warspite1
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
I raised the issue of the Bengal famine to make the point that none of the colonial powers were remotely close to being beacons of moral righteousness.
And who ever claimed they were? As said, by the standards of today they are wrong. But, in less enlightened times it’s what countries did - whether Monarchies, Republics or whatever – Belgium, Britain, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The Mongols, Netherlands, The Ottomans, Portugal, Russia, The Romans, Spain, Sweden, United States etc etc etc. So no, making straw man arguments does not help your cause as it’s a pretty obvious tactic and totally without merit.
quote:
There's been a great deal written about how colonial structures are always determinantal for all involved.
And of course the first part of that sentence – a great deal written - is true (and rightly so), while the second part merely confirms your own bias. Always detrimental? No, but generally detrimental? Yes. I think that is a given as a colony that drains resources away from the mother country is all rather pointless.
But always? That is once again, a simplistic, throw-away line that detracts from any sensible debate about empires. Empires came in all forms and let’s be honest, even the least benign were hardly guilt free – sometimes even by the standards at the time. Amritsar? Pretty disgusting episode wasn’t it? But then so was Peterloo. Working conditions for those under colonial rule were for a great many pretty hideous – poverty in India in the 19th century was huge. But have you ever been to the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester? Seen the cotton machines that only children could clean?...while moving…. Life was pretty grim back then for the majority wherever one was and whoever ruled by. Of course having a rubbish life AND being conquered by a foreign foe was just salt in the wound….
So you have laid out your credentials for disliking empires – although, by the standards of today, so does just about every right thinking person – so no gold stars there. But you believe the actions of the British are no better than the Japanese. You’ve said:
quote:
There's plenty of precedent within WW2 for nations gulfing the vast distance between respectable conduct and outright brutality. With the focus of AE in mind, the Bengal Famine springs immediately to mind.
You’ve provided a paper by one person and presented this like it is the last word on the subject of the Bengal Famine. Sorry but because it contains conclusions that you agree with, that does not necessarily mean it’s the last word and does not even come close to being the last word. To understand this episode – and no I don’t just mean picking out a few ‘smoking gun’ quotes – I mean to really understand this episode takes a proper analysis, a detailed timeline, crop returns, imports of food to India in response (and no I don’t just mean vague references using sentences like ‘relatively small amount’ from Wiki), causes of death (famine or disease), weather reports, the military situation, the domestic situation in the rest of India, what action actually ended the famine?; in short it takes someone without a serious weed up their behind and an agenda to look dispassionately and objectively into the tragedy properly. That is what I am interested in. You said:
quote:
Feel free to find another article of your choice. I doubt you'll find anything that takes the tone you'd like from Indian historians.
Again, a very telling comment and a crass one. “The tone you’d like” – a bit pathetic. If there is evidence of genocide, of the wilful murder of up to 3m people I want to know about it. And an “Indian historian”? What do you mean? You won’t accept any report written by anyone British? What are you saying, any such report on the famine can only be considered true if it’s written by an Indian? As I said I was very interested to read the paper you provided the link for by Grada from University College Dublin. No, I don’t think it in any way shape or form answers the questions I want to see answered (fancy map telling me the % of 20+ Bengalis that were literate in 1941 isn’t hugely helpful), it also falls into the selective quotations and evidence trap, but it raises some good points and asks questions that need to be addressed as part of a proper look at what happened.
quote:
The cabinet quotes aren't cherry picked.
What are the quotes the only thing WSC or anyone else in the cabinet had to say on the whole tragedy? Wow....
I must say though that this one gave me a chuckle. It’s like the thread about Churchill and Anthrax from some years back. Desperate to believe Churchill came close to authorising it’s use, you posted the oft quoted speech about Iraqis and Mustard Gas. As was shown, WSC’s comment didn’t exactly put him up for humanitarian of the year (but then how many of his contemporaries (from all countries) would have felt the same?) but as a tool for proving his willingness to use Anthrax it meant absolutely nothing. It was, in effect, a bit of mud-slinging and no more.
The quotes Amery noted are not great – but equally no proof of any deliberate mishandling of the Bengal Famine by WSC. They also lack context in terms of the pressures Churchill was under and the problems faced in India at the time (not that that would make deliberate mass starvation acceptable). If evidence was not cherry picked and this was a balanced article seeking to get to the truth then why not mention the steps HMG did take? But that would take a bit of effort and wouldn’t fit the narrative would it?
quote:
The British government of the time damned the local government as the cause, citing "hoarding and speculation".
