Hitler's Indian recruits

[RajKhalsa]

Then why did you make a comment about teh Acadians when it is blatantly obvious you're ignorant of the topic?

Awww... So sweet. It's too bad you used the lazy man's way out of an arguement... Yell logical fallacy and run.

 

From that hotbed of proletarian discontent, wikipedia

 

"The phrase red herring has a number of metaphorical senses that share the general sense of something being a diversion from the original objective:

 

* a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments. See Ignoratio elenchi."

 

You brought up Acadians and drew a moral equivilance with the deportation of 15 thousand or whatever, to a political policy that killed three million and caused 20 million others to starve. For Chrissakes this has moral equivilance to the death of millions??

 

I brought up that point, and called your incorrect notion that it is "forgotten" and "irrelevant" to humanity, when over a billion and a half south Asians still very, very much remember it.

 

I miscorrectly said that they deported hundreds instaed of thousands. You corrected me and used this to claim I don't know what I'm talking about on the subject of India/Bengal Famine/Bose.

 

...

 

eh?

 

 

Here's another little wikipedia tidbit I found in the last article.

You a south park fan? Ever hear the term Chewbacca Defense?

 

[Rickshaw]

I'm a Marxist now??  Are you kidding me? I'm probably one of the most libertarian people you can meet.

 

Sorry, I missed this comment. Since when does being a libertarian preclude you from utilising Marxist analysis? Today, Marxism analysis is simply another tool, and one I note that is often utilised by economists, increasingly to help them to understand the stockmarket.

[FlyingCanOpener]

From that hotbed of proletarian discontent, wikipedia

 

"The phrase red herring has a number of metaphorical senses that share the general sense of something being a diversion from the original objective:

 

* a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments. See Ignoratio elenchi."

 

You brought up Acadians and drew a moral equivilance with the deportation of 15 thousand or whatever, to a political policy that killed three million and caused 20 million others to starve. For Chrissakes this has moral equivilance to the death of millions??

 

I brought up that point, and called your incorrect notion that it is "forgotten" and "irrelevant" to humanity, when over a billion and a half south Asians still very, very much remember it.

 

I miscorrectly said that they deported hundreds instaed of thousands. You corrected me and used this to claim I don't know what I'm talking about on the subject of India/Bengal Famine/Bose.

 

...

 

eh?

Here's another little wikipedia tidbit I found in the last article.

You a south park fan? Ever hear the term Chewbacca Defense?

 

210844[/snapback]

 

 

Actually I drug up a "who cares" part of history to a pompous Indian to equate it to how much I care about this whole claptrap. When you showed your ignorance of my neighbours' obvious ( *ahem*) suffering, you went on what seems to be a SOP illogal rant that was neither funny nor infomatative, then pulled out the usual intellectually lazy tactic of dropping the issue via calling out an imaginary logical fallacy. You can now strain your back in the process of trying to pull this back into some sort of advantage for yourself when it is obvious to the fora populace here that you are but a silly tool who gets his enjoyment via beating his chest about some issue noone in the real world cares about. Congrats!

 

BillB hit it on the head. I could care less a few million Indians died of famine back in the 1930s. You know why? Because it has absolutely no impact on my life as I know it. Hate to break it to you, but I won't be going into a week of white guilt-induced mourning because information about it was posted on the Internet.

 

Oh, and using Wikipedia as your only source shows your lack of care for the use of real sources that can be trusted and as an extension your linking of something from South Park shows that you must have an aversion to humour or something, because nothing you have said on this thread has even hinted of being humourous, not to mention South park hasn't been funny since, well, since 1995, when it started airing...

Edited August 23, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener

[RajKhalsa]

Sorry, I missed this comment.  Since when does being a libertarian preclude you from utilising Marxist analysis?  Today, Marxism analysis is simply another tool, and one I note that is often utilised by economists, increasingly to help them to understand the stockmarket.

210845[/snapback]

Fair enough

 

This thread has veered off in an unfortunate direction. Perhaps the Mods should administer a mercy killing.

210842[/snapback]

Agreed. If for the only reason I'll be out of town the next couple days.

