WW1 related question. . .

Probably not but considering the state of austria hungary? Maybe but i dunno


A/H will stagger along as long as Germany is able to prop her up. It is not accidental that the Austrian and German Armistices came within a few days of each other.
 
Ultimately it was a British responsibility.
So what wand could be waved to magic up Rice with Japan occupation of Burma and Thailand unfriendly?
Just admit that the British didn't cause that intentionally, then explain how they could have done better, with a War on and Japan sinking ships as they desired in the Indian Ocean.
 
So what wand could be waved to magic up Rice with Japan occupation of Burma and Thailand unfriendly?
Just admit that the British didn't cause that intentionally, then explain how they could have done better, with a War on and Japan sinking ships as they desired in the Indian Ocean.
Ships go around both countries. There were alternative sources of food available to the British such as Australia or New Zealand. They decided that armaments and the means to produce them were more important.
 
Loss of Burma was huge though... seems like I read somewhere a long time ago that Burma typically produced about 3x the amount of rice it needed for itself...
 
Ultimately it was a British responsibility.
By this measure the 40,000 deaths during the Blitz were a British responsibility because they couldn't prevent Germany dropping bombs on them.

Ships go around both countries. There were alternative sources of food available to the British such as Australia or New Zealand. They decided that armaments and the means to produce them were more important.
Churchill to Wavell (Oct 1943):
Peace, order and a high condition of war-time well-being among the masses of the people constitute the essential foundation of the forward thrust against the enemy….The hard pressures of world-war have for the first time for many years brought conditions of scarcity, verging in some localities into actual famine, upon India. Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages….Every effort should be made by you to assuage the strife between the Hindus and Moslems and to induce them to work together for the common good.​

Churchill to FDR (29 Apr 1944)
I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.
I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help.​

Roosevelt replied (1 Jun 1944) that while Churchill had his “utmost sympathy,” his Joint Chiefs had said they were “unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping….Needless to say, I regret exceedingly the necessity of giving you this unfavorable reply.”

Doesn't seem like the 'genocidal intent' you attribute.
 
I didn't claim it was with "genocidal intent" undertaken. Rather it was British responsibility to make sure their own people did not starve. Something they failed badly at.
No one can be required to do what is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Rather it was British responsibility to make sure their own people did not starve. Something they failed badly at.
I am starting to get really quite sick of seeing these assertions about Britain's role in the Bengal Famine, especially when sources are practically never used by the people making them.

In 1942 a cyclone hit Bengal and destroyed the rice harvest. It is true British officials then failed to properly understand the gravity of the situation they were dealing with, but the Muslim dominated local administration elected from 1935 also dealt with the problem 'corruptly and negligently'. Seeing prices rise, Indian merchants then hoarded grain and rice. Churchill himself stated in Cabinet that one of Wavell's (the new viceroy) first responsibilities was to deal with the famine.
In previous famines the shortfall was usually made up by by Burmese and other East Asian crops, but this was not a possibility owing to the Japanese occupations. Additionally the cyclone had also washed away numerous railway lines needed to transport food to Bengal, whilst those Indian provincial governments that did have food surpluses refused to part with them.
This all comes from Andrew Roberts' Churchill: Walking with Destiny pp. 786-788, though I can dig out more sources if needs be.

Like most countries, the British Empire was not spotless, but the Bengal Famine is not good evidence of 'genocide' or supposed tyranny.
 
I guess if a status quo ending is achieved it will either return to normal (considered a european war) or only in europe it will stay the same (ie the german colonies are still split and the ottoman are perhaps still broken up) but i would think the freikorps can still sprink up if let say the colonies are still taken and the german still had to pay reparations (i dunno will it lead to a socialist movement like in otl but if russia still fell to communism then i dunno) and as for austria hungary? Its quite complicated actually maybe they still split up but i dunno

With status quo peace, presumably the German army stays at prewar strength, so I don't see how you get Freikorps.

If Germany still loses her colonies and has to pay reparations and let the OE be carved up, then she has pulled out of all her conquests and got less than nothing in return. Why would she agree to that short of total defeat?