This is why a proper timeline needs to be drawn and understood. The inference from the bits and pieces of ‘evidence’ provided is that 1 The British remove the surplus food and fishing boats. 2 Famine – HMG says do nothing. 3 Major problem starvation followed by disease.
There is of course a problem with that – a very big problem. Despite some people liking to make everything black and white and simple, life is not like that. What almost certainly happened is that the problems didn’t quickly happen over a short space of time. They took time to identify, the scale of the problem even more so. People appeared to be reacting to events rather than controlling them. Why? Where exactly did the blame for that lie?
There was a British policy to deny surplus food to the Japanese. That had an effect on a situation created already by the Japanese occupation of Burma. You seem to suggest at this stage someone in HMG decided that this may lead to starvation. The considered opinion was “yeah that’s acceptable”. You have no evidence as to who took that decision, what debates were had and where ultimate sanction came from but state it all the same. One of the things we know from exploring conspiracy theories is that some people just can’t seem to understand that ALL the information on something isn’t available to ALL the people ALL the time. What you say suggests that all agencies were aware of this policy, were concentrating on this policy and were contributing what they knew to this policy. Then with all facts known the decision was “Do it”.
But regardless, with hindsight the policy was wrong anyway because it made a bad situation that was soon to develop (for whatever reason(s)) worse, and, again with hindsight, it was wrong on a second count; namely that given Japanese MO, regardless of whether the surplus had been removed or not, the Japanese would have taken what they needed and to hell with the population. Knowing what we do about the Japanese supply lines into Burma, the Bengali population would have been in major trouble had an invasion happened and even if the policy of denial was not taken.
There is no doubting that there was a cyclone in late 1942, but what happened next, in what order, exactly where, what instructions were given by whom to whom, has not been set out. What appears to have happened from the articles I’ve read and tried to piece together is the age old tale of people being overwhelmed by what was happening – distances and poor communication (this was not Holland), didn’t help, but nor did the myriad of other contributory factors I’ve mentioned in previous posts. The issue developed over time. The requests of HMG increased overtime suggesting that no one was getting a handle on the situation. Hording, HMG policy-induced Inflation, corrupt and inept local Indian and British officials, tension between Muslim and Hindu populations, all added to the mix.
Then of course there was the small matter of the Quit India Movement and its effect on British and local government resource and attention. When did that start? Well just 5 months after the denial policies started to be put into effect. The local uprisings and protests that took place were not quashed until March 1943. Why is that important? Well for one thing in August 1942 the war was going pretty much down the toilet for the Allies, the British and Russians in particular. The eastern Indian Ocean had been wrested from RN control and an invasion of India was feared. While all this was going on 57 battalions of infantry – about 6 divisions worth - were required to quash an uprising. That’s a lot of diversion of resources at a really bad time.
quote:
There was nothing stopping the British from mounting a relief effort akin to Operation Manna and Operation Chowhound. The transports were even in theatre - based at Ledo and flying to China.
You make it all sound so simple. But maybe you are right. So tell me what aircraft were based there – we are talking late 1942 and then into 1944 - and what were they doing at the time? Presumably numbers in 1942 would have been significantly less than later as the Allies built up resources in north eastern India. Presumably they were not sitting around waiting for something to happen. I suspect they were being worked hard to keep China in the war and building up defences on the Indian/Burmese border? I’d be very interested to know what makes you say there was ‘nothing stopping’ a relief effort. But again even if there was capacity there, that in itself is pointless if the people in charge – HMG, the Viceroy, the local government officials, the military – don’t know what the solution is and this is where the detail outlined above is needed.
quote:
The famine happened as a result of calculated choices on the part of the British colonial regime. Famine releif was denied as a result of deliberate choices on the part of the British colonial regime.
So you keep saying, and as I have said, the British were in charge – and this happened on their watch. But it’s a big accusation you are making, please provide some actual evidence. Remember your accusation is that the British behaviour here (outright brutality) is no better than the Japanese treatment of conquered peoples. Like with the rather limited people that believe Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor, to say HMG (Churchill) knew what was going on and was happy to allow 1.2-3m Bengalis to starve or die of disease is really easy to say – some proof however would be nice before you lay this at his door.
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805  |
Printable Version
RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered terri... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread