In commencing this testimony, it is best to declare a few, simple, undeniable and absolute facts: Communism is utterly immoral, ineffective and foolishly idealistic. It has never worked and never will work. The only thing that works in Communism is the Millions of victims forced into hard labour, in prison camps or on the once-productive farms turned useless by Communist idiocy. Communism or Socialism is immoral and ineffective, simply in theory not just in practise.
The idea of a bin/garbage man being paid the same as a brain surgeon is ridiculous. Even more moderate socialism doesn't work, as seen in Venezuela. Once the state takes more of the workers pay, there is less incentive to work. With the state paying for more services, there is less incentive to work. With less/more expensive consumer luxuries, the less incentive there is to work. With a stagnant economy, the less incentive there is to invest. With higher business tax and regulation, the less incentive there is to work. If industry is democratised, the workers will simply pay themselves more. If nobody wants to work hard the state has to act, it has to get larger, more centralised, more powerful. It has to threaten people with death to work, or introduce dystopian reward policies. "No work, no potato", the secret police say as they throw a peasant into a gulag. It sounds ludicrous, but unfortunately was and still is all too true for millions in North Korea and other in Communist countries.
In Communism, there can be no economic growth unless the state artificially enforces radical "progression" policies, which lead to either Millions dying like in Mao's China and Stalin's Russia, or economic collapse (like Mao's China). Ultimately, Communist or Socialist economies stagnate, due to the factors I explained above. The USSR fell because it's people learned about the rich lives of their Western capitalist counterparts compared with stagnant squalor they lived in. Even though nations like Russia and Venezuela had vast natural resources, their economies still collapsed due to Communism. Cuba was forced to introduce capitalist market policies to try and save its struggling economy.
Under Socialism, there is no (or at least a reduced) desire for hard work as I have already explained. This the quality and amount of goods produced decreases. This leads to the breakdown of the beautiful supply and demand market economy, as supply can never satisfy demand. This leads to higher prices for lower quality goods and services. This, of course, is unsustainable so the state economy crashes like the USSR in 1990. Communism will always eventually fail.
The large, centralised states of Communism allow power hungry psychopaths to take charge and engineer mass murders as we have seen in every Communist state. Millions died in Russia, Cambodia, and China due to the malevolent Communist disease. Communism is an internationalist ideology, so naturally Communist states attempt to spread the revolution by whatever means necessary. This leads to brutal imperialism, as seen in the USSR and China. It also leads to the destabilisation of other nations across the globe by finding of militant groups.
Communism can never work as it is incomparable with human nature. Greed, desire and the will to succeed over others is our natural state. Human nature is not a "social construct", but a biological construct forged over millennia. Communism tries to change our natural state of existence, Communism is a "Utopian" dream that only exists in the crazed imaginations of deranged lunatics. It tries to break down simple objective realities of our species, for the sake of this dream. All humans have different needs and desires. So in an egalitarian state, no human's desires are met because one policy cannot be perfect for all.
Communism is also immoral. It seeks to seize and steal property, wealth and the produce of an honest citizens hard labour. Communism replaces a system where we enter into voluntary transactions of labour for payment, with an involuntary system of collectivisation and unfair redistribution. Communism takes seizes the well earned produce of a man's lifetime, and gives it to the undeserving. It is the worst way to challenge human greed into policy, as the lust of a person who has less than their neighbour is translated into the taking away from and giving to another just because one is seen to deserve that thing more.
Socialist see themselves as more moral than Capitalists, as they view free markets as merely greedy CEOs unfairly taking away the produce of a worker. They see the brick-layer as working just as hard as the employer, so it would be unjust for there to be any income inequality. However there is a reason we call some jobs "unskilled". Anyone can do them. It takes time, effort and hard work to make your way to the top and once your there, it's not a walk in the park. Communists have the childish view of economics, that if there are 10 cookies, and 2 people, they each get 5. That's fair, right? However, it fails to take into account how those cookies got there in the first place. They were created because of a demand, which somebody was willing to supply by hard work.
Saying that Communism works is like telling a man he can fly. Before you push him off the cliff, he looks down and sees the pile of mangled corpses bellow him.When he raises his concerns, you tell him that those people are victims of gravity as human flight has never been done correctly before. Humans can't fly, because it is scientifically impossible. How do you know if something is scientifically impossible? You run the trial again, and again, and again and again... How many more lives must be lost in this hopeless experiment? How many more Million must die? Looking back at a history of hundreds of millions dying, and Socialism tried hundreds of times in different ways, surely a Commie would be able to at least admit that it is very hard to achieve their "True socialism". Because the idea is so far fetched from reality, it is a almost impossible to achieve in the first place. Many Communists will say that while Communism has killed Millions, capitalism has killed far more. That while Communism produces dictatorships, so does capitalism. The problem is that while capitalism in occasion produces famine or dictatorship, Communism exclusively produces these things. Capitalism has allowed 100 Billion humans to live on this earth, bringing countless generations out of poverty. Communism has only killed and threatened to wipe out the planet with nuclear weapons. Since Communism fell, we have not been faced with the threat of nuclear war. But capitalism failed at first...
Saying that Communism works is like telling a man he can fly. Before you push him off the cliff, he looks down and sees the pile of mangled corpses bellow him.When he raises his concerns, you tell him that those people are victims of gravity as human flight has never been done correctly before. Humans can't fly, because it is scientifically impossible. How do you know if something is scientifically impossible? You run the trial again, and again, and again and again... How many more lives must be lost in this hopeless experiment? How many more Million must die? Looking back at a history of hundreds of millions dying, and Socialism tried hundreds of times in different ways, surely a Commie would be able to at least admit that it is very hard to achieve their "True socialism". Because the idea is so far fetched from reality, it is a almost impossible to achieve in the first place.