[FormerBlue]

OK Nitin, I won't reply further. Except this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

210296[/snapback]

Couple of questions and comments. The wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

is somewhat interesting in an odd way. In that article we find:

American author Mike Davis and Indian author Amartya Sen specifically linked the 1943 famine and its predecessors in the region to British policies in the state of Bengal. Sen was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998 for his studies of the Bengal and other famines in Asia and Africa.

Mike Davis is a link. Part of his bio:

He currently teaches at the University of California, Irvine, and contributes to the British monthly Socialist Review, the organ of the Socialist Workers Party of Great Britain. He himself is a member of the Socialist Workers Party of Ireland.

Doesn't disqualify any research but I take socialists with more than a grain of salt. It's fortunate that they sell salt in the 50lb block form cheap here.

 

But let's look at the famine. From that article:

In the rice growing season of 1942- 1943, weather conditions were exactly right to encourage an epidemic of the rice disease brown spot. Brown spot in rice is caused by the fungus Helminthosporium oryzae; the outbreak of the disease caused almost complete destruction of the rice crop. Severe food shortages were worsened by the Second World War, with the British administration of India exporting foods to Allied soldiers and the cessation of rice imports from Burma following the Japanese control of the country.

 

The shortage of rice forced rice prices up, and wartime inflation compounded the problem. The civil administration did not intervene to control the price of rice, and so the price of rice exceeded the means of ordinary people. People migrated to the cities to find food and employment; finding neither, they starved.

 

Which is the major cause? British exports? No. The weather conditions caused the disease to cause the "almost complete destruction" of the rice crop. The Brits didn't cause the weather right? The other two items are "man made" but they are not the main reason. The loss of Burma was also not something the Brits could prevent.

 

Another point. What about 1974? Isn't Bangladesh part of that same region that suffered the famine in 1943? The British didn't cause the famine of 1974 did they? Looks to me like that area is famine prone to some extent. Over reliance on rice? Lose the crops and that's that?

 

The Brits may have worsened the 1943 famine. I don't have the details on that. What I do have, from the article you linked to, is the point that the 1943 famine was caused by weather.

 

I doubt that having a world war going on helped. "Famine relief" wasn't going to be a big focus in 1943. Food was already being rationed in most countries at war.

[FormerBlue]

not to mention South park hasn't been funny since, well, since 1995, when it started airing...

210850[/snapback]

You weren't watching the same show I was obviously. Best TV show ever made. I gave up TV about 3 years ago and only miss two things: boxing and South Park.

 

That show rocked.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Agreed. If for the only reason I'll be out of town the next couple days.

210851[/snapback]

 

Hope you can fit your ego through the door on the way out, as MODERATOR (Blessed be HIS name) could find a much easier reason for killing this thread, such as you lack of tact for a newcomer...

 

FormerBlue:

 

Nah, I never did like it. Too much bathroom humour for my tastes...even when I was a teenager back in the day...

 

Man, high school gets further and further in the rear view mirror...

Edited August 23, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener

[RajKhalsa]

Actually I drug up a "who cares" part of history to a pompous Indian to equate it to how much I care about this whole claptrap.

Wow, you must be so proud to be such an ignorantly arrogant culturocentrist.

 

When you showed your ignorance of my neighbours obvious ( *ahem*) suffering

You're absolutely right! I should care as much about the deporting of Arcadians in a subject completely irrelevant to the thread, more than I should care about and discuss the ( *ahem*) "suffering" of millions starved into death and submission.

 

How wonderfully logical

 

, you went on what seems to be a SOP illogal rant that was neither funny nor infomatative, then pulled out the usual intellectually lazy tactic of dropping the issue via calling out an imaginary logical fallacy.

No. I quite frankly don't care for that subject as much as this one, and will not entertain a shrill one-sided rant admittedly formed to detract from this thread.

 

 

via beating his chest about some issue noone in the real world cares about. Congrats![/.quote]Right. Real world = you and a couple thousand Arcadians? Apparently the four billion ex-colonized of the world caring about such trivial things like 'colonial matters' all live in the planet WhoGivesAShit.

 

For a subject you take great pains not to care about, you go to great lengths to make your myopic worldview painfully obvious.

 

 

BillB hit it on the head. I could care less a few million Indians died of famine back in the 1930s. You know why? Because it has absolutely no impact on my life as I know it. Hate to break it to you, but I won't be going into a week of white guilt-induced mourning because information about it was posted on the Internet.

