1943 famine in India -- British act of genocide?

[michael mills]

Because they were defeated and had come under the power of their enemies.

Churchill was not defeated and therefore did not come under the power of his enemies.

[David Thompson]

Let's try to move past vapid repartee in this discussion.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Sandeep and Michael,

I would be happy to engage in your diversion, if you would care to start a thread on the subject.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

There is a difference between responsibility for mass deaths and genocide.

The Bengal famine victims formed the vast majority of all British Commonwealth military and civilian deaths during WWII. They should not be ignored, but should be discussed in their true context.

Genocide requires a focused act of political will to exterminate a people. This was clearly not British policy at the time of the Bengal famine. India's population grew massively under British rule precisely because British central government and British-built railways had improved the distribution of food. There is nothing in the pre-war record that indicates that the Bengal Famine would have claimed so many (or perhaps any) lives had the war not distorted British priorities.

That said, had the British set different priorities and acted differently, these deaths were still very probably avoidable. This makes them ultimately a British responsibility.

Finally, consider this when weighing the genocide charge. British and Indian nutritionists developed the Bengal Famine Mix to try to save lives during it. When the British discovered the malnourished and dying inmates of Belsen Concentration Camp, they served this same Bengal Famine Mix to try to save them.

Does anyone seriously imagine that if the Germans had come across the Bengal Famine they would have had a Belsen Concentration Camp Mix available to try to save Indian lives?

Of course not!

Why? Because Belsen was a (peripheral) part of a genuine genocide programme in which no priority was placed on saving the lives of victims. Hence the absence of any notional Belsen Concentration Camp Mix.

By contrast, the Bengal Famine was not a part of a genocide programme and, albeit too late, real efforts were made to save lives. Hence the Bengal Famine Mix.

British responsibility - Yes.

British genocide - No.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Guys,

There is a difference between responsibility for mass deaths and genocide.

.......................................

Finally, consider this when weighing the genocide charge. British and Indian nutritionists developed the Bengal Famine Mix to try to save lives during it. When the British discovered the malnourished and dying inmates of Belsen Concentration Camp, they served this same Bengal Famine Mix to try to save them.
..............................................

British responsibility - Yes.

British genocide - No.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid..

Sorry ' am responding late. Have been caught up in a gruelling schedule in the outside world

Can you please tell us which "Indian Nutritionists" developed the so called "Bengal famine mix" and what did it contain..and what was its impact on the famine? Further can you pl elucidate the impact of this elixir on the Belsen camp inmates?

My information is that no Indian nutritionists were ever involved. This pathetic ghoulash consisted of milk power added to vast quantities of boiling water. In Belsen, this gruel was further "improved" with liberal additions of sugar and flour (donated from local British Army supplies). However this sickeningly sweet offering was rejected outright by the Jewish inmates as completely unsuitable (for the palates and gastrointestinal systems of long starving people).

Ciao
Sandeep

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Guys,

There is a difference between responsibility for mass deaths and genocide.
..................................


Why? Because Belsen was a (peripheral) part of a genuine genocide programme in which no priority was placed on saving the lives of victims. Hence the absence of any notional Belsen Concentration Camp Mix.

By contrast, the Bengal Famine was not a part of a genocide programme and, albeit too late, real efforts were made to save lives. Hence the Bengal Famine Mix.

British responsibility - Yes.

British genocide - No.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid...

Himmler and the SS tried some such Smart Alecky tricks too... and to as little avail. In the final months of the war, Himmler authorised train loads of Jews to be sent to Switzerland when he was cozying up to the western allies. And a tragi-comedy happened in Berlin when hell was descending on the heads of the SS and Security garrison in the last days of April. They spared some of the prisoners in the Gestapo cellars who would otherwise have been shot. Their logic was very "Bengal famine mix..ish" ! They felt that these handful of alive prisoners would prove to the world that the gestapo wasn't into liquidating its prisoners !

British genocide or not..the 4.3 million deaths were caused by deliberate British choices and not casual happenstance.


Ciao
Sandeep

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Sandeep,

You write "British genocide or not". Well, it clearly was not.

4.3 million deaths is the high end estimate. As we don't know precisely how many died, in the interests of balance, you should accompany it with the low end estimate.

