RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories

RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/17/2018 6:11:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Bengal famine did not surprise me in context of British policies post war in England: engineered rationing... by 1970's per capita income in West Germany was already above England. warspite1 ?

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/17/2018 6:37:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing The fact that this could result in starvation to the people of Bengal almost certainly occurred to those responsible for the decision making and was deemed an acceptable outcome if it negatively impacted the Japanese war effort. warspite1 Interesting statement. “Almost certainly occurred”? So where is the evidence that supports that comment? Only “almost”? Careful. Okay let’s park that one and move on. Please confirm who deemed starvation of the Bengali people acceptable? Under what circumstances? After invasion? Without an invasion? How many deaths in the event the Japanese didn’t invade was deemed acceptable? Please confirm who deemed starvation acceptable? If you are going to make the case for a deliberate and wilful act of mass murder then you really ought to back that up with facts.

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/17/2018 6:58:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: The problem in Bengal in 1943 was not internecine strife, but the failure of the imperial power to make good a harvest shortfall that would have been manageab le in peacetime. The famine was the product of wartime priorities. The above is the ending conclusion to the reference work cited as being the work of "smarter people". The conclusion appears to be that "war is bad" and that the British might have done better handling the famine in Bengal: that's a real 'no-$hitter' and incredibly enlightening to someone who is visiting this planet for the first time from some far off planet and has never heard of the Second World War. The "Beheading Contest" featured in the Tokyo newspapers after the fall of Nanking is hardly "the product of wartime priorities". The Japanese worked 90000 Thais to death building their railroad from Bangkok to Rangoon. Four million Indonesians died while under Japanese beneficence although hardly any of them died because of Allied bombing or getting caught in the middle of a battle. Filipinos roundly rejected the "Greater East Asia (Japanese) Prosperity Sphere". And frankly there is no defense whatsoever for the official Japanese behavior towards prisoners of war. There was just never any chance that the Japanese could behave in a way that would have benefited the various other Asian populations. Those who thought otherwise (INA comes to mind) were pure and simply the dupes of Japanese wartime propaganda warspite1 The author concludes succinctly. The Imperial Power was ‘in charge’ and so it happened on their watch. He rightly says war time priorities was the reason. He doesn’t enlarge upon that - which is a shame - but his selected quotations and ‘half a story’ are instructive in concluding where, specifically, he believes the blame lies...... However the article does not make the case for MM’s accusation that the famine was a deliberate act by the British to murder 3 million Indians and so further his argument that the actions of the Japanese in WWII can be compared to the actions of Britain as an Imperial power at around the same time.

mind_messing -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/17/2018 11:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing Don't take my word for any of it, here's someone smarter than me. www.ucd.ie/t4cms/wp10_21.pdf warspite1 Firstly thanks for the link - that was an interesting read and always good to read different perspectives. You say someone smarter than you? Well he’s studied the Bengal Famine so I guess in terms of that subject he is smarter (on that topic) than both of us. But he also presents one view. He is also selective in the cabinet quotes and the action taken by the war cabinet. Quelle surprise. What the work also identifies - and I have mentioned this previously, is the role in this tragic unfolding mess played by local government - and we are talking about Indians themselves. What were they in on the great conspiracy to murder 3 million of their fellow Indians too? Having read that article do you still think the problems in Bengal - where communication with various districts could take weeks - were easier than Holland? 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. The cabinet quotes aren't cherry picked. Amery himself noted that Churchill was akin to George III in regards to India. The British government of the time damned the local government as the cause, citing "hoarding and speculation". Looking at the evidence, that's not the case. 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. quote: Interesting statement. “Almost certainly occurred”? So where is the evidence that supports that comment? Only “almost”? Careful. Okay let’s park that one and move on. Please confirm who deemed starvation of the Bengali people acceptable? Under what circumstances? After invasion? Without an invasion? How many deaths in the event the Japanese didn’t invade was deemed acceptable? Please confirm who deemed starvation acceptable? If you are going to make the case for a deliberate and wilful act of mass murder then you really ought to back that up with facts. The decision was made to remove surplus stocks of food from a region with marginal excess food production. Either the ramifications were discussed and found acceptable, or they weren't. In the first case, the government deemed the possible starvation of Bengals acceptable. In the second case, the govenrment was criminally indifferent to the potential outcomes. quote: The author concludes succinctly. The Imperial Power was ‘in charge’ and so it happened on their watch. He rightly says war time priorities was the reason. He doesn’t enlarge upon that - which is a shame - but his selected quotations and ‘half a story’ are instructive in concluding where, specifically, he believes the blame lies...... However the article does not make the case for MM’s accusation that the famine was a deliberate act by the British to murder 3 million Indians and so further his argument that the actions of the Japanese in WWII can be compared to the actions of Britain as an Imperial power at around the same time. You missed the paragraph above the conclusion. It's much more relevant: " Here I have argued that the lack of political will to divert foodstuffs from the war effort rather than speculation in the sense outlined was mainly responsible for the famine. Those in authority at the time knew that there was a shortfall. The war cabinet in London chose not to act on it. Churchill’s lack of empathy for India and ‘all to do with it’ mattered; his immediate reaction to Amery’s last-ditch plea for more shipping on November 10th was ‘a preliminary flourish on Indians breeding like rabbits and being paid a million a day by us for doing nothing about the war’." The British government precipitated the famine by their wartime measures, then downplayed the issue as far as possible, then failed to mount any effective relief efforts. 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. Interesting statement. “Almost certainly occurred”? So where is the evidence that supports that comment? Only “almost”? Careful. Okay let’s park that one and move on. Please confirm who deemed starvation of the Bengali people acceptable? Under what circumstances? After invasion? Without an invasion? How many deaths in the event the Japanese didn’t invade was deemed acceptable? Please confirm who deemed starvation acceptable? If you are going to make the case for a deliberate and wilful act of mass murder then you really ought to back that up with facts. There are two possibilities here. A: The colonial government evaluated the outcomes of moving food stocks and shipping out of a region with a marginal food surplus. B: The colonial government did not evaluate the outcomes of moving food stocks and shipping out of a region with a marginal food surplus. In case A, the government is willing to risk starvation of the population in order to deny the food to the Japanese. In case B, the government is just criminally indifferent. quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: The problem in Bengal in 1943 was not internecine strife, but the failure of the imperial power to make good a harvest shortfall that would have been manageab le in peacetime. The famine was the product of wartime priorities. The above is the ending conclusion to the reference work cited as being the work of "smarter people". The conclusion appears to be that "war is bad" and that the British might have done better handling the famine in Bengal: that's a real 'no-$hitter' and incredibly enlightening to someone who is visiting this planet for the first time from some far off planet and has never heard of the Second World War. The "Beheading Contest" featured in the Tokyo newspapers after the fall of Nanking is hardly "the product of wartime priorities". The Japanese worked 90000 Thais to death building their railroad from Bangkok to Rangoon. Four million Indonesians died while under Japanese beneficence although hardly any of them died because of Allied bombing or getting caught in the middle of a battle. Filipinos roundly rejected the "Greater East Asia (Japanese) Prosperity Sphere". And frankly there is no defense whatsoever for the official Japanese behavior towards prisoners of war. There was just never any chance that the Japanese could behave in a way that would have benefited the various other Asian populations. Those who thought otherwise (INA comes to mind) were pure and simply the dupes of Japanese wartime propaganda 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. There's been a great deal written about how colonial structures are always determinantal for all involved.