Right. I guess I shouldn't really care about the Jews exterminated by hte Nazis. Chinese by the Japanese. Blacks by slavery. Hey! It doesnit affect me today!

 

Who gives a flying fudge about "morality" or "basic human rights"! It's not happening to me so its all cool! Hey you Tutsis and Hutus, have at it!

 

You understand the definition of the word 'psychopath', one unable to empathize with the suffering of others?

 

Dare I suggest you one, or will you come at me with a random fact about the demography of Papua New Guinea?

 

 

Perhaps you can point me to where I said you should feel guilty about what the British 4 generations ago did? Anyone? Bueller?

 

I stated basic facts, drew moral equivilance that no one has deemed to bother, and have been called every knee-jerk slur under the sun. To that, I called those giving slurs colonial apologists who are unable or unwilling to rationally and impartially accept the bare facts of the matter, and the explanation and reasoning why Netaji Bose is popular, and why the Azad Hind army was raised.

 

 

Oh, and South Park sucks, and has sucked since 1999 or so. You must have an aversion to humour or something, because nothing you have said on this thread has even hinted of being humourous.

Oh no! South Park (which I never watched) sucks! And therefore I'm unfunny! Oh the horror of it all! You totally served me there!

 

I have to say though, seeing the formation and action of a virtual lynch mob is an interesting sociological study.

 

-Raj

[RajKhalsa]

Couple of questions and comments.  The wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

is somewhat interesting in an odd way.  In that article we find:

Finally. A post devoid of the knee-jerk namecalling.

 

I will reply to that post hopefully tomorrow. It's 10:45 where I am, and I'm coming off shift right now (yeah posting at work )

 

Hopefully the thread stays unlocked by then...

 

edit- I also have no idea why most of my 'quote' tags aren't working....

Edited August 23, 2005 by RajKhalsa

[FlyingCanOpener]

Wow, you must be so proud to be such an ignorantly arrogant culturocentrist.

 

If you say so.

 

You're absolutely right! I should care as much about the deporting of Arcadians in a subject completely irrelevant to the thread, more than I should care about and discuss the ( *ahem*) "suffering" of millions starved into death and submission.

 

It's spelled Acadians

 

No. I quite frankly don't care for that subject as much as this one, and will not entertain a shrill one-sided rant admittedly formed to detract from this thread.

 

Then why are you even responding. Pot, meet kettle.

 

Right. I guess I shouldn't really care about the Jews exterminated by hte Nazis. Chinese by the Japanese. Blacks by slavery. Hey! It doesnit affect me today!

 

I won't stop you wasting your time in the present wringing your hands at the past..

 

You understand the definition of the word 'psychopath', one unable to empathize with the suffering of others?

 

...and how will empathising with people who died 70 years ago bring them back to life?

 

Dare I suggest you one, or will you come at me with a random fact about the demography of Papua New Guinea?

 

Well, since you're gullible enough to insist...

 

Only 6% of Papua New Guinea's population (313,848 out of a total population of 5,171,548, according to the 2000 census) consist of females living in urban areas.

 

 

Perhaps you can point me to where I said you should feel guilty about what the British 4 generations ago did? Anyone? Bueller?

 

If you don't want Westerners to feel guilty, then why do you keep on playing the OMG COLONIAL OPPRESSORS card at every turn?

 

I stated basic facts, drew moral equivilance that no one has deemed to bother, and have been called every knee-jerk slur under the sun.

 

I could think of a few that haven't been posted yet, but I'm above that.

 

To that, I called those giving slurs colonial apologists who are unable or unwilling to rationally and impartially accept the bare facts of the matter, and the explanation and reasoning why Netaji Bose is popular, and why the Azad Hind army was raised.

 

Lemme raise the "Whoopie! No-one cares!" Flag for that one...

 

Oh no! South Park (which I never watched) sucks! And therefore I'm unfunny! Oh the horror of it all! You totally served me there!

 

Actually I said I never liked it, not never watched it. I guess you'll blame that slip-up on British colonial rule too...

 

I have to say though, seeing the formation and action of a virtual lynch mob is an interesting sociological study.

 

I guess if you're into poorly-written bathroom humour you'd find it interesting...