You write, "the..... deaths were caused by deliberate British choices." Well, no. It was never the deliberate British choice that millions of Indians should die. Under 200 years of British rule in India, the population had more than doubled from about 155 million to some 350 million. One estimate is that population of actually grew during the war from 311 million to 336 million over 1939-45. This is a record that is quite the reverse of genocide.

You also write, "the deaths were..... not casual happenstance." This is true. Their immediate causes were nature and the disruption caused by the war, exacerbated by inefficiency and corruption. British responsibility lies in failing to address this when it was possible to do so, even if at some expense to the war effort. This was a differential decision that proved tragically wrong, and for this sin of omission the UK is undoubtedly responsible.

Cheers,

Sid

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Sandeep,

...................

You also write, "the deaths were..... not casual happenstance." This is true. Their immediate causes were nature and the disruption caused by the war, exacerbated by inefficiency and corruption. British responsibility lies in failing to address this when it was possible to do so, even if at some expense to the war effort. This was a differential decision that proved tragically wrong, and for this sin of omission the UK is undoubtedly responsible.

Cheers,

Sid

Hi Sid..

Nice vocabulary However the cold facts are :

[*] "Their immediate causes were nature and the disruption caused by the war" ...The war was far far away in the midst of Burma in 1943.

[*] " Their immediate causes were nature and the disruption caused by the war, exacerbated by inefficiency and corruption "..... The British Govt of the day had decreed "scorched earth" even when the Japs were far far away. The corruption has been proved to be of no major consequence where the famine is concerned, as I have mentioned in my earlier posts here.

[*] " British responsibility lies in failing to address this when it was possible to do so, even if at some expense to the war effort ".... Later when the Punjab faced a looming food crisis, Churchill sent over grains pronto, war or no war ! The fact that the British Indian Army had an important and numerically large Punjabi community appears to have been the differentiator? And the fact that the penal colony for freedom fighters (cellular jail) in the Andamans (run along the lines of Dachau) had been historically populated mostly by Bengalis, another prime differentiator?
And stocking up food for trading at a profit, in post war starving Europe another motivator for Churchill?


Archibald Percival Wavell; The Viceroy's journal, 1973; Entry of 4.July.44, (page 78) “Winston sent me a peevish telegram to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet! He has never answered my telegram about food.”


Ciao
Sandeep

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Sandeep,

Nope, the war wasn't "far far away in the midst of Burma in 1943".

1) The front was on the Indian border, not in the midst of Burma.

2) The front was entirely supported by lines of communication running through Bengal.

3) Burma was the main source of imported rice to India. This was a major contributary factor to the shortage of available food reserves in India at the time. The other major source of rice was Egypt, which was itself the hinterland of a battlefront and whose own rice surplus had disappeared because of an inability to get Chilean fertilizer during the war.

You say, the British Government planned a "scorched earth" policy if the Japanese invaded India?

1) "Scorched earth" is as turn of phrase and without details of what it might have consisted of its implications here are unclear

2) The Japanese did not invade India until 1944.

3) Even then no scorched earth policy was instituted.

You write, "Later when the Punjab faced a looming food crisis, Churchill sent over grains pronto, war or no war!" OK. So this indicates (1) the British had no policy of genocide and (2) they were capable of learning from their mistakes. Neither strikes me as a bad thing.

You then employ the conspiracy theorist's classic technique of asking loaded questions without daring to state them as facts:

1) "The fact that the British Indian Army had an important and numerically large Punjabi community appears to have been the differentiator? "

and

2) "And the fact that the penal colony for freedom fighters (cellular jail) in the Andamans (run along the lines of Dachau) had been historically populated mostly by Bengalis, another prime differentiator?"

If you are prepared to state them as facts, I will happily investigate them. Until then I will treat them as rhetorical devices.

To save you some of the trouble, yes the Punjab produced a high proportion of the Indian Army, whereas Bengal only supplied the Bengal Sappers and Miners and this might have been a factor, but have you any evidence (rather than coincidence) to this effect?

You claim the Andaman prison was "run on the lines of Dachau". The political prisoners on the Andaman Islands were repatriated before WWII. Ironically, given the subject of this thread, the reason was that one of the prisoners on hunger strike died while being force fed by the prison authorities!

There were 32,000 recorded deaths at Dachau and I am unaware of any attempt at force feeding to save a single one of them. After a quick search, I can find reference to only two deaths at the Andaman Islands prison after WWI, only one of which is mysterious. Are there more?