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/17/2018 5:13:07 PM)
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.

Dili -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/17/2018 8:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Bengal famine did not surprise me in context of British policies post war in England: engineered rationing... by 1970's per capita income in West Germany was already above England. warspite1 ? Check when Britain stopped rationing compared to other European countries much more affected by war. It was completely unjustified and at same time destroying food like milk and derivates like what cheese could be fabricated...So they had rationing and at same time destroying food and deciding what cheese to make by a Government bureaucrat. Rationing was btw one of the reasons that Churchill could return to power promising to end it. I can only imagine what would have happened in less developed country. Another one that falls more in US side, how in Germany as German economy representative in Occupation Ludwig Erhard went out against Allies, freeing prices to get growth and products into the market. He succeeded.

mind_messing -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/17/2018 10:36:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 EDIT FOR BREVITY OK, how's this warspite. I've provided a published paper about the famine. You don't like the conclusions it draws. Fair enough. The ball is in your court now. Why don't you go find a paper that you like. While you look, I'll throw another couple your way. https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/00856408908723118 I'll even say that you might be interested in Mark Tauger's views. quote: 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. Sorry, that wasn't clear. I was suggesting that you avoid the Indian historiography on the issue as they tend to be exceptionally critical of the British role. quote: 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? It's not mud-slinging. Churchill was one of those rare people that came out on the right side of history despite a very troubled journey through it. The quotes provided give an insight into the mindset of the highest levels of British leadership at the time. It doesn't convey much sympathy with the people of Bengal, or much urgency to resolve the problem. That is compounded by the offical report, which was more or less a whitewash. quote: 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. All those aircraft flying the Hump...? quote: 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. The British response was brutally indifferent. It remains so. The inital reaction ("It's the fault of the locals and a mismanagement issue") then developed into brutal indifference ("We don't have the ships or we can't risk it", "The Greeks need it more"). Churchill knew about the famine. Mukerjee is rightly exceptionally critical. The food was there, as was the shipping. It just wasn't going to India.

BBfanboy -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/18/2018 4:36:03 AM)
I have not studied the situation in India/Bengal/Burma but it sounds like facts are being brought forward without the total context of what was happening everywhere Britain was supposed to deal with. About the food destruction in Britain - I have never heard this but it could have happened. Convoys were bringing in massive amounts of everything and stockpiling to feed the millions of troops being sent to Britain and to send along with the invasion forces that were to launch from there. I would expect the US had something to say about using the food it was stockpiling for its own troops. It is easy to see how perishable foods could easily become unusable before they could be sent anywhere. British cheese producers presumably had limited capacity to handle milk. And most milk sent overseas was powdered anyway and may not have been suitable for cheese production. I expect even powdered milk has an expiry date. About getting the food to India - I am not aware of any ships sitting idle during the war, except when they were gathering into a convoy in a major port like Halifax. So if they all had a mission, diverting some to India would mean denying another mission their shipping. In 1943 Britain was supporting the North Africa campaign and then the Sicily and Italian campaigns. On top of that were convoys to Russia and the height of the Battle of the Atlantic. If there was a shortage for India, that is not surprising. As for India itself, it is a large country which would normally feed its own people without much being imported from abroad. No doubt the crop failure was a surprise and required a rapid response, but the rail and road infrastructure going to Bengal was not robust (it still isn't - lots of rickety bridges, steep climbs and very narrow roads). It would take months to make arrangements to handle a civilian requirement that the military was not prepared for. The best thing, IMO, would have been to let the people in the affected area migrate south where the food was - but factional conflicts probably made that unpalatable. So who, in the end could have prevented the catastrophe? Sometimes even the rich and powerful are helpless in the face of all that is expected of them. [:(]