Many Communists will say that while Communism has killed Millions, capitalism has killed far more. That while Communism produces dictatorships, so does capitalism. The problem is that while capitalism in occasion produces famine or dictatorship, Communism exclusively produces these things. Capitalism has allowed 100 Billion humans to live on this earth, bringing countless generations out of poverty. Communism has only killed and threatened to wipe out the planet with nuclear weapons. Since Communism fell, we have not been faced with the threat of nuclear war.
But capitalism failed at first...
When you declare the truth that communism failed completely, a Commie may say that capitalism failed at first. They site the following revolutions as capitalism failing: Revolt of the Brotherhoods in Valencia. The Comunero revolt in Castile. The English Revolution of 1642 (succeeded temporarily). The Brabant revolution of 1789, the Kościuszko revolt in Poland in 1794, the Scottish revolt of 1820, the Decembrist revolt in Russia in 1825, the June Rebellion in France in 1830. France, the German states, Denmark, Hungary, Sweden, Poland, Belgium, Ireland, Brazil, and the Italian states all had failed revolutions in 1848.
The problem is that none of these revolutions were in the name of capitalism. The world capitalist system evolved slowly over centuries from the first crusade to around the 1500s when the feudal system was overthrown. It was not as simple as "capitalists overthrow feudalism". No. These revolutions were against authoritarianism, absolute monarchy and Conservative morals. The industrial revolution was hated by these liberals, who wanted a return to agrarian society. Another key difference is that 1.5 Billion people didn't die. Communism is truly Satan's manifestation on earth.
Stalin's 1932 man made anti-Ukrainian famine killed 7-20 Million innocents. However Commie scum claim it was an ecological disaster, as the whole world was experiencing similar agricultural problems. They cite the post 1935 American "dust bowl" as an example of this upheaval. If that was true, the argument actually supports capitalism, as only in a Communist nations did Millions die. There is no question the famine was man-made: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths)
Nations Victim to Socialism
Afghanistan, Soviet Invasion
Albania, People's Socialist Republic of
Algeria, Socialist Government
Angola, People's Republic of
Bangladesh, People's Republic of
Benin, People's Republic of
Bolivia, Movement for Socialism
Brazil, Socialist Government
Bulgaria, People's Republic of
Burkina Faso, Communist Revolt
Burma, BSPP Socialist Dictatorship
Burundi, Communist Hutu Genocide
Cambodia, Communist Genocide
Chad, People's Armed Forces
Chile, Salvador Allende
China, People's Republic of
Colombia, FARC Conflict
Congo, People's Republic of the
Cuba, Communist Revolution
Czechoslovakia, People's Republic of
Egypt, Arab Socialist Union
El Salvador, Communist Guerrillas
Ethiopia, People's Democratic Republic of
Finland, Winter War and WW2
Germany, Soviet Genocide Against Germans
Greece, Communist Civil War
Guatemala, Communist Civil War
Guinea, Purges of Ahmed Sékou Touré
Guinea-Bissau, PAIGC Purges and Guerrillas
Hungary, People's Republic of
India, Socialist 1955-1989
Indonesia, Socialist 1960-1965
Iraq, Arab Socialism under Saddam Hussein
North Korea, DPRK Korean War
Laos, People's Democratic Republic of
Libya, Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Malaya, Communist insurgency
Mongolia, People's Republic of
Mozambique, People's Republic of
Oman, Dhofar Rebellion
Peru, Shining Path
Philippines, Communist Guerrillas
Poland, Three Soviet Invasions and Bloc Member
Romania, Socialist Republic of
Somalia, Somali Democratic Republic's Isaaq genocide
Spain, Spanish Civil War Against Communism
Sri Lanka, 1971 Marxist Insurrection
Sudan, 1971 Communist Party Coup
Syria, Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party 1963-present
USSR, Soviet Socialist Republic
Venezuela, United Socialist and Communist Party Rule
Vietnam, Socialist Republic of
Yemen, People's Republic of
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
Zaire, Soviet Sponsored Congo Crisis and aftermath
WW2, Soviet Engineered War (Debatable)+Nazi Germany Was "National Socialist"
TOTAL DEATHS DUE TO COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM:
Adding deaths by Abortion:
Liberalism and rejection of traditional Conservative values is also a big killer. The World Health Organisation suggests that the biggest cause of STDs is "the liberal attitudes espoused by many communities toward multiple sexual partners and pre-marital and outside marriage sexual activity." HIV transmission is most likely in the first few weeks after infection, and is therefore increased when people have more than one sexual partner in the same time period. Around 50 Million people have died from AIDS while around 300 Million people have died from other STDs throughout history. The highest rate of infection is found in homosexual men, especially the youth who live in nations with a liberal attitude towards sex. Cultures which practise polygamy also have a much higher infection rate. Prostitution is also a large transmitter of the disease. The best way to avoid STDs is either to remain celibate or to remain a virgin until married and stay faithful. Drugs also contribute to infection. It has always been a common practise among degenerate liberals to take drugs, as they have no self control or moral code.
The Socialist solution to STD epidemics would be education, and indeed this would be a great help which a fascist state would seek to implement. However, the simplest and cheapest answer is the reinstatement of Conservative values towards sex and marriage combined with greater home education. Distributing free contraceptives does not help, as it merely encourages a culture of sexual promiscuity, while not always being effective at prevention. The legalization and nationalization/regulation of prostitution as well as all drugs would also curb infection. For example, after Portugal legalized all Drugs, HIV infection rate plummeted.
In response to prostitution, a typical Socialist will state that capitalism will always oppress woman and force them into undesirable jobs just to survive. Socialism, they claim, will liberate the female body and break the chains of patriarchy. Why then, does Venezuela have the highest prostitution rate in the world? 120 per 10000 to be exact. The oil rich Socialist state, once the richest in Latin America under its Conservative Dictators, has only 19 doctors per 10000 and thus several times more prostitutes available for its people. Venezuela also has incredibly high rates of HIV infection, with 2% of the population dying from the disease, while in some places 35% of adults are infected (according to the New York Times).