As regards Wavell: He was the senior Briton in India, and he was asking for food. If "the British" were intent on a policy of genocide, this would hardly have been the case.

As regards Gandhi: Didn't he go on extended hunger strikes at least 17 times? I would suggest that it was often topical to ask if Gandhi was still alive, even if it was unnecessary for Churchill to phrase his enquiry in such a heartless manner.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Double post.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Sandeep,

Nope, the war wasn't "far far away in the midst of Burma in 1943".

1) The front was on the Indian border, not in the midst of Burma.

2) The front was entirely supported by lines of communication running through Bengal.

3) Burma was the main source of imported rice to India. This was a major contributary factor to the shortage of available food reserves in India at the time. The other major source of rice was Egypt, which was itself the hinterland of a battlefront and whose own rice surplus had disappeared because of an inability to get Chilean fertilizer during the war.

You say, the British Government planned a "scorched earth" policy if the Japanese invaded India?

1) "Scorched earth" is as turn of phrase and without details of what it might have consisted of its implications here are unclear

2) The Japanese did not invade India until 1944.

3) Even then no scorched earth policy was instituted.

You write, "Later when the Punjab faced a looming food crisis, Churchill sent over grains pronto, war or no war!" OK. So this indicates (1) the British had no policy of genocide and (2) they were capable of learning from their mistakes. Neither strikes me as a bad thing.

You then employ the conspiracy theorist's classic technique of asking loaded questions without daring to state them as facts:

1) "The fact that the British Indian Army had an important and numerically large Punjabi community appears to have been the differentiator? "

and

2) "And the fact that the penal colony for freedom fighters (cellular jail) in the Andamans (run along the lines of Dachau) had been historically populated mostly by Bengalis, another prime differentiator?"

If you are prepared to state them as facts, I will happily investigate them. Until then I will treat them as rhetorical devices.

To save you some of the trouble, yes the Punjab produced a high proportion of the Indian Army, whereas Bengal only supplied the Bengal Sappers and Miners and this might have been a factor, but have you any evidence (rather than coincidence) to this effect?

You claim the Andaman prison was "run on the lines of Dachau". The political prisoners on the Andaman Islands were repatriated before WWII. Ironically, given the subject of this thread, the reason was that one of the prisoners on hunger strike died while being force fed by the prison authorities!

There were 32,000 recorded deaths at Dachau and I am unaware of any attempt at force feeding to save a single one of them. After a quick search, I can find reference to only two deaths at the Andaman Islands prison after WWI, only one of which is mysterious. Are there more?

As regards Wavell: He was the senior Briton in India, and he was asking for food. If "the British" were intent on a policy of genocide, this would hardly have been the case.

As regards Gandhi: Didn't he go on extended hunger strikes at least 17 times? I would suggest that it was often topical to ask if Gandhi was still alive, even if it was unnecessary for Churchill to phrase his enquiry in such a heartless manner.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid...

I will address your issues one by one :

1) The front was on the Indian border, not in the midst of Burma.

In 1943 the front line was fluid in Northern Burma with the main Jap presence being further south. There was action in the Arakan area. Brig Wingate's legendary Chindits were harassing the Japs and rendering their communication & supply lines untenable in Northern Burma. I am attaching a biggish scale map of the Bengal, Assam, Burma area with the distance-scale provided. You can see just how far the action in Burma was from the plains of Bengal. Even if we leave Calcutta and West Bengal, look at the distance from Dacca (Dhaka), the most important city of East Bengal.
It was only in 1944 that the Japs could move enough forces and equipment into Northern Burma in order to threaten the British forces in the India - Burma border, both in Indian territory as well as in Burmese territory.

http://www.ourstory.info/library/4-ww2/Ball/maps/map07.gif

2) The front was entirely supported by lines of communication running through Bengal.

So? The front in the Western Desert was supported by lines of communication through Egypt, Palestine, Iraq et al.. Haven't heard of scorched earth and famines there.

3) Burma was the main source of imported rice to India. This was a major contributary factor to the shortage of available food reserves in India at the time. The other major source of rice was Egypt, which was itself the hinterland of a battlefront and whose own rice surplus had disappeared because of an inability to get Chilean fertilizer during the war.