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/18/2018 10:34:34 AM)
quote: I've provided a published paper about the famine. You don't like the conclusions it draws. Fair enough. I didn’t say I didn’t like the conclusions. I said it was an interesting read with some interesting arguments. What it was not, was the last word on the tragedy and in no way shape or form made the case that you are arguing. quote: Why don't you go find a paper that you like. I’ve told you before, but you choose to ignore, I am not interested in a ‘paper I like’. You keep using the word like to suggest I only want one version of the truth. But no, I am not like you. I am interested only in a proper understanding. The paper that I want to see does not appear to be available. Yes I could have posted Tauger or Herman or others in support of an alternative view to yours. But, while as interesting as those you’ve posted, they don’t answer some of the fundamental questions I have (questions that you should have if you really want to be able to support your accusation). quote: ….. I was suggesting that you avoid the Indian historiography on the issue as they tend to be exceptionally critical of the British role. Another boring unwarranted remark given all I’ve said previously. quote: It's not mud-slinging. Churchill was one of those rare people that came out on the right side of history despite a very troubled journey through it. Yes it was mud-slinging. The Anthrax article was shown to be complete rubbish – even the trendy lefty author admitted he should not have said all that he did…. As for Churchill’s record, yes he was a complex individual. You know, the sort of individual that increasingly the modern day generation can’t appear to cope with. He was not squeaky clean, there were errors of judgement – and, in this day and age some of his ideas and policies don’t look great (in other words he was human and a man of his time). But if we judge everyone in history strictly by today’s standards then – and just think about this for a moment – who will be left that we can actually be ‘allowed’ to admire or say anything publically in their defence? But that is another subject completely. quote: All those aircraft flying the Hump...? So in support of your statement that there was ‘nothing stopping’ a relief effort you provide this – “all those aircraft”… Really? Great detail…. So this plethora of spare aircraft were milling around doing nothing? When Churchill wrote to FDR asking for assistance with shipping to aid the situation in Bengal Roosevelt replied that while Churchill had his “utmost sympathy,” his Joint Chiefs had said they were “unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping….Needless to say, I regret exceedingly the necessity of giving you this unfavourable reply”. I am not 100% certain but I suspect most (probably all?) transport aircraft were US. But according to you, the aircraft weren’t doing much important (other than keeping China in the war and building up defences against invasion/preparing for an offensive in the Arakan) and could have been spared – whereas the ships couldn’t? quote: The inital reaction ("It's the fault of the locals and a mismanagement issue") then developed into brutal indifference ("We don't have the ships or we can't risk it", "The Greeks need it more"). Like all good conspiracy theories there is an awful lot of malevolent moustache twirling taking place on the grassy knoll, but not much else. We are talking about a complex situation that evolved over a period of time. Read the various articles available – these writers who have studied this can’t even agree on whether there was a crop failure, or the extent of the crop failure….there is no agreed position on the extent to which denial caused/made the problem worse. As has been said by some of these writers, the problem would have been manageable in peacetime (assuming of course that this specific issue would have happened in peacetime, but we can’t know for certain because the ‘experts’ can’t agree on the actual cause), But there were a large number of factors that came together to magnify this problem – the nature of which would have taxed anyone as there was simply no precedent; the small matter of the war (and its effect on rice imports from Burma), the war time inflation, the need to keep war production going and troops provisioned etc etc. Brutal indifference? As has been clear from the various articles, there were steps taken by local government and the Government of India. But, these failed. Putting policies in place is not brutal indifference – that is action being taken. But the policy failure does evidence human beings in unfamiliar (and later desperate) circumstances being unable to always find the right answer. If every politician had the right answer to every problem then the world wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in now right? quote: Churchill knew about the famine. Mukerjee is rightly exceptionally critical. The food was there, as was the shipping. It just wasn't going to India. I would ask you to support that comment but I’d just get the same bland response as with the aircraft. We know there were ships available to the Allies. And Mukerjee claims they were going here there and everywhere but India. Mukerjee has said that in January 1943 60% of shipping in the Indian Ocean was ordered to the Atlantic. This order was made at around the time that requests were being made of HMG for more food. But as I’ve said there are interesting questions raised. One such comes from Auriol Law-Smith’s paper you linked previously. If, as Wiki states, Linlithgow was requesting more food from HMG, why did he simply not use the powers available to him under the 1935 India Act and the Defence of India rules? Set against the decision to remove shipping to the Atlantic it has to be remembered that losses of merchant ships had almost tripled in 1942 compared to the previous year. If that continued then the build-up of war material and food in Britain would be imperilled. You see, there were always competing needs – but with hindsight everything is so easy. And without wishing to state the bleedin’ obvious, with Britain starved out of the war or unable to reinforce i.e. loss of the Atlantic lifeline, then India was in even bigger trouble. I know that people like Mukerjee believe that the war situation is not worthy of mention but there was quite a bit for HMG to be focussed on at the time. I mean we are talking summer 1942 and hindsight is NOT allowed: - The exact effect of the winter offensive on the Wehrmacht is not appreciated in the west and Operation Blue sees the Soviets pushed back to a city on the Volga while German forces push into the Caucasus and the oil there. So the British and the US are trying to keep the Soviets in the war through lend-lease which means shipping is required in three oceans – Arctic, Indian and Pacific - The Germans are about to make a final drive for Cairo having pushed the British back to a railway halt on the coast of Egypt…. The Mediterranean remains closed with all that means for merchant shipping needed to supply North Africa having to go around the cape. - A huge operation to try and keep Malta in the war is required - In the Indian Ocean the Royal Navy has been pushed back to Africa and is stripped to allow the operation above. - The losses in the Battle of the Atlantic have tripled from the year before as the Allies battle to keep the Atlantic sea lanes open to supply and reinforce the UK - In the Far East the British Army have been pushed back in poor order to the Burmese border and are still re-building so that they can launch a limited campaign at the end of the year - The Allies are trying to keep supply to China open - While all the above is going on there is a revolt in India that is taking up manpower and resource that is needed elsewhere. But then there were reports of starvation in eastern India and requests for assistance from HMG. What none of the reports and papers I’ve read seem to be able to do is piece together is what exactly what was requested and when? What was then delivered? What ended the famine - was it imports that eventually got there or food from within other parts of India that were available all along? If from internal sources then why was this not done sooner – why did Linlithgow not use the powers he had? Articles like that in Wiki suggest the imports were negligible – if so then how was the famine ended? When did local government officials realise the problem and how was this escalated? Parts of Bengal were badly affected while others were relatively unaffected – what impact did this have on local officials thinking in terms of the scale of the problem, its causes (and thus what was required to sort it out)? As said, questions to be answered to get a proper understanding of how the tragedy unfolded and what was done/not done and why. It’s a big accusation you’ve made but the evidence against HMG acting deliberately to withhold food when confronted with a major humanitarian crises has not been made. If someone ever makes it – and provides evidence – then I for one will have no issue accepting it.

mind_messing -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 4:05:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Edit for brevity http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1080/00856408908723118

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 4:30:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1080/00856408908723118 warspite1 You've already posted this previously. When clicking on the link sometimes it comes up with the paper previously posted and sometimes a Russian(?) script asking for a password??

spence -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 4:34:20 PM)
It's interesting that it seems that rice transportation across provincial boundaries was forbidden in the Philippines as well as India and contributed mightily to the reduced rations/starvation of the Philippino/American troops on Bataan. The aftermath of those troops' surrender is, of course, a perfect illustration of the wonderfulness of the liberation of the Philippines by the Japanese.

mind_messing -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 4:41:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1080/00856408908723118 warspite1 You've already posted this previously. When clicking on the link sometimes it comes up with the paper previously posted and sometimes a Russian(?) script asking for a password?? It's sci-hub, a website that lets you bypass the paywalls that most academic publishers have in place in order to access research papers and articles. It's either a great tool for disseminating knowledge without barriers or an outrageous violation of publishers rights, depending on where you stand on the issue of open access versus publishing copyright. I also reposted the paper because it was obvious that you hadn't followed the timeline of events. That paper makes it quite clear.