Liberalism and the rejection of Conservative values has killed over 350 Million people, and is sure to kill more as Super bugs are allowed to develop. Only the enlightening of international culture and the eradication of the Liberal gene can save many Millions in the future. The all-conquering Truth must mercifully deliver humanity and save them from their sins.
Since the Communist party took charge of China, 500 Million Abortions have been performed. Without this mainly female genocide, China would likely have over 2 Billion people now. Without Communism, China would by now be the world's greatest superpower. The capitalist reforms which were implemented after Mao's death would have already been in force by the 1950s and the 140 Million he murdered would still be alive. Not only China, but the world would be decades ahead in wealth, technology and wealth if Communism never infected China. The World still wouldn't have reached its 10 Billion population cap, and most probably would have increased said cap. The entire world has been held back perhaps 100 years due to Communism and Indian socialism. We as a species can no longer afford any more delay.
Abortion is perhaps the worst legacy of Communism and the decay of Conservative values due to liberal scum. Since 1900, 2 Billion children have been killed. Abortion is definitively and clinically murder. After 20 Weeks, it is the deliberate ending of a thinking, feeling and living human life. Before 20 Weeks it is the termination of an almost guaranteed life. What court would allow the euthanasia of a "brain-dead" patient who doctors know would wake up in 9 months? A Communist one.
El General Pinochet banned all abortions in his merciful wisdom, and all nations should admire this action. Of course, I am no hypocrite. Abortion may be murder, but murder can sometimes be justified. In the case of war and the death penalty for example. When the mother has a high chance of death, an abortion may be needed to save her. However these cases are relatively rare. In China, most babies were executed simply due to the one child policy.
The Soviet Union had an incredibly high abortion rate, on average 6.5 Million per year in a nation of only 250 Million people. This lead to an astonishing 400 Million Abortions in the Soviet union in 70 years. The people turned to Abortion as the primary method of birth control, and this abortion culture continues in Russia to this day.
The USSR, the bastion of moral purity and female liberation that it was, is responsible for the largest mass rapes in history: http://www.globeatwar.com/article/red-armys-rape-europe
The Scandinavian feminist Utopias, pointed to as an example of Socialist (Welfare State) success, are literal hell for women. Sweden has the highest rape rate outside of Africa, and the fifth highest in the world, with most women scared to leave their homes. While this has a lot to do with the refugee crisis, the problem has always plagued the Welfare state. In 2002, Sweden and Finland had the joint third highest proportion of rape victims in the world. Denmark, Canada, Australia and the UK all following them at the top. The rape issue in Welfare states can either be attributed to their foolish migration policies, or the Liberal sexual attitudes championed by the state. Either way, if you are a woman in a Socialist nation, prepare to face the risks of rape.
Cuba also has a big problem with "Transactional sex", Sex trafficking and Child exploitation. Woman are forced to enter relationships with powerful men or tourists just to get access to consumer goods which they otherwise could not obtain under the socialist government. Sexual exploitation of children is also a large problem, despite the crime carrying the death penalty. The "Trafficking of persons report" ranks Cuba as a tier 3 (worst) country, in which the government makes no effort to combat widespread sex trafficking. Venezuela and China also fall into the this tier. After the left wing government took power in Chile, the sexual assault rate rose by 8.1%. This is compared to the incredibly low rape rates during the Pinochet years.
We live in a world of cultural Marxism. Karl Marx's theory of the privileged bourgeoisie oppressing the downtrodden proletariat; has been translated into the "patriarchy" oppressing women and minorities. Only a revolution of the oppressed can "Crush patriarchy!". In fact, modern Communists are mainly based around this principle, as much as they claim to be standing up for the working class. For example, when arch-conservative Jair Bolsonaro won the Brazilian 2018 presidential election, Communist forums exploded with outrage for Brazil's "LGBT comrades" and "women and minorities". They didn't give a damn about the poor.
The truth is modern Communists don't care about the working class. The left is so infected with identity politics (a theory which divides society by race, gender and sexuality), that they have left behind their traditional voters. This is what led to white working class men voting for Trump in percentages larger than Latinos voted for Hillary. I am not American, but it seems like the entire American left has taken on cultural Marxism. The oppressed people's must be supported, while the oppressors hindered.
The global Islamic Jihad has brutally ended the lives of One Billion people across the globe, during its evil history. Millions of woman are beaten, whipped, raped, executed and oppressed. Homosexuals have been killed in larger numbers by Islam in the past 100 years than the Nazis. Yet the Communists love Islam. They see it as an oppressed minority group, which fights the genocidal Zionist Jews for freedom. Thousands have died in this conflict.
Islam is not the religion of peace, in 1,400 years it has killed:
600 Million Indians
200 Million Africans
160 Million Europeans
10 Million Buddhists
10 Million Fellow Muslims
20 Million Central Asians
20 Million south East Asians
200 Million by the Black Death, purposely spread to Europe by the Muslim Golden Horde
500 Million from Smallpox, spread across the globe by the Muslim Jihad.
+120 Million American Indians killed because the Ottomans closed off the silk road to Europeans, forcing Columbus to go west.
Thus Islam's total death toll is 1.82 Billion. Now you can understand why Muslims are so feared in China and Burma.
Communists, Socialists and lefties love Palestine. They see it as a oppressed state, struggling for freedom. But most importantly they hate Israel. Any, even very young or new Communist, will be fully versed in the atrocities of the Jewish state. They say its soldiers murder babies and children in cold blood, gas families for no reason. Genocide the Palestinian race, enslave them, treat them as second class citizens. They say that the Palestinians were there first, that its their holy land two. Even mainstream US media hosts say they want "a free Palestine from the river to the sea". (a metaphor for the eradication of Israel.) The Palestinians are peaceful people, who only want to live undisturbed on their land. This is not true. Since the time of Mohammad (Pbuh), Muslims have hated Jews. During times of Arab wealth, they lived in peacefully together. But when the money left the Islamic world, old tensions grew. In the 20th century Jews were eradicated from every Muslim majority state and Europe. Many fled to Israel and defended it, knowing what would happen if the Jews did not have at state. It is a myth that the Palestinians were there first. The Jews had always lived in Palestine. In fact, almost ll current Palestinians are the descendants of Arabs who moved to Israel at the same time as the Jews, just in far greater numbers. For every 40 Jewish families who moved to Israel, 400 Palestinian families moved. This is because the Jews were wealthy (had capital), and many Arabs moved to work for them on previously unproductive land.
Has the Palestine's became enraged by the scale of Jewish emigration, they began to revolt and make war against the Jews. The Palestinians were offered their own state on five separate occasions, by the UK, the UN and Israel. But the inability of the Muslims to even negotiate the very generous borders and simply decline led to the evaporation of their bargaining power. Israel has shown in the case of Egypt that it is willing to trade land for peace. It would do the same with Palestine, if only they had agreed.
The Soviet union supplied vast amounts of weapons to the Arab states in order to crush Israel in 1967. In fact, we first hear of Arabs referred to as "Palestinians" when Egypt’s President Nasser, with help from the Soviet KGB, established the "Palestine Liberation Organisation" in 1964. All of the Arab states that invaded Israel were supplied and encouraged by the Soviet Union, who wanted to remove America from the region. After this, the Communists funded pro Palestine groups, and Communists supported Palestine completely.The Commies have always been anti-Semitic, as Jews were oppressed by the Soviets. Jews are also seen by Socialists has greedy capitalists, this is the view of such Commies as Corbyn in the UK.
On September 11th 1973, Augusto Pinochet led a military coup which overthrew the Socialist government of Salvador Allende, after Parliament voted to remove him due to his attempt to create a dictatorship. 60 people were killed, including Allende himself. The coup came after Allende has destroyed Chile's economy, causing 1000% inflation with his Communist policies. For the next 31 years, Pinochet would be president, military leader and then a Senator for life. His sole rule of the nation ended in 1990, after he won 44% of the vote in a national election (KGB backed Allende won 36% along with his revolutionary allies). During that time, 1,200 Communist militia would be killed by the regime. Far less than the 3,000 killed in a signal day in America on 9/11 2001 or the 150,00 killed by Castro (who died on Pinochet's birth day) in Cuba.
Pinochet implemented capitalist reforms, which though at first saw problems succeeding in a volatile global economy, would transform Chile into the richest nation in South America. Pinochet had the oligarchs responsible for the banking crash arrested and imprisoned for years. When Pinochet left office, Chile's economy, unemployment rate and poverty rate were on page with Latin America. However the more smooth global economic climate of the 1990s (thanks to Reagans earlier reforms), allowed Pinochet's reforms to thrive. 60% of poverty reduction in Chile by 2004 was thanks to capitalism and economic improvement. Chile's economy had improved so much, economists dubbed it "The miracle of Chile". Pinochet had been a God send.
Pinochet also saved the lives of thousand of children. In 1970, infant mortality was 76/1000. In 1985 it was 22/1000. Pinochet also criminalised all abortion. The rape rate was very low, the streets were safe. Nobel laureate and economist Gary Becker states that "Chile's annual growth in per capita real income from 1985-1996 averaged a remarkable 5%, far above the rest of Latin America." Growth rates of exports averaged 11% during Pinochet's leadership, more than any other time in Chile's history.
When the reforms has been implemented, the time has come for El Presidente to face an election. 44% of people voted for him to stay of as dictator. A compliment to the people's love for him and his success. However, later he was arrested in London while seeking medical attention and then in Chile when he returned. A trial was planned, but cancelled Pinochet died a free man in 2006 at the grand old age of 91. My regions aim is to continue his legacy of purging Communism, and avenge his humiliating arrested by Liberal scum like Tony Blair. The Commies may scream mass-murder, but we stand by Napoleon's wisdom: "He who saves his country commits no crime".
The press was free under Pinochet, and heavily critical of him. There was freedom of movement, opposition political parties and free elections in 1988. In 1978, 75% of Chileans endorsed Pinochets rule. Most of those tortured were terrorists, active during the regime. When Castro, murder of 100,000 died (on Pinochet's birthday), the Communist media (Jean-Claude Juncker, Obama and Justin Trudeau included) called him a "hero" who "fought for equality" a "fiery apostle". When Pinochet died they called him a "brutal dictator who repressed Chile" a "notorious symbol of human rights abuse" and who "ruled by terror". Considering Pinochet's regime killed 1% of the amount Castro murdered, in a nation double the population, this is a travesty.
Rejection of Religious and conservative values, replaced by Liberal attitudes towards health and life has killed many Billions. The Seven deadly Sins include greed and gluttony, which if not followed leads to lifestyle issues. Tobacco, a leading cause of Cancer, is from the New World which was discovered because the Muslim Ottoman empire closed all other trade routes. Anti-Fat/body shamming supported by the left also contributes to lifestyle related deaths.
3.1 Billion have died to due non-communicable diseases caused by lifestyle which involves taking brief pleasures at the expense of future health. For example, smoking became popularised by people who wished to rebel from Conservative society, and woman who wanted to be seen as strong and independent. Adding STDs to this calculation we get 3.45 Billion. Combined with Abortion, Communism, Islam, Democracy and STDS we reach a staggering 13 Billion deaths due to these things. These cancers are worse than cancer, they cause Cancer
9 Billion people have died under democracies in our history. Democracies have an average death rate of 10/1000. Dictatorships have a death rate of 3/1000, for example these right-wing absolute monarchies or dictatorships: Egypt, Oman, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, and Bahrain have an average death rate of 3/1000. So two thirds of the 9 Billion who died in democracies could have been saved by dictatorship. That means democracy has murdered 6 Billion people.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_mortality_rate). If we consider the amount of people who have been killed by Communist rebels, and Non-Communicable diseases in democracies, then the number shrinks to 5.55 Billion, but is still disgustingly high.