Edited August 23, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener

[BillB]

.....post fact still yet irrefuted

 

What fact would this be then? Not one of the ones refuted by nitin, I presume.

 

Wow! Again, the words that I type mean so much more than what they actually say! Beautifully articulate language this is. Beautiful!

 

It is until you've done mangling it in a not very effective attempt at being humorous/covering up your trolling.

 

That a comment stating the deep-rooted extent of anti-democratic ethos in the British-involvement in India (aka, for those seemingly unable to take a half-stated argument to its logical completion: ethos driving political/military action that are at odds with those living under the same political tyranny), and that the ideas of un-democractic action and mercantilist policy are seemingly indivisible principals when applied to British involvement in India, could be twisted by half-hearted sophistry into a valiant denunciation by yours truely is truely remarkable. Wow!

 

Wow indeed. A whole paragraph of nonsense that deftly avoids acknowledging the point, ie that you are not going to allow uncomfortable historical fact to undermine your personal prejudices.

 

But who am I to dare wield the full power of this language? Could it, dare I say!, simply mean what exactly I said I meant, that all normal people not applying legalistic anal-retentiveness to correct grammar would get by basic intuition?

 

Well that is perfectly possible. Unfortunately your torturous and fruitless attempts to produce understandable prose make it virtually impossible to tell if this is actually the case or not. I assume from this you are an undergraduate?

 

Could I simply mean by my statement that my acknowlagement of the fundamental fact that British policy through the East India Company and subsequent Raj was based on mercantilistic policy; and that such policy was fundamentally undemocratic and anti-colonized, even after the heady ideals of modern democracy were put in place, and the Briton in England enjoyed the fruits of those democratic trees planted, while the average Indian in British India withered under the mismanagement and authoritarianism of what literally is a fascist state?

 

See above ref torturous prose. And remember only charlatans, the ignorant and the intellectually bankrupt try to cast ideas, concepts and events backward in time. You also appear to be oblivious to the irony of a supporter of Bose accusing others of being a fascist. Or are Sam Browne belts, high boots and colourful Nazi style armbands native Indian costume?

 

Could I get another example of sophistic blithering around an obvious reason of statement?

 

You like that sophist word, don't you. Is it one you've just learned? if so that would explain your inaccurate usage and apparent lack of understanding of the term.

 

Tsk Tsk. Apparently you don't seem to understand the notion of the word 'Mercantilism'.

 

Possibly, but from what fragments of your post I can understand, I think I have a better grasp of it than you. Unless we are talking about twisting the past to suit current political preferences, in which case I defer to your superior expertise

 

It was very much a two way street in the immoral ethos. Pity that the average Indian realizes that the selfish Kings were as much to blame in the matter, while the British and their assorted apologists are apparently content to say "yeah we were jackasses but you were also kind of, so therefore, we weren't!"

 

Sorry mate, I think you're confusing me with our pet Imperial Japanese apologist Nobu, that's his MO. I bet it really hurt you to admit that though, didn't it?

 

And of course, your page-long rant over your idiotic extrapolation of a tangent of an argument I didn't even make, makes oh so much relevance to the ONLY fact and argument I posted earlier that, and I will expand on it now for the benefit of the willfully blind,

 

Are you being paid by the word? Or is this long-winded gibberish really the best you can do? You seem to be labouring under the illusion that merely shouting the same point over and over equates to discussion. A common affliction among trolls, I'm told.

 

The British in WW2 to the average Indian was only margianally better a colonial oppressor than both the Japanese and the Nazis. Their political repression had the net result of killing millions of Indian civilians, and bringing a hundred million to starvation even while over a million Indians joined up to fight for democracy and freedom in Europe which they never themselves enjoyed.

 

It was under this climate that Netaji Bose attempts to militarize the Indian to fight for his own freedom rather than anothers was so well recieved, and why he is so adored today.

 

And you know this how? Have you any proof of what the average Indian thought? I've seen Indian war veterans expressing very different opinions about Bose. And again, if what you keep parroting was the case, why did Indians volunteer to join the oppressors army literally by the million? Instead of the sarcasm how about responding to questions? Unless you are looking to be classified as a troll, of course.

 

[Did all you all grow up on a farm? Cause you are incredibly fond of building up and tearing down straw men.

 

see above, troll.