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 7:06:37 PM)
quote: I also reposted the paper because it was obvious that you hadn't followed the timeline of events. That paper makes it quite clear. Oh dear…… Once again you operate with the same MO as you’ve used before. If someone disagrees with your position during a debate this does not necessarily mean they are confused or they haven’t followed or haven’t read the necessary evidence. It could actually mean they simply don’t agree with your interpretation of events - or that what you've provided doesn't actually answer the point. You have made clear that you believe the British Government purposely withheld food supplies to Bengal in 1943. You have produced a number of papers which have been interesting and informative – thank-you- in terms of possible causes of the famine and the reasons why so many died. Given the accusation you’ve made and the points I’ve raised that need to be answered, I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse in suggesting the paper attached above gives the necessary timeline – much less in anyway shape or form answers the questions raised. What this paper shows is that far from brutal indifference, the Government of India and the Bengal Government did try and take steps to help. That those steps were ineffective in stopping what became a monumental tragedy is crystal clear – but there was no policy (based on the evidence seen) of any deliberate act of starvation. People who love a good conspiracy theory love to cite warnings being made about possible events (x) happening if certain action (y) isn’t taken. When x later happens, the refusal to adopt y is cited as proof that it’s all one big conspiracy. Well no. y is an option, an opinion. It may be that adopting y would be a disaster (and why it wasn’t adopted in the first place). You give absolutely no credit, make no allowance for the factors that came together at one time. Some of these factors, officials in India would be aware of, some they’d never seen before such as wartime inflation. There was a huge amount going on and, as said before, not everyone has ALL the information needed ALL the time. There is also the pretty damn obvious question that I’ve asked before – but you haven’t bothered addressing - that if Law-Smith’s article is correct, then just what was Linlithgow doing in asking HMG for more foodstuffs in early 1943?? That makes no obvious sense. I know you think you’ve presented all the evidence but perhaps you can point to where I’ve missed that pretty fundamental point? You think that paper provides the timeline required to satisfy your accusation? Really? That paper doesn’t even mention the British Government and was all about the whitewash of the Government of India’s role in the official report. Did you even bother reading it? Where in that paper is there any support for what Mukerjee was accusing Churchill of? Anyway, I think it’s clear the debate has come full circle. You desperately want to believe Mukerjee and want to hold Churchill and the British Government guilty of a war crime, but can’t produce any evidence that that was true. You’ve now simply resorted to posting papers, which I suspect you’ve not read, for the second time because you’ve read the conclusions and like them. At the start of the debate I took the view that there was no deliberate act of mass murder and that numerous factors – some natural, some man-made - came together to create a perfect storm. These factors overwhelmed first the Bengal Government, and then the Government of India. But both, and later HMG, tried to help. I said there were questions raised and there are. But these centre on the rationale for why certain action wasn’t taken, or taken sooner etc. It doesn’t seem to matter what it is: whether it’s FDR, The Bengal Famine, JFK or the Twin Towers some people just seem unable to accept that not every disaster is a conspiracy….. As said, if you want to put Churchill and co into the war crimes dock and convince most people of their guilt then you are going to actually have to come up with some evidence. Absent of that I suspect we are all debated out.

BBfanboy -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 7:37:27 PM)
IMO Churchill's big blind spot was his determination to preserve the British Empire as it was pre-war and carry on as before once the war was won. He just did not realize the strength of the movement toward self-determination in almost all peoples during that time. Had he done so, he might have made more early concessions to self-rule and a fairer economy for those peoples and had fewer problems with dissent/insurrection. It might also have led him to re-think deployment of Force Z to awe the Japanese (although no one gave the Japanese credit for the efficiency of their weapons and fighting men before it was too late.) Like any true leader, Churchill took some risky decisions that sometimes ended in victory and sometimes in disaster. Gallipoli was a disaster but the Battle of the Falklands was a significant victory. The attempt to save Norway from the Nazis ended badly but Dunkirk, Malta, Egypt and the North Atlantic were all won by having a leader of firm resolve and tenacity. But no one is perfect and we are all products of the times we were raised in, imbued with the assumptions and biases taught to us. All we can expect is that leaders should learn from their mistakes.

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 7:48:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy It might also have led him to re-think deployment of Force Z warspite1 I read a very interesting book recently The Royal Navy In Eastern Waters (Boyd). This book contends that it was the Admiralty that were responsible for the forward deployment of Force Z - not WSC. The author makes some excellent points and if you go with his argument - certainly in the case of Force Z - the Admiralty don't come out of it looking too clever..... I would certainly recommend the book but, word of warning, although extremely well written, and clear, it is a serious tome and not a light read by any means!

mind_messing -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 8:16:33 PM)
quote: Oh dear…… Once again you operate with the same MO as you’ve used before. If someone disagrees with your position during a debate this does not necessarily mean they are confused or they haven’t followed or haven’t read the necessary evidence. It could actually mean they simply don’t agree with your interpretation of events - or that what you've provided doesn't actually answer the point. Sorry, I seemed to miss the part where you provided sources or research into the topic. quote: You have made clear that you believe the British Government purposely withheld food supplies to Bengal in 1943. It's not my belief, it's fact. The shipping was needed elsewhere. quote: Given the accusation you’ve made and the points I’ve raised that need to be answered, I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse in suggesting the paper attached above gives the necessary timeline – much less in anyway shape or form answers the questions raised. Let me be less obtuse then. Pages 55-64 are the relevant section of the above paper. quote: What this paper shows is that far from brutal indifference, the Government of India and the Bengal Government did try and take steps to help. That those steps were ineffective in stopping what became a monumental tragedy is crystal clear – but there was no policy (based on the evidence seen) of any deliberate act of starvation. Relevent section from page 60 "The Government of India's reasons for holding the 'no shortage' line despite Herbert's frequent reports and the obvious urgency of the Rescue plan are debatable, but the line justified Linlithgow's refusal to intervene constitutionally. An admission of unmanageable shortage carried some responsibility to act. If assistance measures proved unsuccessful, the Central Government would be implicated in the failure. Chattopadhyay argues, on the other hand, that the Government of India reduced famine to scarcity 'by executive order1 to disguise the endemic famine which had occurred in rural Bengal every year since the mid-1930s, which he sees as a consequence of the amount of resource transfers from rural Bengal during the depression years." I find your stubborn defence of the famine difficult to understand given that: - Excess food was marginal even before the war. - British policy made a significant contribution to the famine. - Denial of the existance of famine at first, then the "blame game" on locals. - Informed decision to deny aid due to wartime priorities. - Subsequent cover-up in the Famine Inquiriy Commission that selectively used evidence in order to deflect blame away from the colonial regime. I'd like you to respond the following points. Specifically: 1. India overall was a net exporter of food for the duration of the famine. 2. PM King of Canada's promise of food shipments (that King promised would not induce a shortfall in war shipments) was not acted upon. See the telegram of 04 Nov 1943 3. The resultant inquiry was a white-wash for the colonial regime. If the famine had genuinely resulted from the combination of natural and wartime factors, what was the need for a cover-up? I'm particularly interested in point #3 quote: You desperately want to believe Mukerjee and want to hold Churchill and the British Government guilty of a war crime, but can’t produce any evidence that that was true. I'm not a lawyer, but looking in to it, I don't think it would be a war crime. However, there's certainly a solid case to be made of serious responsibility, falling firmly on that of the British colonial government. The justifcation for denying aid from outside sources given by the highest levels of the British government just doesn't add up. The ability to provide serious famine relief was there from the onset, there was just no political will at any level to mount an effective response. quote: As said, if you want to put Churchill and co into the war crimes dock and convince most people of their guilt then you are going to actually have to come up with some evidence. Absent of that I suspect we are all debated out. The famine was a result of colonial management and British wartime measures. The relief was mishandled by British government officals. Aid was withheld by the British government for political purposes. The resulting inquiry was a cover up. The evidence for all of this has been presented to you. Let me ask you then, where do you put the blame?