We must not forget that Hitler came to power democratically, so his murdered can be blamed on the system. Democracy is the breeding ground of Communism, so many of the deaths of that disease can be blamed on democracy. Democracy if filthy and degenerate in general, and it only leads to hate, inefficiency and division. However left-wing dictatorships are also evil. Only a Pinochet style dictatorship can save humanity.
The following was written by an associate of mine, and while I don't agree with everything it declares, I have decided to publish it here for the benefit of the public discourse.
A YouGov Poll found in 2016 that 43% of British People see the British Empire as a force for Good, while 19% believe it was not. The rest either didn’t know or thought it was neither. But who is right? Is it the 60% of Jamaicans, who according to the Guardian, want Britain to recolonise them who are wrong? Was the British Empire a force for good, or evil? In this testimony I will lay out and respond to the typical criticisms of British Imperialism, and hopefully you will learn about both points of view.
Almost all of the supposed victims of The British Empire died due to famines, and most of them were in India. Although there have always been terrible famines in India, British rule seemed to oversee far more. This can either be attributed to better record keeping or something else: overpopulation.
British rule introduced the miracle of modern medicine to the colonies, it united the 600 warring states of India under a single state. This “Pax Britannia” meant less Indians died in war and less men stayed away from home. Life expectancy rose by 15 years, due to the construction of hospitals, and the introduction of clean water sources. But most importantly, high calorie food become much more available. By introducing modern irrigation and more sophisticated farming techniques, the amount of land being used for farming jumped from a rather inefficient 400000 acres, to 3.2 million acres. More productive western crops were introduced, which yielded far more calories. The result of this was a population explosion. The amount of people in India more than doubled, from 170 Million in 1750 to 400 Million in 1950 according to the Aggregate average of estimates by modern scholars.
As positive as this population increase was, it came with many challenges. The yearly multiplying millions required more and more food, putting strain on agricultural supplies. The increased demand outpaced supply, and this lead to an increase in the price of crops. The final nail in the coffin for Millions of Indians was the fact that although these new crops were superior to the old, they were much more demanding in terms of conditions and water. As soon as a natural hazard (which have become more common since the end of the little ice age) such as drought struck, devastating famine followed. The British government could do nothing to help the situation. These famines affected Millions more than even the entire population of Britain at the time, a nation which was struggling with its own food situation. The famines were tragic yes, but engineered and evil no. They were merely the growing pains of a rapidly growing British Raj thanks to Imperial investment.
However the main criticism of British action during these famines, was their inaction. Many claim the British continued to divert food away, and do nothing to help the populations. However this is not completely true. For example, in the 1870s, Sir Richard Temple supervised the relief in the Mysore state, where relief kitchens were established. However the British government at the time, obsessed with the purity of its championed Laissez Faire doctrine, was very reluctant to act past small scale relieve effort. They also believed that by giving relief, the Indians would become dependent on government help and never produce their own crop. This policy worked as, aside from Bangladesh (1943 and 1973), India has never experienced a large scale famine since 1900. As I have said earlier, to help the 10s of Millions of People starving was impossible considering Britain itself had only 30 Million people.
The British Empire is often also blamed for the chaos and terrible partition. Modern TV dramas, for instance, often claim the borders were drawn by men who knew nothing about the local people. And to them I ask; Where would you have drawn the border? India was a cultural melting pot, with many religions spread out all over the nation relatively equally. A one state solution was favoured by the British until 1945, but opposition by Jinnah and then Gandhi led to borders between India and Pakistan being drawn on rough Geographical and religious boundaries. The Muslims conceded that these boundaries would be decided by the Hindus if Pakistan was to exist. Local chiefs, princes and lords could also decide which state to join. This is what led to the Kashmir crisis and subsequent wars.
A commonly cited tragedy used to claim that the British Empire was worse than the Nazis is the Jallianwala Bagh/Amritsar massacre. 1919 saw mass unrest in India, and the British military became concerned of revolt. Colonel Reginald Dyer, the acting military commander for Amritsar and its environs, proceeded through the city with several city officials, announcing the implementation of a pass system to enter or leave Amritsar, a curfew beginning at 20:00 that night and a ban on all processions and public meetings of four or more persons. The proclamation was read and explained in English, Urdu, Hindi and Punjab however the locals refused to listen. They gathered together in Amritsar to celebrate a festival at night, and the British Commander decided to open fire. 379 of 20,000 gathering Indians were shot by Gurkha troops in 1919. This horrible act was performed by a rogue Commander, and the British government cannot be blamed.
The Indian mutiny of 1857 is often used as example of the brutality of British Imperialism. It is too often claimed that the British performed genocides on India after the mutiny, in which millions died. The revolt started over the supposed use of cow or pig fat in British cartridges, which angered Hindu and Muslim soldiers. However the death toll of 100,000 is surprisingly small considering the continental scale of the rebellion, which involved over 200 Million people. Atrocities were committed by both sides, however all Empires experience rebellions. All Empires put down rebellions with force. The British Empire was not a bastion of Moral purity, it conquered land and fought wars. It's in the name. However, most nations (including India) have had Empires, and it is foolish to feel guilty about the universal historical development of a modern nation state.
Ah, Ireland… A museum to the Brutal heartlessness of the English. The same situation as in India occurred in this (equal since 1801) member of the union. Where rapid population growth was at the root of the potato famine which devastated Ireland in the 1840s. The Irish historian, Tim Pat Coogan, estimates that between the Blight and the last large famine, the population of Ireland had tripled. It is also a myth that the British government was negligent during the famine. The Whatley Commission on Irish poverty in 1833 suggested that large-scale emigration to the colonies be encouraged and proposed that fisheries be developed and land be reclaimed among other measures. Coogan also states that British Prime Minister Robert Peel set aside £100,000, 10 Million in today's money, for purchasing corn for the Irish.