During wartime the supply equations change. The respective powers manage the essential supplies under the changed circumstances. That's part of their overall job. Going by your line of reasoning, Britain would have had a devastating famine after it was knocked out of mainland Europe and its waters were rendered treacherous by the U boat packs and marauding Luftwaffe raiders. But no, grain-ships from all over the world managed to find their way to Britain all right.
Even as Bengal died in its fields, streets and ditches, grain ships from Australia passed by, south of India, looking the other way.
Why? Because the Bengali untermensch were less important and dispensable than the uber mensch residing tens of thousands of miles away.



You say, the British Government planned a "scorched earth" policy if the Japanese invaded India?

1) "Scorched earth" is as turn of phrase and without details of what it might have consisted of its implications here are unclear

2) The Japanese did not invade India until 1944.

3) Even then no scorched earth policy was instituted.


Scorched earth policy was executed by the administration as early as 1942 in East Bengal, in the south eastern areas. equipment and means of communication and transportation were confiscated from citizens and /or destroyed. This made the rural / riverine economy non viable. people were forced out of their occupations and had to que up for subsistence occupations with the British war effort. And when the shortages came, the absence of these means of transportation and communication, made the famine spiral out of hand.


You write, "Later when the Punjab faced a looming food crisis, Churchill sent over grains pronto, war or no war!" OK. So this indicates (1) the British had no policy of genocide and (2) they were capable of learning from their mistakes. Neither strikes me as a bad thing.

You then employ the conspiracy theorist's classic technique of asking loaded questions without daring to state them as facts:

1) "The fact that the British Indian Army had an important and numerically large Punjabi community appears to have been the differentiator? "

and

2) "And the fact that the penal colony for freedom fighters (cellular jail) in the Andamans (run along the lines of Dachau) had been historically populated mostly by Bengalis, another prime differentiator?"

If you are prepared to state them as facts, I will happily investigate them. Until then I will treat them as rhetorical devices.

To save you some of the trouble, yes the Punjab produced a high proportion of the Indian Army, whereas Bengal only supplied the Bengal Sappers and Miners and this might have been a factor, but have you any evidence (rather than coincidence) to this effect?

There are no records of the Wannsee conference. No documents at all on the Final Solution, whereas the meticulous and bureaucratic Germans documented all sins, even the Einsatzgruppen mass murders. Does that negate the extermination camps? No.. we are part of the general consensus that the Nazi top brass wanted the jews gone for good. They were treated like cattle, along with Romas, other social non-conformists et al. Most Germans didn't know about this and many Germans would have rebelled had they known.

There is no other rational explanation of the difference in treatment of Bengal and the Punjab, under similar circumstances. Actually the circumstances weren't really similar! Bengal's ordeal was far far far worse and it stretched on and on. It was not a short and nasty business which comes and goes before the Govt can react. Churchill remained stoically genocidal even as Bengalis died like flies, for months and months.


As regards Wavell: He was the senior Briton in India, and he was asking for food. If "the British" were intent on a policy of genocide, this would hardly have been the case.

As regards Gandhi: Didn't he go on extended hunger strikes at least 17 times? I would suggest that it was often topical to ask if Gandhi was still alive, even if it was unnecessary for Churchill to phrase his enquiry in such a heartless manner.

Churchill was not "British" policy just like Heydrich wasn't "German" policy. Lord Wavell was a professional soldier from a race that has produced the best of philosophers, writers, scientists and humanists. He himself had been treated shabbily throughout (like Auchinleck) with barely perfunctory courtesy by Churchill the megalomaniac.

Gandhi used hunger strikes as a non-violent political weapon. Because Gandhi resorted to hunger strikes so his countrymen would be forced into starvation sounds like the hostage policy of occupying powers (like Nazi Germany but not limited to them).


Ciao
Sandeep

[ljadw]

IMHO this is the usual searching for a scape-goat and the unwillingness to admit that natural disasters (= famines) have natural causes and are not caused intentionally by humans :the Indian famine, as the Irish famine and as the Soviet famine had natural causes .

[ljadw]

May I also observe thar there WERE records of the Wannsee Conference .

[sandeepmukherjee196]

May I also observe thar there WERE records of the Wannsee Conference .

Can you please produce one such?

[Gorque]

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... edocs.html