Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.10 ... 8908723118

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 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.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.10 ... 8908723118

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?……

"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?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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/ ... e;index=10

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.

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/999999900808 ... ch/winston

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

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.

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".

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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)?

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?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

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.

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_De ... amine_1943

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/ ... onial-rule

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.