Many claim that the British invented the concentration camp, that they are equal to the Nazis. This is simply fake news (it was the Spanish in Cuba). The Camps in South Africa were for refugees fleeing from war and Famine. The Boer Dutch soldiers fighting against the British used scorched Earth tactics, destroying many Farmsteads. As a response to this, the British opened up Camps offering safety and food to all those who needed it. However far more refugees fled to these camps than planned for. Logistics in the middle of Africa simply couldn't cope with hundreds of thousands of refugees, especially when Boer fighters disrupted the supply lines to the camps. Around 26,000 of the 160,000 refugees died of various diseases which spread quickly in the crowded camps. However disease was common in Africa. Around 14,000 British soldiers also died of disease in the Boer wars. The British authorities were shocked by the suffering in the camps, Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain ordered that "all possible steps are taken to reduce the rate of mortality." Two British Lieutenants were executed for mistreatment of prisoners. At great effort and great cost, the British Empire reduced the death rate of the camps from 7% to 2% within months. This death rate was lower than that of most British cities. The Boer refugee camps illustrate the horrors of war. However in no way can British wartime accidents and regrettable blunders be compared to the systematic murder of Millions of Jews during WW2.
Although like every single nation in history, the British Empire practiced slavery. It was the first nation in history to abolish the trade in 1807 and fought to end its practice worldwide. The British Empire used 40% of its entire budget and a large proportion of its vast navy to stop slavery. As Paul Martin writes for The Guardian, by patrolling the entire African cost with the “West Africa squadron”.The Royal Navy freed an estimated 150,000 slaves and stopped African tribes from providing thousands more. The cost of this operation was so great, British taxpayers were still repaying the debt accumulated until 2015. Kenan Malik also in the Guardian, however criticizes the cost of ending the slave trade, as he states much of the debt was accumulated reimbursing former slave owners. Frankly I find Malik’s view appallingly and unforgivably racist. Reimbursing slavery was the only way to end slavery in the Empire peacefully, without compensation slave owners would never have given up their essential labour. Would a brutal civil war over slaves have been better in Malik’s view? Would he have preferred Millions of people to die and suffer instead? As the world witnessed in the brutal American civil war, slave owners were willing to fight and die over their property. We shouldn’t at all feel guilty about what our ancestors did to abolish slavery, to do so would to be the White Supremacist, plain and simple. The only reason evil practices such as slavery and piracy are mere rumours from distant lands today is because of the great expense the British Empire went to to abolish them. Even if the English took part in both during our history, so did every other nations. What makes British involvement in slavery unique, is that we ended it and forced all others to do the same.
The British introduced civil liberties, freedom of movement and free markets onto its subjects. Have you heard of the practice of “Sati”? What about Lotus Feet? You have not heard of these evil patriarchal practices because the British abolished them. Sati involved the live burning of women on their husbands funeral piers, and Lotus feet was the Chinese practice of binding young girls feet until they became deformed.
The British introduced free press and free speech into their colonies. For the first time, subjects were free to criticize their masters without fear of punishment. The English system of parliamentary Democracy spread with Imperialism. The World's largest Democracies, India and America were both British Colonies. In fact the only reason why Democracy is the now governing form of most nations is due to the British Empire upholding it and spreading it across the globe. Britain had to fight two huge World wars to defend freedom and democracy, such was its importance to Britain.
As Colin Yeo writes in the “New Statesman”, Freedom of Movement was a integral part of the British Empire. And no, this was not one way migration from the British Isles, this was mainly the other way round. If you were born in Zambia, or any Colony, you would have been Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This citizenship meant a even the subject peoples could move to Britain with ease. This practice was ended finally in 1968.
Whether it was abolishing slavery and Widow burning, or introducing Free press and Democracy, everywhere the British went freedom followed. Don’t take it from, take it from Indian Independence fighter Ghandi. He said, “I find that the British Empire Guarantees my Freedom.” If you love freedom, then you should love the British Empire. An Empire which fought two huge World Wars to preserve the freedoms it held so dear.
Many often criticize the British Empire for oppressing foreign cultures, however this didn't happen unless they were contradictory to basic freedoms. When Charles Napier was confronted by an Indian Priest defending Widow Burning, he said “I understand it’s your custom, but the British have a custom too. We hang men who burn women alive. So if you insist on continuing your tradition, of widow burning, then I will insist on following my British tradition of hanging murderers of women.” There was, however a cultural exchange between Colonist and Colonised. British Tea and Imperial Moustaches are Indian while Cricket is perhaps the most embraced British practice.
But what exactly did the British Empire do for its people? Did it loot its Colonies of their natural resources, or did it do more than any other Empire to improve the infrastructure and lives of its subjects? For an in depth look at what the British did for its people, we must turn to the “Crown Jewel” of Empire, India. Or as it was called until 1947, The British Raj.
Incredibly, 80% of India’s current railways were built by the British Empire. Thats 54,000 KM of track over their tenure over the sub-continent. 140,000 Bridges were constructed in India by the British, as well as around 50000 miles of road, alongside dams and 75000 miles of canals. India’s richest Cities; Bombay, New Delhi and Calcutta were all built by the British.
21 universities established in the Indian Subcontinent and 500 colleges were in operation. A vast 13 Million students studied in 300,000 British Built schools. By 1890 some 60,000 Indians had matriculated from these Universities. About a third entered public administration, and another third became lawyers. The result was a very well educated professional state bureaucracy. This is evident as 70% of Civil Service jobs in India were held by Indians, not White British, and the literacy rate increased by 17x. Without all these investments and constructions, India would never have been able to develop as a nation. If only our own government did all this for us today!
