tons, “provided that the twenty-five ships required were surplus to the Army’s needs.” But Amery wanted double that quantity.
Again trying to help, the Cabinet suggested that India had underestimated its rice crop. While agreeing to send the 200,000 tons, Churchill told Amery he could get another 150,000 tons from Ceylon in exchange for excess rice: “The net effect, counting 50,000 tons previously arranged [was] 400,000 tons of wheat.”
In April, it was Lord Wavell asking not for 400,000 but 724,000 tons! Now the problem was unseasonable weather and a deadly explosion in the Bombay Docks, which destroyed 50,000 tons of food grains. Peasants were still holding back their crops, he said; rumours were circulating “that London had refused to ask America for help.” The exasperated Cabinet retorted: “If we now approached the United States and they were unable to help, it would at least dispel that allegation.”
One can sense Churchill’s frustration. Whatever they did, however they wriggled, they could not appease the continued demands from India–even after calculations showed that the shortage had been eased. Churchill agreed to write President Roosevelt for help, and replace the 45,000 tons lost in the explosion. But he “could only provide further relief for the Indian situation at the cost of incurring grave difficulties in other directions.”
As good as his word, and despite preoccupation with the upcoming invasion of France, Churchill wrote FDR. No one, reading his words, can be in doubt about his sympathies:
"I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more. I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to 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 joint 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….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help."
Roosevelt replied that while Churchill had his “utmost sympathy,” his Joint Chiefs had said they were “unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping….Needless to say, I regret exceedingly the necessity of giving you this unfavourable reply.”
There is no doubt that in those fraught weeks Churchill said things off the record (but duly recorded by subordinates) that were unworthy of him, out of exasperation and the press of war on many fronts. There is no evidence that Churchill wished any Indian to starve; on the contrary, he did his best to help them, amidst a war to the death.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
