FROM OUR BENGAL FAMINE EDITOR, WINSTON HUNGERGAME

“WHAT WAS A man of Indian heritage doing attending a memorial to the army of a country that murdered three million Indians by famine in 1943 anyway?”

Professor Gobnet Gandhi-McBride, an Indian historian born in South Africa, whose latest book Awkward Questions: World War Two Under The Allied Boot is published in September, told the Bugle that he felt “the Bengal Famine Holocaust may have pricked to Mr Sunak’s conscience as he watched his fellow Britishers once again hold themselves up as the saviors of mankind. This narrative is not only jaded, and clearly running out of steam as British power continues to decline, it is to Indians, hypocrisy. At no time during the entirety of the Second World War did Germany have as many people under its boot as Britain did. Virtually the entire Indian political leadership, 60,000 people, including Gandhi, had to be locked in prison just to make the sub-continent work in Britain’s imperial interests. Remember, the war in Asia was predominantly a war between empires, not a war of liberation. It was a war for control of the eastern end of the continent and the Pacific sea routes. Nothing more.”

Professor Gandhi-Burke, whose previous book, American Projections: The Endless Extension of Monroe, insisted that the USA fought the Second World War solely for control of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and that Britain’s short-term luck was that it provided an aircraft carrier close to the European mainland, says that it was only perceived Japanese and German threats to these sea routes that provoked inevitable war.

“Of course, even before they were combatants, the Americans were already stripping another of their targets while at the same time using it as a proxy against German. A hidden agenda rarely discussed, the break-up of the British Empire was facilitated by Churchill’s willingness to continue fighting Germany well after it made strategic sense. The Americans helped London towards bankruptcy by helping her war effort. With friends like that, as they say … I suppose we former colonial subjects do owe the Americans a sincere debt of gratitude. Thanks. Because they did more damage to the British Empire in five years of lend-lease than the Germans and Japanese managed in both world wars. If the British had just done a deal with Hitler in 1940, they may have kept their empire much longer, and probably saved many Jews from the fate that a European-locked Germany inflicted upon them. The irony is Churchill was an imperialist to his marrow, determined to save his precious empire from Hitler no matter what, but it was his myopic Hitler policy that lost the British Empire. A smarter man might have done a deal with Adolf and let the Nazis and Communists fight it out to their own mutual destruction and then re-entered the conflict when it suited, as had been British practice prior to the First World War.”

The professor, whose YouTube channel, Spin Bowling and the Indian Mind, has an audience of millions, also remarked on the airbrushing of Russia from the recent D-Day celebrations. “Yes, this is the big empty. It’s clear now, that without the massive Russian Bagration Offensive in the east, two weeks after D-Day, the Allied landings in Normandy might have stalled or even been pushed back into the sea. Certainly, at the British and Canadian end of the invasion line, they were struggling and continued to do so for weeks. Russian pressure, and allied air and naval power kept them in the game; and, of course, the courage of the fighting men, the last of whom are now wheeled out every ten years to give legitimacy to their usually under-performing descendants. What will they do when all these men are dead? And the Russians? Back then, fighting German tanks and Ukrainians, they were heroes; now, of course, their grandsons and great-grandsons, once again fighting German tanks and Ukrainians, are villains. But we’ve been down this road before, haven’t we: during French Revolutionary and Napoleonic times they were heroes, then villains, and then heroes again; while in the 1850s – in the Crimea – they were just villains once more, only to return to being heroes – and then villains again – during WW1. Sometimes, you need a strong stomach to digest this stuff. Perhaps Mr Sunak just doesn’t have one. That high moral ground, it just keeps getting higher.”