Why did Churchill destroy the Bengalis

[rupol2000]

Haplogroup O-M117 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It turns out that this was done for pan-Germanist racial reasons.




Relatives of the Americans lived in the Ganga region, there was a large Indo-Aryan culture, and the Atharva Veda was collected there - the second oldest of the 4 Vedas.


Since F. Roosevelt was Churchill's direct accomplice, his crimes in the USA, especially those related to ethnic politics, should be carefully checked again. Perhaps F. Roosevelt was destroying the American people.

 

[rupol2000]

Most likely the same motives were during the massacre of the Khmer Rouge.
If there was no racial motive, they would not have destroyed the Cambodians so hastily and carelessly (with sticks, stones, and so on)

 

[rupol2000]

Three totalitarian bloody criminals.
Each of them killed and maimed millions of innocent people.

 

[Thunderbird]

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Churchill was a cu.nt.

 

[whitehall]

When did this happen. Churchill was Prime Minister but he didn't operate in a vacuum. He was subject to the will of the British people and only had the authority that was given to him by the Parliament and presumably the monarchy.

 

[DudleySmith]

When did this happen. Churchill was Prime Minister but he didn't operate in a vacuum. He was subject to the will of the British people and only had the authority that was given to him by the Parliament and presumably the monarchy.

The Brits didn't 'Oppress' India. They only had about 10,000 bureaucrats there, and they mostly served native Rajahs as administrators. there would no 'India' today without them; they unified the country for the savages, built them a railroad, then they left.

The Brits had zero problems raising native troops to fight the Japanese, and the Nazis in the ME and Italy invasion for that matter.

lol at 'Da Evul FDR' rubbish by the OP and another post by the crazy Hindu.

 

[BackAgain]

It’s not like the Bengalis we’re gonna kill themselves.

 

[DudleySmith]

It’s not like the Bengalis we’re gonna kill themselves.

It's not like they were ever pacifists and producing a lot of Nobel Prize winners.

Violence, both murderous and verbal, is not clandestine in West Bengal’s politics; in and out of election season it erupts, spreads and simmers on the edges of the continuous flow of tense vocal confrontations between the ruling party and the Opposition. This is normal. It has been so for decades.


The answer to the entirely rhetorical questions, why is there so much violence in West Bengal, and its follow-up, why cannot governments control and extinguish this violence, is simple: It’s the history, stupid! It is the continuity of tradition, one part of which is physical and murderous violence

Why are West Bengal polls violent? It’s the history, stupid!

Central forces and observers, stern directives by successive election commissioners, independent watchdogs, media presence, angry voters, rich and resourceful political parties with wizard campaign managers — none have successfully created a strategy to curb violence in all its variety

indianexpress.com

Apparently it's only racist and bad when the Brits did it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3517477

https://www.jstor.org/stable/313056

As is usual with most sniveling about 'evul colonialism n stuff' further study shows whitey didn't kill nearly enough of them. The Brits were pussycats compared to the natives themselves.

 

[whitehall]

The Brits didn't 'Oppress' India. They only had about 10,000 bureaucrats there, and they mostly served native Rajahs as administrators. there would no 'India' today without them; they unified the country for the savages, built them a railroad, then they left.

The Brits had zero problems raising native troops to fight the Japanese, and the Nazis in the ME and Italy invasion for that matter.

lol at 'Da Evul FDR' rubbish by the OP and another post by the crazy Hindu.

FDR is directly responsible for the deaths and suffering that his E.O. 9066 caused. That's a given that liberals and FDR supporters can't escape but you can't place the blame on the British Prime Minister for what happened in India while giving the crooked and incompetent monarchy and Parliament a pass.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Kruska]

Churchill was a cu.nt.

Absolutely, but one needed a cu.nt. to deal with all the other pricks at the time.