Zorch -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 9:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing Let me ask you then, where do you put the blame? I put it in the kitchen, in the cabinet under the sink. [;)] I think you have both made your points.

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/19/2018 11:11:03 PM)
quote: Sorry, I seemed to miss the part where you provided sources or research into the topic. No, you didn’t miss it. As said I don’t believe that HMG and Winston Churchill committed a war crime, I don’t believe that they deliberately caused a famine in Bengal or stopped aid getting to the area. On the basis that someone is innocent until proven guilty, on the basis that no one has brought any proper evidence to show this, and on the basis that it is very hard to prove something that didn’t happen, the onus is not on me. You do believe this. That is a very big accusation. If you want people to believe you (and they are interested in the truth), you need to provide the evidence for that. quote: It's not my belief, it's fact. The shipping was needed elsewhere. Er this is new. So you do now believe that shipping was not withheld because of a deliberate policy of starvation – but because it was needed elsewhere? That is a breakthrough, although given the wartime situation I highlighted above this is only logical. quote: Let me be less obtuse then. Pages 55-64 are the relevant section of the above paper. You believe HMG and WSC were deliberately guilty of withholding food supplies to India. I ask for a proper timeline and you give this? For the second time there is no mention of HMG in this report. If one is to prove that foodstuffs were requested of HMG, when? What the response was? etc. etc. it would really help to have some mention of HMG and those requests in the evidence you are providing. I say once again; there is no mention of HMG in this report. My turn to accuse you – are you confusing the Government of India with HMG? It appears so?…… quote: "The Government of India's reasons for holding the 'no shortage' line despite Herbert's frequent reports and the obvious urgency of the Rescue plan are debatable, but the line justified Linlithgow's refusal to intervene constitutionally. An admission of unmanageable shortage carried some responsibility to act. If assistance measures proved unsuccessful, the Central Government would be implicated in the failure. Chattopadhyay argues, on the other hand, that the Government of India reduced famine to scarcity 'by executive order1 to disguise the endemic famine which had occurred in rural Bengal every year since the mid-1930s, which he sees as a consequence of the amount of resource transfers from rural Bengal during the depression years." This is the basis of this paper. That the Government of Bengal couldn’t deal with the issue and it needed the Government of India to take a stronger line and use the powers it had. Please read this report and then try and answer the question I’ve raised for the third time – if Linlithgow had the ability to act under powers invested in him (but didn’t) then why would he be asking HMG for foodstuffs? quote: I find your stubborn defence of the famine difficult to understand given that: MM really? What does that mean? ‘My defence’. Pardon my French but FFS. 3m people died of starvation. I am not going to sit here defending something like that if there is proof it was deliberate. And if it was not deliberate but incompetence then the guilty should have been named. As I said in my very first post on the subject (post 69) “Could more have been done? That appears to be unarguable? Was there any truth that Churchill was looking to punish the Indians for the quit India movement? I like to believe not, but there are questions that need answering. But what needed to done? Whose fault was it that more was not done? That is less clear”. 3m people died. That needs a proper answer as to why and why I have said that questions need to be answered. Not the whitewash that was the official enquiry. I suspect that if this was ever looked at properly the Government of India (and Linlithgow in particular) would come out of it looking none too clever. But (depending on the answers) that does not make him a mass murderer – and until we know why he acted as he did then he can’t be accused of incompetence. quote: I'd like you to respond the following points. Specifically: 1. India overall was a net exporter of food for the duration of the famine. 2. PM King of Canada's promise of food shipments (that King promised would not induce a shortfall in war shipments) was not acted upon. See the telegram of 04 Nov 1943 3. The resultant inquiry was a white-wash for the colonial regime. If the famine had genuinely resulted from the combination of natural and wartime factors, what was the need for a cover-up? I'm particularly interested in point #3 1. Again – and I’m really shocked you can’t see this – where is the detail? The last report you posted stated Bengal stopped exporting rice in July 1942 (I may be wrong but iirc Mukerjee was saying Bengal continued exporting much later). Were the Government of India allowing this when they knew of the famine and knew the policies they and the Bengal Government had put in place had failed? If this is true why (at the sake of sounding like a stuck record) was Linlithgow asking for more food from HMG? But this is the reason these sorts of things can’t be proven here. Where is the detailed timeline showing who did what and when? Without it this is just a bunch of ‘facts’ with no context. Another point is where was this food going to? There is some mention of Ceylon (Mukerjee again I think). Well what was Ceylon’s position at the time? 2. Again context and detail including timeline. I understand that Churchill said no to Mackenzie-King on the basis that Australia would provide the assistance as it was quicker. It was pointed out that any help sent in Nov/Dec 1943 from Canada would not get to India before Jan/Feb 1944 and all food relief work was finished in January 1944. I believe that the famine deaths had peaked by the time of the offer from Canada. So the question is. Did Churchill say no because he wanted more Bengali deaths or because by that time the food was not needed in the timescale Canada could get it to India? 3. Yes I think that appears to be the case. To blame the local Bengal Government for something that clearly (although not sure when) needed the Government of India to sort out seems to be wrong. Why a whitewashed version of events? I don’t know but can only suggest (and I’m not defending this if it was the case) that with partition on the horizon, a population on the edge with trouble brewing, what was needed was a quick and dirty answer to try and not fan the flames. quote: I'm not a lawyer, but looking in to it, I don't think it would be a war crime. I'm well aware that the Japanese were just as bad, if not worse at treating subject peoples as the other colonial powers. That kind of puts them in the war crimes camp but this is getting somewhere at least. So you are not in the Mukerjee camp? But then you say: quote: The justifcation for denying aid from outside sources given by the highest levels of the British government just doesn't add up. Aid was withheld by the British government for political purposes. Well I don’t know what you’d call that but I’d call it mass murder…. If it were true. So I'm not sure why you don't think it's a war crime. quote: However, there's certainly a solid case to be made of serious responsibility, falling firmly on that of the British colonial government. The ability to provide serious famine relief was there from the onset, there was just no political will at any level to mount an effective response. Let me ask you then, where do you put the blame? I’d thought I had made that clear. Food did not get to the rural dwellers in parts of Bengal. This led to the deaths through either starvation or disease of as many as 3 million Indians. That is a human tragedy. There are three possible causes: a) It was no one’s fault, natural factors of unmanageable proportions came into play and there was nothing anyone could do about it – well that can be discounted b) It was a war crime. Though the famine was not deliberate, the withholding of food stuffs was deliberately carried out by the Government of India whether under orders or not from Her Majesty’s Government in London – well if that is the case then someone needs to prove it. c) The famine was caused by a series of factors. I was going to type these out all over again but frankly I can’t be bothered to keep repeating myself. And what I can piece together is riddled with missing evidence anyway. But from what I’ve seen the officials in Bengal, Delhi and London were hit with a series of events that would have taxed anybody. It is so easy looking back, and knowing what went wrong and knowing how the war turned out, to sit in our ivory towers and opine. If I am going to accuse someone of mass murder then I’d like some solid evidence. When one looks at the sheer number of elements involved here I do not believe it is a difficult thing to believe that the officials in place at the time were overwhelmed. As a local government official – and indeed a Government of India official – dealing with famine, difficult geography, and cyclones would have been part of the job description. But add in so many elements – not least of which is the war – and suddenly it’s a whole new ball game. The military requirements came first in northeast India. The Japanese were on the border. The military decided that a denial policy (sanctioned by the Government of India) should be put in place. The military had priority on the road and rail links. The war workers in the cities needing feeding and paying. Then there was the wartime inflation, the individual states being responsible for their own stocks, then there was the work of the speculators (dismissed by some, not by others). Just to add some more pain the Quit India movement started their revolt. Then there was an uneven spread of the problem within the regions of Bengal. Was there actually a shortage? Was this the work of speculators? All of this took time to work out. The local Indian officials in the Bengal Government were supposed to sort it out – that was their job. But they needed help given all that was going on. The Government of India had powers to act but for reasons we can’t be sure of, didn’t immediately make use of those steps. When they took action at the start of 1943 it took two months to realise it wasn’t working. There is nothing in these actions to say there was no will to help. But this is where things get really confusing. Apparently Linlithgow (and Amery) have been asking for food with ever increasing urgency. This is why we need to see the evidence of what happened. What the hell were they doing asking London for food when India (apparently) could supply the excess and Linlithgow was adopting a policy of mass murder anyway? By October Wavell has been made Viceroy and sets the military on the case (the revolt has been quashed by now) and seemingly quickly gets things under control (allegedly from surplus stocks in India which begs the question once again where Churchill’s actions come into play). I suspect the deaths that follow are largely from disease due to the conditions in Bengal and the effects of malnourishment (look at the number of survivors of the Holocaust that died after liberation as their bodies could not take the food). Despite MM’s protestations, there is nothing like the evidence needed to say this was deliberate. EDIT: Grammar and Spelling