 

Wow a spelling nazi meets me, the Indian nazi! Ain't the internet amazing!

Right. That was the intercene (thats the way I spell it, btw) violence that was allowed to go unchecked even though the British had the ability to control the situation. Shall I bring up more Wikipedia articles about the Bengal riots, or will that again be a dasteredly act by a commie nazi meiji indian nationalist racist pig?

Very true indeed. It was a shame it took just under a century to work it out.

 

No, because you aren't an Indian, you're a third-generation American despite you wet dream fantasies about Bose. Actually, I was referring those who died at the hands of their erstwhile countrymen *after* the British had gone. But I suppose that is another straw man, right? And keep the wikipedia. I've got access to a first-rank university library. How about some proper references, as opposed to the results of a quick google search? You know, something that has been exposed to a bit of peer review and academic rigour as opposed to just posted on the web.

 

Could it *shock* be that the average Indian was content with his lot because *horror* he was not educated in the basic freedoms that democracy would otherwise grant him. Could this be *cringe* why the Indian independence movement was only a fad by the Indian elites until *gasp* Gandhiji and his followers created a mass grassroots movement through elimination of the former polity and social and ideological reconstruction of the poor multitudes whom he mobilized to demand their freedoms?

 

These would be the multitudes who weren't queuing up to volunteer for the oppressors army, right? You know, the ones that kept the Japanese away from showing Ghandi and the INC what real oppression was like.

 

Could such a person like yourself make an argument that since the slaves in the Americas so very much outnumbered their oppressive masters, and because they were so broken in spirit as a people after hundreds of years of institutionalized oppression and kept uneducated in their basic freedoms and rights that they absolutely loved slavery! Hey, they hardly ever revolted, right! What fun they must have had! No?

 

No, because its got nothing to do with the matter at hand. And anyway, I thought I was supposed to be the one erecting straw men? Whichever, I'm unaware of American slaves volunteering by the multi-million to serve their oppressors, broken in spirit or otherwise. You keep clinging to that line though, no matter how threadbare and irrelevant it becomes. A good troll always plays to his strengths.

 

Good lord you're absolutely daft.

 

Better to be thought daft than be caught parroting pseudo-Marxist claptrap like a throwback to 1960s student politics.

 

I guess the term "irony" is an Indian concept only. As is the logical application of political slurs on me logically extended to statements of similar 'radicalism' on the other side of hte coin.

 

Sorry, you've lost me. Again.

 

Actually, I'm a 3rd-generation Indian-American who's soon going to attend boot camp for the Marines Corps in about 3 months.

 

I thought so. One day I'm sure I'll run across a rabid Indian nationalist who actually puts his money where his mouth is and lives in India. I assume from your performance thus far the USMC have lowered their entry requirements?

 

But wait! I'm also a Indian Hindu nationalist anti-semite commie nazi racist! Not someone who believes in democracy and capitalism, votes republican, and is against colonialist fascism!

 

You missed out "knobhead" again and the bit about being in love with the sound of your own voice and what you fondly imagine to be wit. And the fact that you can link colonialism with fascism speaks volumes about your lack of understanding of either.

 

Oh lordy how can that be! How can that be! *weeps*

Oh what overwhelming self-pity I have! *breaks down into a bitter shell of a man he once was*

 

What are you on about? Are you on drugs?

 

Could it simply be that the lot here are hyperventilative reactionaries when confronted with an analogy that so unconfortably puts them at moral par with ww2 nazis and japanese?

 

At moral par with the Nazis and Japanese...hyperventilating? What a load of cock. Could it be that you are so blinded by your prejudices that you can seriously believe such arrant nonsense? As for us all being reactionaries (more pseudo-Marxist claptrap there I see), I suppose we must be something of the sort, given the overwhelming tide of support your pitiful drivellings have attracted thus far. I don't suppose it could occur to an ego the size yours appears to be that the fact that your voice is virtually alone might be simply because you are talking bollocks. Or perhaps everyone else has realised that you are the internet equivalent of the medieval lunatic cavorting with his pigs bladder on a stick, desperate for attention at any price, and that a pitying silence is the best response.

 

all the best,

 

BillB

[FlyingCanOpener]

I thought so. One day I'm sure I'll run across a rabid Indian nationalist who actually puts his money where his mouth is and lives in India. I assume from your performance thus far the USMC have lowered their entry requirements?