If A/H still "splits" then it wll be a very different kind of split from OTL. The Reich will presumbly absorb at least the German/majority areas.
 
With status quo peace, presumably the German army stays at prewar strength, so I don't see how you get Freikorps.

If Germany still loses her colonies and has to pay reparations and let the OE be carved up, then she has pulled out of all her conquests and got less than nothing in return. Why would she agree to that short of total defeat?

If A/H still "splits" then it wll be a very different kind of split from OTL. The Reich will presumbly absorb at least the German/majority areas.
Well maybe sorta like what happened with the portugal and the pink areas but true the german army will stay at full strength and the freikorps is unlikely to spring up but i do still wonder what will be public reactions will be? Seeing the german colonies got ripped away and no gains from it whatsoever

As for A/H will the split be like a yugoslavia like split? (A very violent one) or will it be a czechslovakia type split? (Which is peacefull) and will the allies object to germany absorpsing the german majority area?
 
I am starting to get really quite sick of seeing these assertions about Britain's role in the Bengal Famine, especially when sources are practically never used by the people making them.



Like most countries, the British Empire was not spotless, but the Bengal Famine is not good evidence of 'genocide' or supposed tyranny.
The bengal famine was not genocide but an example of utter British incompetence.
1.Rice stocks were seized from Khulna, barisal and Medinipur districts .These areas were expected to have surplus paddy and rice stocks.The official figure of seized foodstuffs was quite low but corrupt British officials took far more rice than official number and destroyed it.
2.Idiotic British warfare "scorched earth" policies led to seizure of almost all rural means of transportation including fishing boats,normal boats used for travelling,bicycles ,bullock carts ,etc.
3.So,with confiscation of fishing boats, fishermen could not fish and their source of livelihood was taken away through draconian measures like this.Rice growers,artisans ,migrant labourers , buyers, sellers.none could travel, Entire economy of rural bengal was destroyed through this one step.
4.The British army and British colonial adminstration made no step to distribute rations or foodstuffs.
5.Rich and Indians connected with British interests were prioritised instead of rural and urban poor.
6.British colonial authorities seized rice stocks from merchants and built insufficient AA defenses for Calcutta which lead to widespread insecurity.
7.Churchills cabinet of war forbidded rice imports inspite of appeals by Linlithgow,Amery and auchincleck and wavell.
8. Along with the famine,the British refused help to the epidemic stricken rural areas and sought to spray insectisides only around military bases.
9.even the cloth produced by bengal was given to the British army.Not a single stich was left for the ppl of Bengal.
The only British member of the colonial adminstration who did good work was Archibald wavell.
And,We cant forget Churchill's racist remarks ,can we ?
 
The bengal famine was not genocide but an example of utter British incompetence.
1.Rice stocks were seized from Khulna, barisal and Medinipur districts .These areas were expected to have surplus paddy and rice stocks.The official figure of seized foodstuffs was quite low but corrupt British officials took far more rice than official number and destroyed it.
2.Idiotic British warfare "scorched earth" policies led to seizure of almost all rural means of transportation including fishing boats,normal boats used for travelling,bicycles ,bullock carts ,etc.
3.So,with confiscation of fishing boats, fishermen could not fish and their source of livelihood was taken away through draconian measures like this.Rice growers,artisans ,migrant labourers , buyers, sellers.none could travel, Entire economy of rural bengal was destroyed through this one step.
4.The British army and British colonial adminstration made no step to distribute rations or foodstuffs.
5.Rich and Indians connected with British interests were prioritised instead of rural and urban poor.
6.British colonial authorities seized rice stocks from merchants and built insufficient AA defenses for Calcutta which lead to widespread insecurity.
7.Churchills cabinet of war forbidded rice imports inspite of appeals by Linlithgow,Amery and auchincleck and wavell.
8. Along with the famine,the British refused help to the epidemic stricken rural areas and sought to spray insectisides only around military bases.
9.even the cloth produced by bengal was given to the British army.Not a single stich was left for the ppl of Bengal.
The only British member of the colonial adminstration who did good work was Archibald wavell.
And,We cant forget Churchill's racist remarks ,can we ?
I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that the famine was handled well or competently or even that Churchill wasn’t racist.

