Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Hookey wrote: »
    On the other hand, I think there needs to be some back up about the UK milking India for funds during WWII, I was under the impression the opposite was the case,

    To more fully explain what I meant about money and imperialism. Money was at the heart of imperialism from its earliest roots – this applied to Ireland as it did to other parts of the empire. It was the earliest issue in Ireland very shorty after the initial incursions here in the twelfth century. In fact, the first parliament held in Dublin - at the end of the thirteenth century - was to discuss the wilful lack of tax payments by the Irish to the English treasury.

    The British had been milking funds from India for decades and accelerated this after WWI. Taxation was endemic; land tax was enormous and the Salt Tax being one of the ongoing issues for the Independence movement. When Gandhi declared Indian Independence in 1930 he made this salt tax a target – but it continued until 1947. By the time of WWII Indian coffers were so reduced – but the taxes continued, money continued to leave India - that the British were forced to put money in so as to shore up India’s treasury. This was purely an ulterior action. One of the problems for the British was the enormous [British] Indian Army fighting in WWII – so much Indian money was leaving India that they had to be paid out of British funds - but the independence leaders [rightly] saw this financial input as debt, not a gift to India.

    The fear for Indian leaders was that by the end of WWII India would be so far into debt to the British that they would face mountains of taxation that would go on forever. It all gave momentum to the push for independence. Britain itself was so broke as a result of two world wars that continuing to take on Indian resistance became impossible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    To more fully explain what I meant about money and imperialism. Money was at the heart of imperialism from its earliest roots – this applied to Ireland as it did to other parts of the empire. It was the earliest issue in Ireland very shorty after the initial incursions here in the twelfth century. In fact, the first parliament held in Dublin - at the end of the thirteenth century - was to discuss the wilful lack of tax payments by the Irish to the English treasury.

    The British had been milking funds from India for decades and accelerated this after WWI. Taxation was endemic; land tax was enormous and the Salt Tax being one of the ongoing issues for the Independence movement. When Gandhi declared Indian Independence in 1930 he made this salt tax a target – but it continued until 1947. By the time of WWII Indian coffers were so reduced – but the taxes continued, money continued to leave India - that the British were forced to put money in so as to shore up India’s treasury. This was purely an ulterior action. One of the problems for the British was the enormous [British] Indian Army fighting in WWII – so much Indian money was leaving India that they had to be paid out of British funds - but the independence leaders [rightly] saw this financial input as debt, not a gift to India.

    The fear for Indian leaders was that by the end of WWII India would be so far into debt to the British that they would face mountains of taxation that would go on forever. It all gave momentum to the push for independence. Britain itself was so broke as a result of two world wars that continuing to take on Indian resistance became impossible.

    I was aware of the contributions made by several princes to help out, but not of the rest. again, do you have any further reading?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    I was aware of the contributions made by several princes to help out, but not of the rest. again, do you have any further reading?


    Are you asking for reading on India? If so, I would suggest “A History of Modern India 1480-1950" edited by Claude Makovits. It's considered to be an excellent study using contemporary available sources. I have a copy and like it - must confess I haven't read it cover to cover yet, just the parts that I wanted to explore first. Not sure how you will feel about what is said about Churchill...but it explores very well the fears that Indians had in WW II about their vulnerability to British rule and the amount of men and money that India contributed to the war effort.

    For another perspective Indivar Kamtekar sees India and Imperialism from a purely class situation and gives some interesting insights. I have some of his papers but when I tried to search did not come up with anything other than sites that offered his work for sale. You could search yourself...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    For an ecological perspective that takes in historical and economic analysis of Britain's exploitation of India, try This Fissured Land by Gadhil and Guha.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Will do. India is a fascinating country with a fascinating past (and present).

    For the record, I am not a massive Churchill fan, but he was, without a doubt, the driving force behind British survival during WWII and beyond that, a vast amount of what he predicted was right. He was, for example, an advocat of home rule for not just Ireland but also Scotland and Wales. He saw this as a natural progression and the best way of keeping the UK together longer term. He also predicted that a hastened British withdrawel from India would result in bloodshed. It is also worth noting, for the record, that a big proportion of the blame for the Bengal famine lay with the people of India, not the British government. It was not the export of food that caused the shortage it was stockpiling by local traders looking to make a profit from a weakening supply chain, caused by the Japanese invasion of Burma.

