Hacker News Reader

Comment by 9nGQluzmnq3M | Hacker News Reader

Citation needed. The British certainly viewed Indians as expendable, and many decisions during (say) the Bengal Famine made squarely favored military wartime supply at the expense of the local population, but I don't think anybody has seriously proposed that the British intentionally created the famine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Historio...

View on HN

First, I would say that the British should not receive the benefit of the doubt as to their behavior during the Bengal famine, given their intransigence to release grain during the Irish potato famine (and that so many Irish were forced to rely on potatoes leaving them vulnerable was another effect of British rule.)

Here's some scientific evidence that the Bengal famine of 1943 was not linked to soil moisture levels, like the previous five: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-bl...

Again, the long history of callousness of the British empire towards its colonies should lead one to be skeptical of the official intent at the time.

Genocide by convenient happenstance, as a side-effect of deliberate action, is still genocide.

The first modern genocide (if you don't count the Congolese, which most don't but should) was a death march. The Turks didn't try to eliminate the Armenians by shooting or poisoning or slashing them; they simply made them walk, en masse and in horrible conditions, until they died.

If you've supplanted an ethnic group's government and redirected resources such that people start dying in horrifically large numbers, that is also a case in which you're committing genocide. Even if you're the Brits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com