|Quoting NAV30 (Reply 48):|
Are you seriously suggesting that if the Japanese had succeeded in capturing Bengal, they would have poured in food supplies?
No, I'm asserting that your arguments are hypotheticals that depend on 'would', 'could'. This quoted sentence is yet another 'would'. I'm solely focusing on what actually happened:
* Churchill was the final executive authority for the territory of India
* During the time he was in charge, he presided over the death of 4 million
As you can see, I'm not debating revisionist possibilities. I'm speaking in definitives, not hypotheticals.
Your defense focuses on what could have happened otherwise. My argument focuses on asserting what actually happened. Mine is a stronger argument because it's a statement of fact. It's really logically straightforward.
|Quoting NAV30 (Reply 48):|
You appear to be saying that that was Britain's fault? But surely, if anyone was to blame, it was the Japanese?
I'll accept that if you accept that the Jewish Holocaust was the fault of Britain/France/US . Why ? Because they pushed Germany into a corner in Versailles, humiliating a proud nation and causing a vengeful maniac to bubble to the surface.
See, that's the problem with this passing the buck. When you're in charge, you get the accolades, and the blame. Don't pass it on.
You are also so wrapped up in your cognitive dissonance that you do not see the obvious insult here: I'd like you listen with a straight face to a German claiming "yeah well those Jews died, but you guys were all attacking us and I got really upset and took it out on them. It's not my fault. It's your fault for humiliating me and then attacking me." See if you can swallow that with a straight face, the way you claim "yeah yeah they died, but the Japanese were attacking. It's their fault." You'd probably lynch any German who dares to make such a claim. I hope there'll one day be enough civility for the holocaust in Bengal to be viewed with as much sensitivity.
|Quoting IADCA (Reply 52):|
Granted, not one in which your countrymen had any say, but blaming him alone when there were plenty of other decisionmakers
You heard the phrase "the buck stops here" ? Churchill was the PM
, and head of the British forces. Mountbatten reported to him. Would you concurrently argue that the blame lay with Goring, Eichmann etc and not Hitler ? After all, Adolf didn't actually hold a gun and herd people into the ovens. Your argument applies to every other case. It wasn't all Mao's, Pol Pots, Saddam's, Churchill's or Hitler's fault - sure there were plenty of others, and plenty of external factors affecting their actions.
The common factor for why they get the blame is the same: They. Were. In. Charge.