Imperialism during WWII and USSR's aims in the wars aftermath

Capt'n Midnight

MiniDriver wrote: »

Sen actually lived through the famine and came to some very interesting conclusions. Some of them have been challenged more recently but this book did revolutionise the understanding of how famines occur and how they are often not related to the actual supply of food.

+1

MarchDub

MiniDriver wrote: »

Hmmm. Well there's a lot more to the Bengal Famine than just Churchill hating Indians. His influence on it was not obviously good or bad. Leo Amery may be more worthy of scorn, but really the reasons for this particular famine are complex and strange. Like many famines, its cause was less an absence of food than the rumour of an absence (and subsequent hoarding).

If anyone wants to look at this seriously (instead of armchair finger-pointing) then Amartya Sen's "Poverty and Famines" is the definitive work: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/Economic/?view=usa&ci=9780198284635

Sen actually lived through the famine and came to some very interesting conclusions. Some of them have been challenged more recently but this book did revolutionise the understanding of how famines occur and how they are often not related to the actual supply of food.

I think if you read my post #59 you will see that I do not for a moment suggest that it was at ALL a simple matter of Churchill's emotions...far from it in fact. I would suggest you keep up with the thread and not jump in and answer an older post...quoting now:



"The causes of the Bengal famine are far more complex. Like any famine - including our own - there were a number of forces that came into play. The movement of food had been disrupted by the war. And remember the feeling among nationalists in India was this was a war that was "imposed" on India. The British had declared that India was at war - without consulting anyone in India.

There was no deficit in the rice harvest but the means of getting food to the hungry was a major issue. As a direct result of the war the system of transporting rice in the delta of eastern Bengal was disrupted. In fact it was totally eliminated by the British decision to destroy several thousand boats. This is described by an Indian historian as "a scorched earth policy with a view to preventing Japanese invasion". Hoarding was partly done also because of a fear of Japanese invasion and the lack of ability to transport part of the harvest. Prices soared - as they did in the Irish Famine. Common occurrence with a food shortage. Hundreds of thousands flocked toward Calcutta where they died.

The actual causes of famine are always complex but when the government in control does not respond quickly and decisively - it leaves great bitterness behind. The British were regarded in India as failing in this case."

McArmalite

Hookey wrote: »

Easy to blame the (rather thick) Louis Mountbatten, who was little more than a figurehead;

Mountbatten was well aware of the likely violence and the lack of a plan to deal with this. Though Cyril Radcliffe's maps with the boundary lines of India and Pakistan were ready earlier, Mountbatten kept it under lock and key until the pageantry, splendor and photo opportunities of Indpendence day and the British could no more be blamed for the violence or the ineptitude with which it was handled. His reasoning: "the earlier it was published, the more the British would have to bear the responsibility for the disturbances which would undoubtedly result". http://toprack.blogspot.com/2006/11/shameful-flight-by-stanley-wolpert.html

Congress voted for it (in the teeth of Gandhi's objections) because they saw partition as the only solution,

The Congress leaders had been balckmailed by british puppet Jinnah and Muslim League's by June, 1947 that only an immediate transfer of power could forestall the spread of further violence like the previous year with their Paisley style declaration of "Direct Action Day" in August ,1946 for the purpose of stirring up secterian hatred ( which the british wanted as part of their divide and rule strategy) and which led to the deaths of 1,000's. "We do not want war, if you want war we accept your offer unhesitatingly. We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed." The creation of the state of Pakistan was created regardless on July 18, 1947 when Westminister passed the Indian Independence Act that finalized partition.

and the overwhelming majority of Muslims wanted it.

And the overwhelming majority of the people of India did not want it, but of course they counted for nothing as the british had another agenda :rolleyes:.

The mess that came afterwards was all down to the Indians and Pakistanis

Ah yes, typical imperialist bullsh!t - it's all the natives fault, while a benign, benevolent completely neutral british try to bear the white man's burden :rolleyes:. The mess was all down to britian's divide and rule policy and it's use of agent provocateurs ( a person or persons employed by an entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit a wrong or rash action ) in Jinnah and the Muslim League.Sadly succeding.

McArmalite

MarchDub wrote: »

I think if you read my post #59 you will see that I do not for a moment suggest that it was at ALL a simple matter of Churchill's emotions...far from it in fact. I would suggest you keep up with the thread and not jump in and answer an older post...quoting now:



"The causes of the Bengal famine are far more complex. Like any famine - including our own - there were a number of forces that came into play. The movement of food had been disrupted by the war. And remember the feeling among nationalists in India was this was a war that was "imposed" on India. The British had declared that India was at war - without consulting anyone in India.

There was no deficit in the rice harvest but the means of getting food to the hungry was a major issue. As a direct result of the war the system of transporting rice in the delta of eastern Bengal was disrupted. In fact it was totally eliminated by the British decision to destroy several thousand boats. This is described by an Indian historian as "a scorched earth policy with a view to preventing Japanese invasion". Hoarding was partly done also because of a fear of Japanese invasion and the lack of ability to transport part of the harvest. Prices soared - as they did in the Irish Famine. Common occurrence with a food shortage. Hundreds of thousands flocked toward Calcutta where they died.

The actual causes of famine are always complex but when the government in control does not respond quickly and decisively - it leaves great bitterness behind. The British were regarded in India as failing in this case."

In 1943, India produced 50 million tons of food grains – enough to feed its population of 400 million. Yet 1.5 million people died of starvation in Bengal that year primarily due to mismanagement.

