Comments by "suraj s" (@surajs5913) on "PragerU" channel.

@derpynerdy6294 tell me though, what was worse: german expansionism or british imperialism? Assuming that you value all of humanity, which did you think caused more human suffering? Which western power led to greater impoverishment globally over the course of centuries? A germany that flirted with facism for 20 years, or imperial britain that dominated the world for 200 years? Are you proud of the empire? If so , why?
7
@derpynerdy6294 natural disaster dont export local grains to outside the region. Natural disasters dont force farmers to grow crops to aid the war effort. If natural disasters were the reason, famines of that scale would have been much more frequent. Churchill was instrumental in causing the bengal famine. Denying that is as despicable as denying the holocaust.
5
@The_Christian_Cavalier Which one looted its colonies to abject poverty, forcing farmers to farm indigo for british industries instead of crops for local sustenance? Britain. Which caused famine after famine due to such selfish dehumanising policies? Britain. How many princely states were there in India when the british left? 500+. How many modern conflicts can be blamed directly on british colonialism and divide and rule policy- innumerable, including the Indo pak conflict which is currently a good candidate for starting nuclear armaggedon. Just read about the lives of the colonised in the colonies from their perspective. Or atleast read about the famines caused by british greed to loot the natives - just because trade was more important than the lives of the natives. Britain is the scum of the earth.
5
@Coachman no one claims in India that hitler was a saintly leader. Many in England do believe churchill to be a defender of humanity, which he was not. Churchill was a beastly man, a racial fanatic and an agent of tyrannical imperialism.
4
@alexmcadam1126 the japanese werent the one who adopted a scorched earth policy. The japanese werent the one who diverted local grain to buffer up grain reserves. Churchill did stand for something. That something was western imperialism, which was the "free world" at the time. He did not stand up for humanity.
3
@derpynerdy6294 the cause was churchill choosing to export grains to prevent it falling into the hands of his enemies. His priorities were sorted when he decided that the lives of millions of his colonial subjects were not valuable to his cause of sav8ng the british empire. It was not natural disaster that culminated in mass starvation, it was churchill priority and how he considered the native population as disposable and less than human. I know it hurts your perception of churchill being some great defender of "freedom", but reality hurts. Your weak justification is just similar to holocaust apologists.
3