210872[/snapback]

 

Hehe, the fact that the only people here who espouse radical Indian nationalism here are people of Indian ethnicity that just happen to not live in India reminds me of a line my geography professor used to tell us about presentism. Allow me to paraphrase:

 

There are many people here who complain about the immoral policies of western colonial states whilst living in these same colonial states. I ask these people this: Would you rather live with the concequences of this oppression or go back in time, right such wrongs, and as a result live in an overcrowded hell-hole on par with sub-Saharan Africa with all of its modern trappings of war, famine, and kleptocracies, save the contact with the West, because, after all, it was all better back then before the evil white men came...

 

BTW, you're my hero Bill

[larrikin]

<snip>

 

In strictly military terms, the British failure to recruit more Indian troops in WW2 probably didn't make much difference to our strength. The earlier failure to develop the Indian economy - or allow it to develop itself - was the great mistake. A richer India could have made a huge difference to our military potential, as long as it remained on our side. So giving India an incentive to support Britain was another necessity. We didn't do enough of either. India was seen, economically, as a captive market for British industry & as a source of income & primary produce. Very old-fashioned & short-sighted economic thinking. The "licence raj" (which independent India made the mistake of keeping) stifled the economy wherever it was thought it might offer competition for British manufacturers, as it was designed to. The idea that richer Indians could buy more British goods didn't seem to register with the makers of colonial policy. Ah well, too late now.

210725[/snapback]

 

In many ways the same economic attitudes hamstrung Australia's ability to contribute to the war effort. Our between Wars govts made strenuous efforts to industrialize, and the old school colonialists like Churchill worked very hard to stop them, in order to keep Oz as a captive market for British manufactured goods. Even during the War Winnie resisted Oz getting machine tools to further up our industrial output.

[AaronK]

One thing I got to tell. These British must have way too much time at their hand.

 

I can understand that it hurts them badly but hey life is a bit*h. In those days India had only one enemy Britain. Some Indians such as Neta Jee recognized it a bit earlier than others. If Japan had animosity against Chinese that does not automatically make Japanese enemy of India as well. I disagree that Japan had any intention of occupying India. Once Japanese reached Burma, all INA operations were carried out by Neta Jee.

 

British promised to leave India once the war would be over in return for co-operation from Indian leaders in recruiting soldiers for WWII. After war was over instead of leaving India, British came down with more brutal laws. As a result of those bigoted policies of British policy makers, a lot of Indian soldiers (serving for British Queen) started to rebel against British Raj. In the brief uprising, they captured some British officers and even seized a British warship in Bombay harbour. But after mediation done by Sirdar Patel, situation was dissolved. I think British requested help from USA but they (USA) advised British to leave India.

 

British left India. The End!

[AaronK]

There were 500 thousand Indians serving in her majesty’s army. Many Indians perished in the Europe and in Africa fighting Germans to save her majesty’s fa**y from Germans. But this is how British show their appreciation.

[Nobu]

There were 500 thousand Indians serving in her majesty’s army.

210908[/snapback]

 

Were any Indian combat units deployed in the ETO north of Italy? I don't seem to recall hearing of any.

[AaronK]

[Edited by AaronK. Nobu! I misunderstood you for FlyingShit type troll. I read your post down the thread. You are not a troll. My apology]

Edited August 24, 2005 by AaronK

[swerve]

There were 500 thousand Indians serving in her majesty’s army. Many Indians perished in the Europe and in Africa fighting Germans to save her majesty’s fa**y from Germans. But this is how British show their appreciation.

 

His Majesty King George VIth, Emperor of India - the last Moghul Emperor.

[LeoTanker]

There were 500 thousand Indians serving in her majesty’s army. Many Indians perished in the Europe and in Africa fighting Germans to save her majesty’s fa**y from Germans. But this is how British show their appreciation.

210908[/snapback]

 

I agree with you. India made a huge contrabution to the Allied wareffort in WW2, and should be recognized for this. It´s a bit ironic that France, that surendered in 1940 (don´t get me wrong Frenshmen, I like France. Its a nice country with exelent food and cars) is considered to be one of the four major allied victorius powers, but India that fought and bleed for the whole war, and gave the Germans and Japs a hell of a fight, is never mentioned as one of the major allies.