All these investments in India cost money, about £50 Billion Pounds (in modern money) was invested in British India during its existence. In comparison, the amount of British investment in the United States around 1840 has been estimated between ₤2 Billion and ₤4 Billion. These developments ensured that the GDP of India doubled over the British rule of India, and yearly growth saw a 5x increase, while GDP per capita increased by $200. India got richer thanks to the British. As for the claim the British looted India's wealth, that is simply not true. The Bank of England records the Indian reserve Bank held a positive balance of £1160 million, with it, on 14 July 1947, and that British India maintained a trade surplus, with the United Kingdom, for the duration of the British Raj. This meant more money was coming from Britain to India than the other way around.
Although the British did do a lot for India and its other Colonies, a common argument made is that India’s GDP dropped from around 23% of the world Economy in 1700 to only 4% 1950. While this may be true, the reasons for this decline are far from the fault of the British. The India experienced a rapid decline in its world GDP share 100 years before the British took control. This was due to a combination of globalisation and the industrial revolution. All the world's manufacturing industry moved from Asia to Europe, and now it is returning to places like India. While the British made a profit from Indian trade, this was far from a one sided looting operation. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement, far better than what India had 1950-90 or under the Mughals.
The Shakee Massacre on June 23, 1925 resulted in over 50 deaths due to gunfire by British, French and Portuguese forces in Guangzhou, China On June 21, 1925, workers in Hong Kong and Canton went on strike in support of the anti-imperialist May Thirtieth Movement in Shanghai. Two days later, on June 23, over 100,000 people convened in Eastern Jiaochang, announcing their plans to remove imperialism forcefully. At 3 am the conflict began. British and French soldiers, hearing gunshots, began to fire on the protesters. In addition, British warships fired on the north coast of Shameen. Only 50 were killed, 23 of these being professional soldiers. Considering the violence was mainly committed by the French or Portuguese forces, the violent circumstances and the relatively few casualties, this massacre is insignificant in claiming the British were evil.
Between 1865 and 1914 as much British investment went to Africa, Asia, and Latin America as to the United Kingdom itself. Between 4 to 8 percent of GNP was being sent out of the country by British investors in the years 1871—1913, a number significantly higher than that for other developed colonial nations at the time. This massively hurt native British industry, at the expense of overseas development. The native Britons suffered from lack of government investment in them, and soon called for more left wing governments. If the British Empire had taken capital from its colonies, they would have added 50% to British national income. The fact that the British did not ruthlessly exploit their colonies, when it would have brought so many benefits, is a tribute to Imperial benevolence. Estimates of British actual overseas investment, as a percentage of total investment, is 47.7 percent by Edelstein (1982).
When the idea of British Imperialism in Africa springs to mind, it often entails an image of White Supremacists mowing down thousands of helpless natives and then enslaving them. Then dividing up the continent into artificial states, which caused civil war and infighting. Resources were looted, and native cultures suppressed. This is all balderdash. For example, 6 out of the ten richest African Countries were British Colonies. 15 of the 22 most free sub Saharan African countries ranked by Freedom house were British colonies or are in the Commonwealth.
Native cultures were supported by the British. For example in Egypt, where on n the whole, the rich and powerful ruling classes in Egypt accepted British rule ( They often sent their children to be educated in Britain. They became lawyers and administrators on behalf of the British.) the British did not try to interfere with the Islamic beliefs of the vast majority of Africans. In fact, British governors actually provided subsidies to help with the building of mosques. In West Africa, where several kingdoms begged for British protection from the French, local chieftains ruled their own peoples using their own customs. However, they paid taxes to Britain. Like in Egypt, the traditional elite gained from British rule and new classes developed.
In South Africa, the local White Boers disliked British rule. They wanted a simple farming life, but British rule made their country increasingly a place of industry and business. The Boers also felt that the native Africans were inferior and should be treated as slaves, while the British insisted that Africans should have rights, and also that British merchants should have the right to mine diamonds in the colony. This lead to conflicts between the British and Boers, which the British won. To compensate the Boers after the wars, massive investment was funnelled into their lands and compromises were reached in regards to African rights. After the British left, the local Whites passed many discriminatory, “separating”, laws.
The Zulus played a key part in South African history. After Shaka the Greats genocidal conquests, the Zulus continued to expand. War broke out over the murder of several Zulus seeking British sanctuary, and local border disputes. After the British defeat at Isandlwana and subsequent victory over the Zulus, no revenge was taken out such as after the Battle of Little Bighorn. The Zulu’s nation was merely carved up and placed under local client chiefs. They were not genocided, as in German West Africa.
The argument that Britain created atrifal states out of hundreds of divided tribes is true, but that has always been the way of Africa. Often, the situation was worse before the British came. The Khedive of Egypt controlled land from Turkey to Mecca, through Syria, through Israel, down the nile to Ethiopia and lake Victoria. This vast state was split up into 10. The Mali, Zulu and Benin Empires all controlled many tribes, with their own artificial borders. To give every culture its own state would have been impossible, as there were thousands of them. The intolerance of African tribes and their neighbours is not the British Empire's fault, but a natural state of societal evolution that was sped up and made less violent by the British.
One point constantly brought up to condemn the British Empire is the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. This was a militant extremist cult, which brutally murdered or tortured thousands of Kenyan, Asian and British civilians to achieve their nationalistic aims during the 1950s. The best known European victim was Michael Ruck, aged six, who was hacked to death with pangas along with his parents, Roger and Esme, and one of the Rucks' farm workers who had tried to help the family. The British responded by sending troops in to stop these terrorists. Some were badly beaten and sometimes tortured, including Barack Obama's grandfather. However this was rare, and normal treatment of terrorist inmates at the time. The uprising continued even after the British left Kenya in 1964. Many cry “massacre!” in relation to this war. However this is nonsense as always. The Hola “massacre” involved a prison riot, were only 11 inmates died. The Chuka “massacre” was the mistaken execution of 20 Kikuyu Home Guard — a loyalist militia recruited by the British to fight the guerrillas. The Mau Mau uprising can be compared to an ISIS rising 70 years ago, which would be met with much more brutality than it did even today. Britain also paid £20 Million in compensation to any innocents that suffered.