mind_messing -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/20/2018 12:43:18 AM)
quote: No, you didn’t miss it. As said I don’t believe that HMG and Winston Churchill committed a war crime, I don’t believe that they deliberately caused a famine in Bengal or stopped aid getting to the area. On the basis that someone is innocent until proven guilty, on the basis that no one has brought any proper evidence to show this, and on the basis that it is very hard to prove something that didn’t happen, the onus is not on me. You do believe this. That is a very big accusation. If you want people to believe you (and they are interested in the truth), you need to provide the evidence for that. Last I checked the thread, all the published papers on the subject have been posted by myself. You've critiqued it but offered no evidence to the contrary. quote: Er this is new. So you do now believe that shipping was not withheld because of a deliberate policy of starvation – but because it was needed elsewhere? That is a breakthrough, although given the wartime situation I highlighted above this is only logical. Sorry, I didn't make my sarcasm clear enough given that Churchill himself expressed a preference for feeding Greeks over Bengal (the fact that the Greeks couldn't even be fed until liberated I've overlooked). The more I read into the subject the worse it becomes, as evidently Frederick Lindemann (another of your "complex" characters) apparently had a role in convincing Churchill reallocate the shipping. IDK, I can't think of any more a deliberate act that failing to feed those starving that you CAN feed in preference to feed a starving people that you MIGHT be able to feed (and that sit better with the notions of racial superiority that you hold). Might just be me. From what's been written on the topic, evidently not. quote: You believe HMG and WSC were deliberately guilty of withholding food supplies to India. I ask for a proper timeline and you give this? For the second time there is no mention of HMG in this report. If one is to prove that foodstuffs were requested of HMG, when? What the response was? etc. etc. it would really help to have some mention of HMG and those requests in the evidence you are providing. I say once again; there is no mention of HMG in this report. My turn to accuse you – are you confusing the Government of India with HMG? It appears so?…… What prevent Churchill from accepting King's offer on 4th Nov, 1943? Was his outright rebuttal justified? I think not. King evidently felt compelled to do something... http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=3385905;sort_by=Dscore;index=10 quote: This is the basis of this paper. That the Government of Bengal couldn’t deal with the issue and it needed the Government of India to take a stronger line and use the powers it had. Please read this report and then try and answer the question I’ve raised for the third time – if Linlithgow had the ability to act under powers invested in him (but didn’t) then why would he be asking HMG for foodstuffs? Linlithgow is oft given part of the blame for the famine. His motivations for acting, I can't comment on. I can point out, however, that his apointment came from HMG. quote: MM really? What does that mean? ‘My defence’. Pardon my French but FFS. 3m people died of starvation. I am not going to sit here defending something like that if there is proof it was deliberate. And if it was not deliberate but incompetence then the guilty should have been named. As I said in my very first post on the subject (post 69) “Could more have been done? That appears to be unarguable? Was there any truth that Churchill was looking to punish the Indians for the quit India movement? I like to believe not, but there are questions that need answering. But what needed to done? Whose fault was it that more was not done? That is less clear”. 3m people died. That needs a proper answer as to why and why I have said that questions need to be answered. Not the whitewash that was the official enquiry. I suspect that if this was ever looked at properly the Government of India (and Linlithgow in particular) would come out of it looking none too clever. But (depending on the answers) that does not make him a mass murderer – and until we know why he acted as he did then he can’t be accused of incompetence. Was Churchill out for vengeance? Wavell would suggest so. See the last paragraph of the July 5th entry. https://archive.org/stream/99999990080835WavellTheViceroysJournal/99999990080835%20-%20Wavell%20The%20Viceroys%20Journal#page/n93/mode/2up/search/winston quote: 1. Again – and I’m really shocked you can’t see this – where is the detail? The last report you posted stated Bengal stopped exporting rice in July 1942 (I may be wrong but iirc Mukerjee was saying Bengal continued exporting much later). Were the Government of India allowing this when they knew of the famine and knew the policies they and the Bengal Government had put in place had failed? If this is true why (at the sake of sounding like a stuck record) was Linlithgow asking for more food from HMG? But this is the reason these sorts of things can’t be proven here. Where is the detailed timeline showing who did what and when? Without it this is just a bunch of ‘facts’ with no context. Another point is where was this food going to? There is some mention of Ceylon (Mukerjee again I think). Well what was Ceylon’s position at the time? 2. Again context and detail including timeline. I understand that Churchill said no to Mackenzie-King on the basis that Australia would provide the assistance as it was quicker. It was pointed out that any help sent in Nov/Dec 1943 from Canada would not get to India before Jan/Feb 1944 and all food relief work was finished in January 1944. I believe that the famine deaths had peaked by the time of the offer from Canada. So the question is. Did Churchill say no because he wanted more Bengali deaths or because by that time the food was not needed in the timescale Canada could get it to India? 3. Yes I think that appears to be the case. To blame the local Bengal Government for something that clearly (although not sure when) needed the Government of India to sort out seems to be wrong. Why a whitewashed version of events? I don’t know but can only suggest (and I’m not defending this if it was the case) that with partition on the horizon, a population on the edge with trouble brewing, what was needed was a quick and dirty answer to try and not fan the flames. 1. The same reason that Ireland continued to be a net exporter of food during the Great Famine. There's a reason that the Bengal famine is compared with the Irish one. 2. Well, the extract from Wavell's diary, along with his other recorded views on the issue of India in general would suggest the latter. 3. Yeah, we're in agreement here. quote: That kind of puts them in the war crimes camp but this is getting somewhere at least. So you are not in the Mukerjee camp? But then you say: I take Mukerjee with the same grain of salt as with all authors on contentious subjects such as this. You have authors like Mukerjee on one hand and authors like Boris Johnstone (yes, that Boris!) on the other. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in-between the two. quote: Well I don’t know what you’d call that but I’d call it mass murder…. If it were true. In your view, were the justifications provided by HMG to deny shipping food justified? I don't think they were, even more so now that I've looked into Frederick Lindemann's role in convincing Churchill to divert convoys from the Indian Ocean to Britain. quote: EDIT for brevity A: Glad we're agreed. B: There's a very strong argument to be made for criminal indifference at the highest levels of HMG. Churchill's views on India are well known. Withholding (or providing the bare minimum of) foodstuffs was a deliberate policy. Churchills preference for the Greeks over Bengali's has been noted previously. The dissent between Amery and Churchill over India is a matter of record. C: Of course hindsight is a great thing, but the Bengal famine is a great case study in how disastrous even superficially benevolent colonial rule can be. quote: Despite MM’s protestations, there is nothing like the evidence needed to say this was deliberate. Quite the contrary, there's plenty of evidence. In rough chronological order: - Denial policy specifically aimed at food production and the means to move it and of limited military value. - Crop blight and cyclone further disrupt agriculture. - Failure of the colonial regime to get a solid grasp of the situation. Propaganda campaign denying food shortages. - Misplaced campaign against hoarding and speculation. - Failure of free trade to rectify food shortages. - Calculated decision of HMG to provide limited aid, citing shipping constraints (justifed or not?). - Harvest brings an end to the food crisis, but the population is subsequently dislocated and weakened. Disease runs rampant. The bolded sections indicate evidence that the famine was the result of deliberate action. At the very best, the famine was a result of a massive mismanagement of wartime priorities. At worst, it was imperialist antipathy coloured with racism and vengance against the Bengalis.