 

Ok, I know India was a British colony during the war, but still? It´s kind a odd..

[swerve]

Couple of questions and comments.  The wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

is somewhat interesting in an odd way.  In that article we find:

 

Mike Davis is a link.  Part of his bio:

 

Doesn't disqualify any research but I take socialists with more than a grain of salt.  It's fortunate that they sell salt in the 50lb block form cheap here.

 

But let's look at the famine.  From that article:

Which is the major cause?  British exports?  No.  The weather conditions caused the disease to cause the "almost complete destruction" of the rice crop.  The Brits didn't cause the weather right?  The other two items are "man made" but they are not the main reason.  The loss of Burma was also not something the Brits could prevent. 

 

Another point.  What about 1974?  Isn't Bangladesh part of that same region that suffered the famine in 1943?  The British didn't cause the famine of 1974 did they?  Looks to me like that area is famine prone to some extent.  Over reliance on rice?  Lose the crops and that's that? 

 

The Brits may have worsened the 1943 famine.  I don't have the details on that.  What I do have, from the article you linked to, is the point that the 1943 famine was caused by weather.

 

I doubt that having a world war going on helped.  "Famine relief" wasn't going to be a big focus in 1943.  Food was already being rationed in most countries at war.

210852[/snapback]

 

 

FormerBlue,

 

A harvest failure doesn't automatically cause a famine. Nor does the loss of one source of food imports, unless it's the only source. The Bengal famine was caused by a combination of factors.

1) bad harvest - nobodys fault

2) no rice imports from Burma - Japanese fault

3) increased British rice buying, to feed troops, pushing up prices

4) British removal of rice stocks to deny them to Japanese in case the Japanese got that far

5) British seizure of local boats to deny them to Japanese if they got that far, thus preventing fishing & trading by locals

6) hoarding of rice by traders seeking to profit from the ever higher prices paid by British official buyers as the shortages grew & prices rose

 

The starvation was mainly (some poor people would have starved anyway) due to British actions meant to ensure a supply of food to the army, & to deny transport & food to the Japanese army which they feared was about to invade, in the context of an already difficult situation caused by factors outside British control. If the harvest had been good, the peasants would have had their own stocks & wouldn't have been buying grain & pricing the landless (already short of money because the poor harvest meant less work for them) out of the market into starvation, even with the other factors. If the boats hadn't been seized, food could have been moved by locals into the worst shortage areas, & fishermen would have been feeding themselves & others instead of adding to the list of food buyers. Etc.

 

None of the above actions was intended or expected to cause mass starvation, but they were continued after it was clear what effect they were having - although some officials took it on themselves to go against policy to provide relief, & many protested at the effect.

[swerve]

If India was that important economically to the UK, the UK would have hung onto India, come hell or high water.

 

Indias economic importance to the UK in 1947 was a hell of a lot less than in 1857. The UK had got much richer: India hadn't. India in the C19 paid for all the British armed & diplomatic presence east of Suez, its own administration & armed forces, the UK-based costs of governing it (including pensions for retired colonial administrators & officers), & an additional contribution to the British exchequer called "the Home Charges".

[BillB]

One thing I got to tell. These British must have way too much time at their hand.

 

I can understand that it hurts them badly but hey life is a bit*h. In those days India had only one enemy Britain. Some Indians such as Neta Jee recognized it a bit earlier than others. If Japan had animosity against Chinese that does not automatically make Japanese enemy of India as well. I disagree that Japan had any intention of occupying India. Once Japanese reached Burma, all INA operations were carried out by Neta Jee.

 

British promised to leave India once the war would be over in return for co-operation from Indian leaders in recruiting soldiers for WWII. After war was over instead of leaving India, British came down with more brutal laws. As a result of those bigoted policies of British policy makers, a lot of Indian soldiers (serving for British Queen) started to rebel against British Raj. In the brief uprising, they captured some British officers and even seized a British warship in Bombay harbour. But after mediation done by Sirdar Patel, situation was dissolved. I think British requested help from USA but they (USA) advised British to leave India.

 

British left India. The End!