This counterinsurgency plan was used during the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s. The situation in Malaya was dire due to a large Communist uprising, which received large sympathy from the population. 500,000 Chinese peasants who had illegally moved and farmed on rural Malaysian areas were removed and put in “New Villages”, where they received piped water, electricity, education and good health care.
These people had formed the backbone of the communist guerrilla support: some were genuinely sympathetic to communism; others, considering the weak British presence, communist self-help activism, and the leading role that the communists had played in the anti-Japanese resistance during World War II. They thus regarded the Malayan Communist Party as a legitimate authority, and were not hard to prey upon for contributions. Still others were definitely threatened by the guerrillas into giving support.
By isolating this population in the "new villages", the British were able to stem the critical flow of material, information, and recruits from peasants to guerillas. The new settlements were guarded around-the-clock by police and were partially fortified. This served the twofold purpose of preventing those who were so inclined from getting out and voluntarily aiding the guerrilla, and of preventing the guerrilla from getting in and extracting help via persuasion or intimidation.
This strategy, considering the fact these Chinese were on the land illegally, were aiding the Communists and received excellent care in the New Villages, was perfectly justified. What was not, however, was Batang Kali massacre. This involved the killing of 24 Malaysian civilians by an army patrol. 6 of the 8 men involved were investigated by the British. Although this was awful, it is nothing in comparison to the Millions of people around the world being executed by Communist regimes at the time.
Context is always crucial when debating the past. The Empire dominated world was a very different place, according to our modern standards everybody was a racist. The actions of men 100 years ago may seem horrendous today, but in another century all your beliefs will be seen as backwards. For most of our history, we have lived under Empires. So the criticism of the British Empire for merely existing is irrelevant, almost all countries had an Empire. The question is, was the British Empire better or worse in its treatment of subjects than all the others? To find out, we must examine the deeds of Britain's competitors for global domination.
The German Empire performed Herero and Namaqua Genocides in Namibia, in which 110,000 Africans were brutally slaughtered. The Chocolate loving Belgians Genocided over 13 Million Africans and enslaved the entire Congo. The Turkish Empire performed several Genocides on its ethnic Greek and Armenian Populations. The Japanese Empire murdered over 10 Million people in cold blood and performed the systematic Rape of entire cities. The Spanish Empire is responsible for the deaths of over 70 Million Native Americans. The Chinese Qing Empire killed around 30 Million Muslims and Christians. The Portuguese started the transatlantic slave trade. The Nazis killed 12 Million and started a World War, while the Soviets genocided 20 Million Ukrainians, 6 Million German civilians and 60 Million of their own people. The French Empire forced its subjects into unpaid labour and compelled them to learn French. Most French colonies had to literally fight for their independence, while the British granted it peacefully.
The worst so called “genocide” committed by the British was in Tasmania, where over 800 were killed (including 200 British). This “genocide” occurred in The Black War, and was committed by colonial rouges with no links to the government. About 100 Tasmanian Aboriginal people survived the conflict and Nicholas Clements (2014)—who calculates that the Black War began with an indigenous population of about 2000—has therefore concluded 900 died in that time. He surmises that about one-third may have died through internecine conflict, disease and natural deaths, leaving a "conservative and realistic" estimate of 600 who died in frontier violence, though he admits: "The true figure might be as low as 400”. Although this was tragic, it in no way was or is comparable to any other systematic murder of millions of people, like Stalin's Holodomor or Hitler's Holocaust, which killed 20-40 Million combined.
Clements accepts the genocide argument but also exonerates the colonists themselves of the charge of genocide. He says that unlike genocidal determinations by Nazis against Jews in World War II, Hutus against Tutsis in Rwanda and Ottomans against Armenians in present-day Turkey, which were carried out for ideological reasons, Tasmanian settlers participated in violence largely out of revenge and self-preservation. He adds: "Even those who were motivated by sex or morbid thrill seeking lacked any ideological impetus to exterminate the natives." He also argues that while genocides are inflicted on defeated, captive or otherwise vulnerable minorities, Tasmanian natives appeared as a "capable and terrifying enemy" to colonists and were killed in the context of a war in which both sides killed non-combatants.
Yes, most people in the British Empire were racist, the subject peoples included. But we have to understand that everybody back then was racist and that racism isn't unique to Europeans. In fact, we are far better at killing each other than those in our colonies. The British Empire did their best to end the racist caste system in India, while upholding the “No independence without majority rule” policy in Africa. This policy led to angry White Farmers in African Colonies declaring independence to escape British policies of racial equality. Zimbabwe and South Africa are both examples of this.
But what did the British do for the world other than abolishing slavery, spreading democracy, introducing basic freedoms, investing in huge infrastructure projects, and increasing the supply of food? They saved it from evil. In 1940, with the surrender of France in WW2 and with the Hitler-Stalin pact in force, The British Empire was the sole combatant in the war against Communism and Nazism, Britain stood alone against the combined tyrannies of the World. There was a time when the words “We will never surrender” sounded like a lie. But thanks to our Empire, the British eventually defeated tyranny.
The British have always been there in European history, standing up to the continental bullies. They lead a coalition which defeated Napoleon, liberated Greece, fought the Great War against Empire building tyrants, won WW2 against evil and stood up to Communism in the cold war. We have always been on the right, just and liberal side of history. Which is a lot more than most nations, except perhaps America, can claim. Any “war crimes” that were committed in these wars were insignificant compared with the horrors we fought against in all. With luck the EU will fall thanks to us.
But the sun did set on the British Empire. Nationalism has a habit of dying out among the victors, and thriving among the downtrodden. So next time you look up at a full moon, and remember that Britain’s Empire was larger than that huge body, as a Brit don’t feel guilty. At the very least we were just like all the other Empires which have dominated and overseen the progress of human history.