Should we change the voting rules before any new referendum

[NotAllThere]

It was deemed ok to Churchill - Bengal Famine 1943 . Churchill clearly felt the ideology of allowing/accepting the death of 2.1 to 3 million Bengals was for the greater good of the rest.

Or is it OK for our great hero to do this, but not others?

It's not OK for anyone to do it. HTH.

Mao followed the policies of the former Emperors. If a city was becoming problematic, then during times of scarcity food would be diverted away from that city and toward a more loyal one. I'd venture to say that Mao deliberately decided to starve certain areas. I don't think Churchill set out to deliberately starve the Bengali poor. He may well have known that his policy would lead to mass deaths.

[Whorty]

It's not OK for anyone to do it. HTH.

Mao followed the policies of the former Emperors. If a city was becoming problematic, then during times of scarcity food would be diverted away from that city and toward a more loyal one. I'd venture to say that Mao deliberately decided to starve certain areas. I don't think Churchill set out to deliberately starve the Bengali poor. He may well have known that his policy would lead to mass deaths.

Churchill openly said he hated the Indians. His policy , despite the suffering, would have been known to cause death and famine (after all it was a scorched earth policy so was totally intentional).

I agree it's not Ok for anyone to do it, but it seems in this country we revere Churchill as our greatest ever living hero, yet criticise other leaders for following the same policy. To say Brits are hypocrits is an understatement.

[Old Greg]

Oh so starving your people to death is acceptable then?

The point I was trying to make is that those ideologies allow/accept the death of some citizens for the greater good of the rest.

What a strange thing to say. You should compare either:

1. Number of people murdered by Hitler with number of people murdered by Mao.

Or

2. Number of deaths caused by Hitler with number of deaths caused by Mao.

What you have done (it looks this way) is compare:

3. Number of people murdered by Hitler with number of deaths caused by Mao.

If I am wrong, please do show me how.

[xoggoth]

3. Number of people murdered by Hitler with number of deaths caused by Mao

They are still dead either way, consequences are rather more important than motives.

[Old Greg]

They are still dead either way, consequences are rather more important than motives.

In which case the comparison to make is:


2. Number of deaths caused by Hitler with number of deaths caused by Mao.

[Old Greg]

In which case the comparison to make is:


2. Number of deaths caused by Hitler with number of deaths caused by Mao.

This would be a good place to start for deaths caused by Hitler. You should probably make adjustments for deaths relating to the war with Japan, Soviet population transfers,
and other categorisations I expect.

World War II casualties - Wikipedia

[NotAllThere]

... but it seems in this country we revere Churchill as our greatest ever living hero, yet criticise other leaders for following the same policy. To say Brits are hypocrits is an understatement.

He was a great war leader. He was a smeghead in many many other ways. Neither of these things detract from the enormity of the suffering caused by Stalin and Mao.

What a strange thing to say. You should compare either:

1. Number of people murdered by Hitler with number of people murdered by Mao.

Or

2. Number of deaths caused by Hitler with number of deaths caused by Mao.

What you have done (it looks this way) is compare:

3. Number of people murdered by Hitler with number of deaths caused by Mao.

I really hate the influenza virus of 1918... And as for bubonic plague. What a bastard.

[BlasterBates]

It looks like whatever happens next that the Tories will crash and burn.

UK Polling Report

Survation have topline figures of CON 35%(-5), LAB 39%(+3), LDEM 10%(nc), UKIP 5%(nc). Fieldwork was on Friday, and changes are from mkid-February.

The box is open and the cat is dead.

[original PM]

It was deemed ok to Churchill - Bengal Famine 1943 . Churchill clearly felt the ideology of allowing/accepting the death of 2.1 to 3 million Bengals was for the greater good of the rest.

Or is it OK for our great hero to do this, but not others?

But he didn't

Did Churchill Cause the Bengal Famine? - The Churchill Project - Hillsdale College

[shaunbhoy]

But he didn't

Did Churchill Cause the Bengal Famine? - The Churchill Project - Hillsdale College

You must excuse Whorty. This is just his latest attempt at moral self-flagellation, involving as it does a rather abstract extrapolation of the realities.

Best to just view him as a rather pathetic comedy figure. It works for most of us.