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/20/2018 5:43:53 AM)
quote: Last I checked the thread, all the published papers on the subject have been posted by myself. You've critiqued it but offered no evidence to the contrary. This just confirms you can’t be bothered to read my posts. I’m frankly surprised you haven’t simply posted Law Smiths report again and told me - again - where I can find non-existent references. You seem vexed that I've not provided further sources (even though I've explained why) but don't respond to legitimate questions about the sources you have provided. What is clear is that from the bits of information posted and readily available, the answers to a lot of key questions just don't seem to be there and without these, you can't make the case you really want to make. quote: At the very best, the famine was a result of a massive mismanagement of wartime priorities. At worst, it was imperialist antipathy coloured with racism and vengance against the Bengalis And here you go again. Despite saying in the previous post that you don't think it was a war crime, you still bring up a possibility that it was. That there was a mismanagement somewhere along the line can hardly be disputed - and I've been clear on that the whole time right from my first post. At worst? Yes, this is case you want to make and one that you appear constantly in two minds about - it's like you are arguing with yourself. The point is, and has been since the start of the debate, and continues to be. Writing that is easy - proving it is another thing.

mind_messing -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/20/2018 11:25:44 PM)
quote: At worst? Yes, this is case you want to make and one that you appear constantly in two minds about - it's like you are arguing with yourself. The point is, and has been since the start of the debate, and continues to be. Writing that is easy - proving it is another thing. I've presented evidence that: A - British military policy contributed significant to the famine (and would be of dubious military value even had Japan invaded Bengal). B - The colonial regime responded exceptionally poorly to the famine throughout (IIRC, never even declaring a state of famine? need to double check). C - Appeal from the colonial government to HMG for food deliberately denied for dubious reasons (Greeks, "shipping concerns"). D - Strong antipathy from the highest levels of HMG (specifically WSC) towards the crisis. Point B can be explained, as you've said, as those involved being out of their depth. The same arguement could perhaps be made for Point C, but I can't see how it possibly accounts for it (Food needed for the Greek people...under German occupation..?). Point A and Point D, however, there's no excuse for. Let's review that facts: The famine resulted from deliberate decisions of the British military, which later combined with natural factors. This is fact. Aid from HMG to the affected regions was not sent as a result of deliberate decisions. This is fact. Churchill's intransigence and views on India are a matter of public record. Churchill personally declined offers of aid from outside sources are a matter of public record. These are facts. quote: Despite MM’s protestations, there is nothing like the evidence needed to say this was deliberate. At some point, and at some level, the British government examined the rice and boat denial policy and approved of it. The implications of taking food stockpiles and the means to move food would have been apparent. Evidently, it was worth risking the starvation of an entire district if it held the possibility of even slightly hindering the Japanese advance. The only way I seeing it being a more deliberate act would have been to go out and salt the fields.