210906[/snapback]

 

These British? You mean like Flying Can Opener, the died in the wool German American? And I don't think you do understand, about the British leaving India "hurting" or much else for that matter. Let me spell it out for you, Aaron. I have no problem with the British leaving India in 1947, it was something that should have happened earlier, and I also think that the switch from a commercial to full-blown colonial relationship was similarly mistaken with the benefit of hindsight. What does hurt me is ill-informed, one sided propaganda and similar clap trap being passed off as the only historical truth on any subject.

 

Consequently, you could therefore have saved yorself some trouble by restricting your posts to the very last two words. You clearly need to do a lot of reading, as you seem unaware that the Japanese actually carried out a full scale invasion of India in 1944, leading to the battles at Imphal and Kohima. And if you really believe that the Japanese went to the trouble of invading India and forming the puppet INA because they had no intention of subjugating India in the same way thay did China and were just helping Bose through the kindness of their hearts, there is not really much point in talking to you. Seeking knowledge, which appears to be your intent, is a laudable aim, but the trick is to do it without flaunting your own lack of the same as if it were worth something or something to be proud of. Pehaps you've heard the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

 

There were 500 thousand Indians serving in her majesty’s army. Many Indians perished in the Europe and in Africa fighting Germans to save her majesty’s fa**y from Germans. But this is how British show their appreciation.

 

They did indeed, and I've paid my respects at many of their graves from both world wars. They were actually serving in the same Army as the other millions of Indians who volunteered and fought the Turks and the Japanese, however, so your division is a false one. Perhaps you cpould expand on the last part, as it doesn't seem to make sense. As you admit to knowing little about conditions for south Asians in Britian over in the Jihad Radio thread, I assume that you don't know that they were granted full British citizenship on application for at least thirty years after Indian independence if they wished to emigrate to the UK. Or that large numbers of the south Asian diaspora were given the same right when forcibly ejected from Uganda.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

FormerBlue,

 

A harvest failure doesn't automatically cause a famine. Nor does the loss of one source of food imports, unless it's the only source. The Bengal famine was caused by a combination of factors.

1) bad harvest - nobodys fault

2) no rice imports from Burma - Japanese fault

3) increased British rice buying, to feed troops, pushing up prices

4) British removal of rice stocks to deny them to Japanese in case the Japanese got that far

5) British seizure of local boats to deny them to Japanese if they got that far, thus preventing fishing & trading by locals

6) hoarding of rice by traders seeking to profit from the ever higher prices paid by British official buyers as the shortages grew & prices rose

 

The starvation was mainly (some poor people would have starved anyway) due to British actions meant to ensure a supply of food to the army, & to deny transport & food to the Japanese army which they feared was about to invade, in the context of an already difficult situation caused by factors outside British control. If the harvest had been good, the peasants would have had their own stocks & wouldn't have been buying grain & pricing the landless (already short of money because the poor harvest meant less work for them) out of the market into starvation, even with the other factors. If the boats hadn't been seized, food could have been moved by locals into the worst shortage areas, & fishermen would have been feeding themselves & others instead of adding to the list of food buyers. Etc.

 

None of the above actions was intended or expected to cause mass starvation, but they were continued after it was clear what effect they were having - although some officials took it on themselves to go against policy to provide relief, & many protested at the effect.

210962[/snapback]

Thanks for that, Swerve, interesting stuff. There seems to be a few parallels with the Irish Potato Famine in there.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

I agree with you. India made a huge contrabution to the Allied wareffort in WW2, and should be recognized for this. It´s a bit ironic that France, that surendered in 1940 (don´t get me wrong Frenshmen, I like France. Its a nice country with exelent food and cars) is considered to be one of the four major allied victorius powers, but India that fought and bleed for the whole war, and gave the Germans and Japs a hell of a fight, is never mentioned as one of the major allies.

 

Ok, I know India was a British colony during the war, but still? It´s kind a odd..

210958[/snapback]

Me too, FWIW, and it applies to WW1 and West Indian and African servicemen in WW2 as well. A shameful omission, and I suspect exacerbated by pique after 1947. Altho the BBC commentators at the Rememberance Day commemorations have started to metion them explicitly over the last few years, IIRC.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[Ox]

His Majesty King George VIth, Emperor of India - the last Moghul Emperor. 

210956[/snapback]

 

and could not therefore have had a fanny. See some of us Brits have a firm grasp of history, bioligy and logic