In any event, I am glad to see someone else acknowledging Wavell - one of the unsung heroes of the war who definitely doesn’t get enough credit (probably because he was constantly at odds with Churchill)...
 
The bengal famine was not genocide but an example of utter British incompetence.
Again, sources are much appreciated, and in this context I'd argue needed when so many claims are being thrown around.

Firstly, it should be acknowledged that had the empire been at peace there would not have been a famine in Bengal, or at least it would have been alleviated. Obviously there were displays of British incompetence, not every person is good at their job. But it is grossly unfair to argue this specific famine in such a perfect storm of catastrophe's is a reflection on British rule.

Yes, the 'Denial' policy of scorched earth was a factor in exacerbating the famine, but it did not cause it. Would you have preferred Britain not take every eventuality for a Japanese invasion. Or perhaps you would have preferred occupation by Imperial Japan to that of the Raj?
Yes, in hindsight it was the wrong decision, but at the time a Japanese invasion seemed imminent, and as such I think it is an unfair criticism.

'Bengal was further destabilized from August 1942 by Gandhi's noncooperation movement which tied up the Bengal Civil Service in protracted law and order disputes as political disturbances flared, particularly in Midnapore'. Weigold, Bengal Famine Revisited.
Does this mean Indian's are also to blame for the famine. Of course not. It was just tragically another of the events that happened to be going on simultaneously that contributed to the exacerbation of the famine.

The only British member of the colonial adminstration who did good work was Archibald wavell.
Assigned by Churchill, with one of his main tasks being to bring the famine under control. This to the point of Churchill telling him 'Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages'.
Yes Wavell was far more dynamic and competent regarding his handling of the famine than Linlithgow (whose initial policies did undoubtedly help exacerbate the problem), what is this supposed to prove?
7.Churchills cabinet of war forbidded rice imports inspite of appeals by Linlithgow,Amery and auchincleck and wavell
No he didn't. British shipping was stretched to breaking point by the war. Assuming that the shipping if it was available would have been able to navigate Bay of Bengal, infested with Japanese submarines, it would have had to come at the cost of greatly hampering the Allied war effort. Where shipping and supplies could be found (just one example is 150,000 tons of Iraqi barley and Australian wheat Churchill agreed should be sent In August 1943) they were used to relieve the famine.
And,We cant forget Churchill's racist remarks ,can we ?
Ah, the old Mr Tharoor approach of quote mining and ignoring context. The remarks you refer to are mainly paraphrases (sometimes of questionable accuracy) from Amery's diary, where Churchill would often discuss what aid could be sent in the same meetings he made them. But I apologize, I'm forgetting Churchill has to be held to the standard of sainthood, and only his faults remembered.

You are quite right the British could have relieved the famine. They could have used the RAF for example to supply areas by air. The only problem with this is that it would have meant the loss of Bengal to the Japanese. This I think is the crux of the argument. The empire was in a state of total war and overstretched. Had the famine happened in peace time it would have been alleviated. It was just truly a perfect storm that meant it was as bad as it was.

I don't intent to ruin this thread by turning it into a debate on the Bengal Famine so I will make this my last reply on the topic.

Sources:
Andrew Roberts, Churchill Walking with Destiny
Mark B Tauger, Entitlement, Shortage and the 1943 Bengal Famine: Another Look
A
uriol Weigold, Bengal Famine Revisted
 
i do still wonder what will be public reactions will be? Seeing the german colonies got ripped away and no gains from it whatsoever

Which is why it won't happen. The Geman government has to have *something* to show for it.

As for A/H will the split be like a yugoslavia like split? (A very violent one) or will it be a czechslovakia type split? (Which is peacefull) and will the allies object to germany absorpsing the german majority area?
Peaceful in some places, violent in others. In general, probably worse in former Hungarian territory than former Austrian

If we are assuming a status quo peace, ie leaving Germn y fully armed, then I don't see how the Entente could intervene effectively - certainly not in aareas right on the German border.
 
Top