Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zollandd t1_jcoq9dn wrote

Reply to comment by ChemoDrugs in TIL that a famine in Persia (Iran) between 1917–1919 lead to the deaths of an estimated 2 million people. It's an event that hasn't been studied by many historians. by icantthinkofaname940

What are you referring to?

2

ChemoDrugs t1_jcor4dh wrote

The fact that they limited jewish asylum seekers trying to enter Palestine to just 15,000 a year during the late 1930’s through the 1940’s. Because money.

Edit: I’m not sure what you down voters expected other than a factual answer.

Edit 2: I’ll keep my statement but also admit to oversimplifying the complex problem.

−5

daveashaw t1_jcowuk0 wrote

They also didn't want an Arab revolt. The Jewish community leaders and the Arab community leaders would sit down regularly with the British authorities, who were just trying to stop stuff from getting blown up, both literally and figuratively. No wonder the British ran for the exits as soon as they could.

10

zollandd t1_jcp0upg wrote

I agree, no reason to down vote a clarification.

Although, I do think the limit had it's reasons which were arguably quite just. England played a large role in both the spike in Zionism and the decision of Palestine being the location for the new Jewish state. Until they pulled out (immigrants pushing them out) they were overseeing the migration. The indigenous peoples were justifiably upset once they felt the repercussions of the immigration and once they were able to actually read the Balfour declaration and British Mandate. The limit was an agreement between the Palestinians and England.

I think it is more appropriate to censure England for not allowing more refugees into their own country rather than being upset at how few they funneled into someone else's land.

2

ChemoDrugs t1_jcpjqjk wrote

But both can be true. All the allies, not just Britain should have done more. And Britain had plenty to gain by leaning more towards the arabic people. They took the land for money and they tried to maintain control for money. There is no other reason for them to be there other than that.

And if I came across hostile towards you, completely unintentional. Just adding to the conversation.

−1

operating5percpower t1_jcraptw wrote

The British didn't take Palestine for money it literally cost the British tax payer money to hold Palestine. Seeing everything capitalist country do through the eyes of making money is a blind spot that has led to Marxist academic who use such perspective miss calculating the path of event time and again.

1

ChemoDrugs t1_jcrcxdy wrote

Then why did they take over Palestine? What is the end goal if it’s not money?

1

jervoise t1_jcpgo8v wrote

For your edit, Because you were factual, until your last remark.

What “money” did the British gain from not allowing Jews to enter Palestine?

That area was quickly turning into a hotbed, it’s why the British would pull out in the next decade. But at the time, WW2 was ongoing. If the Arabs revolted mid war the British would not have the capacity to answer it. Ignoring even the strategic reasons, the Arabs would likely end up killing a lot of the Jewish refugees.

1

ChemoDrugs t1_jcpip22 wrote

Why else would you control land that is not yours to begin with? You don’t get to just pick “middle east hotbed” and not acknowledge why colonialism happened in the first place. The whole comment chain started because of it being on the British.

By stemming the tide of jewish refugees and putting the process in the hands of the Arabis, they fully intended to fix their image and maintain control. So they absolutely had money to gain.

0

jervoise t1_jcpkw32 wrote

The addition of more people doesn’t reduce the amount of money made though does it?

For sure, they intended to maintain control, but how can you argue the british losing control during WW2 would be good for anyone?

Who benefits from a vastly larger Jewish populations fighting Arab rebels with the British unable to intercede due to the Germans and Italians moving west from Libya?

Sometimes there’s a bit more to things than the British being a super villain. They were wrong to take that area in the first place, but the actions they took there aren’t turbo evil 24/7.

3

ChemoDrugs t1_jcpm6xf wrote

I guess my simplification does come off as super evil. The money to gain by doing what the population would want is a long term. Their control was slipping in India so the Empire was on full decline. To me it was reactionary damage control to try and keep it.

I appreciate your input though so I’m not tryin to come off as argumentative. But I’m not always good at that. Definitely learning a lot from the comments as a whole.

0