Bengal’s governor Herbert and Viceroy Lord Wavell pleaded for food grains. Britain’s war transport minister Baron Frederick James Leathers kept 6 million tons stored in ships in Indian Ocean but did not spare it for the starving. Wavell’s report to an uninterested Prime Minister Churchill says “the famine in Bengal was largely due to ministerial incompetence”.

http://toprack.blogspot.com/2006/11/shameful-flight-by-stanley-wolpert.html

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In hindsight it is very easy to judge. non of us can imagine what it was like to endure six years of total war. Yes, the Poles were sold out to an extent, but after six years at war with Nazi Germany, a war with Russia would have caused even more bloodshed and potentially could have had the unthinkable outcome of Russia controlling all of europe.

in terms of morals, I suggest we be a bit less judgemental.

Who endured six years of total war?

Hookey

Zebra3 wrote: »

Who endured six years of total war?

Erm, the UK? Is this a trick question?

Hookey

McArmalite wrote: »

stuff....

Ah yes, typical imperialist bullsh!t - it's all the natives fault, while a benign, benevolent completely neutral british try to bear the white man's burden :rolleyes:. The mess was all down to britian's divide and rule policy and it's use of agent provocateurs ( a person or persons employed by an entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit a wrong or rash action ) in Jinnah and the Muslim League.Sadly succeding.

At what point do you stop blaming the British and start blaming the people on the ground? Apart from the fact that its incredibly patronising (what, was everyone in India too stupid to see the evil British machinations? Give me a break), you also have to ask, why? You've said it was all down to Britain's divide and rule policy, "rule" what exactly? They were leaving remember? Post-colonial India was being set up as a Hindu state, with no voice for Muslims, it was partition or civil war (and then partition), and to somehow conflate that into a British plot where the Indians, if left alone would have all held hands around the campfire singing cum-by-ya, is utter crap.

Zebra3

Hookey wrote: »

Erm, the UK? Is this a trick question?

No, it's not.

Six weeks on the run from the Germans in 1940 and 11 months of total war from June 1944-May 1945 hardly constitutes six years of total war.

Hookey

Zebra3 wrote: »

No, it's not.

Six weeks on the run from the Germans in 1940 and 11 months of total war from June 1944-May 1945 hardly constitutes six years of total war.

Ah, so the Battle of The Atlantic, the Blitz, North Africa, Crete, Sicily, Italy, Burma, Singapore, Malaya, the blackout, evacuation, war production, the air war, don't count then? Just so I know.

Zebra3

Hookey wrote: »

Ah, so the Battle of The Atlantic, the Blitz, North Africa, Crete, Sicily, Italy, Burma, Singapore, Malaya, the blackout, evacuation, war production, the air war, don't count then? Just so I know.

As six years of total war?

No, it doesn't.

Does phoney war count as total war then? Just so I know. :rolleyes:

brianthebard

Hookey wrote: »

At what point do you stop blaming the British and start blaming the people on the ground? Apart from the fact that its incredibly patronising (what, was everyone in India too stupid to see the evil British machinations? Give me a break), you also have to ask, why? You've said it was all down to Britain's divide and rule policy, "rule" what exactly? They were leaving remember? Post-colonial India was being set up as a Hindu state, with no voice for Muslims, it was partition or civil war (and then partition), and to somehow conflate that into a British plot where the Indians, if left alone would have all held hands around the campfire singing cum-by-ya, is utter crap.

Divide and rule was a policy used by the British since at least the Mutiny in the mid ninteenth century. India did not have to be a hindu state, and there was and is space for Muslims within it-there are still more Muslims in India than Pakistan today.

Hookey

brianthebard wrote: »

Divide and rule was a policy used by the British since at least the Mutiny in the mid ninteenth century. India did not have to be a hindu state, and there was and is space for Muslims within it-there are still more Muslims in India than Pakistan today.

I don't disagree, but in India the British were leaving, which rather negates the "rule" part of divide and rule doesn't it.

Read up on the history of Congress, it was a Hindu boys club and Muslims still get a raw deal in India to this day.

Hookey

Zebra3 wrote: »

As six years of total war?

No, it doesn't.

Does phoney war count as total war then? Just so I know. :rolleyes:

Do you actually know what the definition of Total War is? "Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilisation of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use of their rival's capacity to continue resistance."

The British were on a total war footing almost from the start (way before the Germans); full conscription, including women conscripts, and a full switch to a war economy and everything in service of that economy. And yes, the phony war does count.

Zebra3

Hookey wrote: »

Do you actually know what the definition of Total War is? "Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilisation of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use of their rival's capacity to continue resistance."

So all that is included as total war even if you're not actually out fighting the opposition? :rolleyes:

MarchDub

Hookey wrote: »

I don't disagree, but in India the British were leaving, which rather negates the "rule" part of divide and rule doesn't it.

Actually the idiom is also known as "divide and conquer" - and the policy was central to both conquest and continued control. Keep the factions fighting amongst themselves and each will be too weak to mount any kind of resistance to the central power - i.e British control.

It worked throughout the empire often with direct interference from those in "control"- as in the case of Ireland with the English Conservative Party openly inciting the fledgling Unionists against Home Rule.

But it failed as a policy - or wasn't sufficient- when nationalist resistance became too strong - and the British went broke from funding too many wars. But the policy of division left tragic results behind it. The divisions - so carefully nurtured - were not to go away so easily. I frankly don't see how the fact of the British being forced out of anywhere negates their culpability in the resulting chaos of this policy.

Hookey

Zebra3 wrote: »

So all that is included as total war even if you're not actually out fighting the opposition? :rolleyes:

Except they were. As I've already pointed out, there was hardly a day between 1940 and 1945 where the British weren't fighting the Axis somewhere. You seem to have the view that unless its armies on a battlefield it doesn't count.