    Most people I have encountered knock Churchill not for his dated views of the Empire, but because when someone is held up on a pedestal like Churchill is, it is easy to try and knock him off.

    Will we be hearing of Churchill gassing 20,000 kurds in this thread?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    links? quotes?

    Churchill is probably the most quoted admired man in British History, therefore, people will take every quote and action of his and create their own view on him. You should read some of the positive books written about him, rather than just the anti Churchill books.
    Yeah, the sort of ' Churchill the man who defaeted Germany and Japan and held Communism back all on his own ' sort of nonsense. Churchill had about as much to do with defeating Germany etc as the dog in the insurance adds.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Yeah, the sort of ' Churchill the man who defaeted Germany and Japan and held Communism back all on his own ' sort of nonsense. Churchill had about as much to do with defeating Germany etc as the dog in the insurance adds.

    links? quotes?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub



    For the record, I am not a massive Churchill fan, but he was, without a doubt, the driving force behind British survival during WWII and beyond that, a vast amount of what he predicted was right. He was, for example, an advocat of home rule for not just Ireland but also Scotland and Wales. He saw this as a natural progression and the best way of keeping the UK together longer term. He also predicted that a hastened British withdrawel from India would result in bloodshed.

    I agree he was the driving force for the British - but that is what made him so reviled in other countries of the empire. He mowed down any attempts at independence of the "possessions" and was ruthless about it. His Black and Tans devastated Ireland.
    It is also worth noting, for the record, that a big proportion of the blame for the Bengal famine lay with the people of India, not the British government. It was not the export of food that caused the shortage it was stockpiling by local traders looking to make a profit from a weakening supply chain, caused by the Japanese invasion of Burma.

    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 scotched 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.
    Most people I have encountered knock Churchill not for his dated views of the Empire, but because when someone is held up on a pedestal like Churchill is, it is easy to try and knock him off.

    Not that easy - would that it were. Myths can be dangerous to future stability and used as reasons to perpetuate the myth of heroic military solutions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 mrtaylor1981


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Yeah, the sort of ' Churchill the man who defaeted Germany and Japan and held Communism back all on his own ' sort of nonsense. Churchill had about as much to do with defeating Germany etc as the dog in the insurance adds.
    The Provo bigot trying to be funny and failing as usual. Churchill is a world respected and honoured political leader.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 MiniDriver


    MarchDub wrote: »
    You have to go back before this post war period to see the seeds of Indian partition being planted. It was actually during the World War II that partition essentially became inevitable. As British PM Churchill was a dedicated imperialist who couldn't think of ever granting India independence – he was also a racist who detested Indians. ("I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.") He totally lost control of India under his watch.

    During WWII Churchill drained India of money. India gave billions of pounds (hundreds of billions in today's figures) to financing the war, and two million Indian soldiers to fight. Churchill totally lacked respect for this contribution and refused to send wheat to alleviate the Bengal Famine of 1943. In fact he had his own “let them eat cake” moment when he sent a message in response for an appeal for help with “If there is no food, how come Gandhi isn’t dead yet”. Eventually the Brits did send food but the seeds of great bitterness were sown as 4 million people died.

    What is important is not the what or how or why of this famine but that it happened under British rule and under the premiership of Churchill. It left enormous bitterness behind. Sound familiar?

    More significantly [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Churchill's policy was to foster Hindu-Muslim antipathy to preserve British rule. [/font]The consequences of this policy would eventually lead to partition.

    By the end of the war anti-British feeling was at a height in India, at which point a colonial problem had grown into a full blown call for independence. Those who came after Churchill were left to deal with the problem of division in India over a path forward.

    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.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,126 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,972 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    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? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Who endured six years of total war? :confused:

    Erm, the UK? Is this a trick question?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,972 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Hookey wrote: »
    Erm, the UK? Is this a trick question?

    No, it's not. :confused:

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    No, it's not. :confused:

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,972 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,972 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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.


Advertisement