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/21/2018 3:55:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing The only way I seeing it being a more deliberate act would have been to go out and salt the fields. warspite1 If you believe what you state to be true then I don’t understand, particularly given the above sentence, why you don’t believe it was a war crime. You appear to be at war with yourself.

mind_messing -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/21/2018 1:19:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing The only way I seeing it being a more deliberate act would have been to go out and salt the fields. warspite1 If you believe what you state to be true then I don’t understand, particularly given the above sentence, why you don’t believe it was a war crime. You appear to be at war with yourself. Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it would be classed as a crime against humanity.

RangerJoe -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/22/2018 1:32:15 AM)
Even today it is difficult to move food from one Indian state to another. It is actually easier and cheaper to import it from another country. As far as the railroads go, there are many accidents on them today with much loss of life. Don't tell me that it was better then, especially during a war.

spence -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/22/2018 3:56:08 AM)
From some people's point of view 'the perfect' is the enemy of 'the good'. From others good is good enough. Sorry but from mine there is no point in speaking of the possibility of Japanese 'good will' towards anyone in the Second World War. If not exactly racist the Japanese were very inclined to view all other Asians as "untermensch" (as the Nazis might say)...30 million (dead) Chinese are probably not wrong. If one wants to send one's benevolent empire builders out to conquer all the surrounding countries don't bother to play AE. For thing the possible effects of such a change in outlook are not modeled and probably can't be other than to "create some fantasy units out of whole cloth". The Japanese of 1941 were the Japanese of 1941: they spent the 20 years prior to their declaration of war against the US to become the Japanese of 1941. Other than a few dreamers/cynics in the "Propaganda Ministry" nobody believed/touted that crap about "Asia for the Asians".

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/22/2018 6:25:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing The only way I seeing it being a more deliberate act would have been to go out and salt the fields. warspite1 If you believe what you state to be true then I don’t understand, particularly given the above sentence, why you don’t believe it was a war crime. You appear to be at war with yourself. Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it would be classed as a crime against humanity. warspite1 If all the evidence is available and indisputable, I wonder why (assuming they haven't) the Indian Government has not sought reparations from the UK for this 'crime' (however one wishes to define it)?

warspite1 -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/22/2018 7:33:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Even today it is difficult to move food from one Indian state to another. It is actually easier and cheaper to import it from another country. As far as the railroads go, there are many accidents on them today with much loss of life. Don't tell me that it was better then, especially during a war. warspite1 Very true - despite the false comments to the contrary - India was not Holland and the problems caused by a lack of road and rail communication and distance was a very real problem thanks to numerous factors. In addition the military necessity (some people love to forget there was actually a war on) of getting supplies to the front line compounded the issues of geography and climate. However, if one believes the argument being made, the food wasn't delivered to India in the first place (although evidence also suggests there was surplus food in India as a whole??) - and what surplus there was was not distributed to the rural dwellers of Bengal - not through poor roads - but by policy. But if this was true why was the Viceroy, who could order the surplus moved, not doing so and at the same time apparently clamouring HMG for more food??. Like so much I've read, there is so much that is unclear or contradictory. The last report presented as evidence says that denial policy stopped the full planting of crops in 1942 and 1943. Other reports suggest the famine ended when the 'bumper' 1943 crop was harvested. How was the latter possible if the denial policy seriously hindered the planting in the first place?

mind_messing -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/22/2018 11:49:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Even today it is difficult to move food from one Indian state to another. It is actually easier and cheaper to import it from another country. As far as the railroads go, there are many accidents on them today with much loss of life. Don't tell me that it was better then, especially during a war. warspite1 Very true - despite the false comments to the contrary - India was not Holland and the problems caused by a lack of road and rail communication and distance was a very real problem thanks to numerous factors. In addition the military necessity (some people love to forget there was actually a war on) of getting supplies to the front line compounded the issues of geography and climate. The military necessity argument just doesn't hold up. The actual military value of the denial of rice and small boats is tiny, in comparison to the massive implications it has for the civilian population. The denial of rice is of little value as the Japanese would be living off their own rations. The denial of small boats is something of a joke, seeing as they were for the most part tiny rivercraft and fishing boats. In so far as I am aware, the removal of food and small boats from Bengal is unique in the Pacific War in that you had the removal of foodstuffs en masse prior to the Japanese occupation (which never materialized). The Dutch scorched earth tactics confined themselves to oil refineries and other strategic targets. It's a different kettle of fish in terms of military value if food shortages leading into famine was the end goal of the British military plans. In which case foricing the IJA to operate in a famine region rife with disease would have undoubtably been effective. quote: However, if one believes the argument being made, the food wasn't delivered to India in the first place (although evidence also suggests there was surplus food in India as a whole??) - and what surplus there was was not distributed to the rural dwellers of Bengal - not through poor roads - but by policy. But if this was true why was the Viceroy, who could order the surplus moved, not doing so and at the same time apparently clamouring HMG for more food??. Both Linlithgow and Wavell made appeals to HMG for food. It's worth noting where shipping directives came from: London. quote: Like so much I've read, there is so much that is unclear or contradictory. The last report presented as evidence says that denial policy stopped the full planting of crops in 1942 and 1943. Other reports suggest the famine ended when the 'bumper' 1943 crop was harvested. How was the latter possible if the denial policy seriously hindered the planting in the first place? The denial policy has a severe impact in contributing to the famine in two key ways: 1. Removal of rice stockpiles meant that starvation set in much sooner and on a larger scale than would have been the case had their been a reserve of rice to hand. 2. Removal of boats completely shattered the fishing communities in Bengal, a key source of food all year round. The following article goes in to some detail as to the important role boats played in the planting season - http://www.academia.edu/8831429/Boat_Denial_Policy_and_the_Great_Bengal_Famine_1943 quote: If all the evidence is available and indisputable, I wonder why (assuming they haven't) the Indian Government has not sought reparations from the UK for this 'crime' (however one wishes to define it)? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/24/indian-prime-minister-modi-endorses-britain-paying-damages-for-colonial-rule

RangerJoe -> RE: IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories (11/22/2018 3:37:06 PM)
quote: The denial of rice is of little value as the Japanese would be living off their own rations. Not necessarily true. The IJA lived off the land as much as is possible. The IJA in China sometimes ate Chinese - the people. They also went "hunting" for meat in New Guienea - Aussies found some of their dead with hunks of meat removed from them. George Bush was lucky being rescued by a submarine, the next airmen that were shot down and not recovered by the USN were eaten. The denial of the small boats and fishing boats were so the Japanese would not use them to cross waterways. The Japanese had previously used those types of boats to cross waterways in Burma to the detriment of the Allied positions there.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.96875