Topic: Churchill

[SP]

The nation isn’t so great when looking back on our history of colonialism.

We don’t even teach it in schools.  That’s not really a good thing...

I was taught it at great length if 1986 by the cousin of a then current England cricketer. It is partly why I dropped History as soon as I could at the end of that year.

Key Stage 3 curriculum (Source):

ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901
Examples (non-statutory)

the Enlightenment in Europe and Britain, with links back to 17th-century thinkers and scientists and the founding of the Royal Society
Britain’s transatlantic slave trade: its effects and its eventual abolition
the Seven Years War and The American War of Independence
the French Revolutionary wars
Britain as the first industrial nation – the impact on society
party politics, extension of the franchise and social reform
the development of the British Empire with a depth study (for example, of India)
Ireland and Home Rule
Darwin’s ‘On The Origin of Species’

challenges for Britain, Europe and the wider world 1901 to the present day
In addition to studying the Holocaust, this could include:
Examples (non-statutory)

women’s suffrage
the First World War and the Peace Settlement
the inter-war years: the Great Depression and the rise of dictators
the Second World War and the wartime leadership of Winston Churchill
the creation of the welfare state
Indian independence and end of Empire
social, cultural and technological change in post-war British society
Britain’s place in the world since 1945
a local history study

There is freedom within the national curriculum to teach colonialism and its lasting legacy.

[Yorkykopite]

No that's true, just like all of us giving our opinions on how nations as a whole look back on their past atrocities, it'll always come down to pure assertion.

That's not true of course. Some things are measurable. Things like school curricula, cultural output etc. But it's always tricky to claim you know what's inside people's minds.

'Zulu' isn't quite as you describe it either. It's a rather more complex film than that. Interestingly it features Chief Buthelezi playing his grandfather, the King of the Zulus. And, inevitably, the film was banned in South Africa (where it was shot) because it involved black men killing white men. 

Yes, the film is about a British victory - but even that's unusual in the British film tradition. We prefer to see films of military failures and cock-ups generally. 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' is the archetype, but there's 'Dunkirk' too - and we can't get enough of The Battle of the Somme.

[Xabi Gerrard]

That's not true of course. Some things are measurable. Things like school curricula, cultural output etc. But it's always tricky to claim you know what's inside people's minds.

Well I did say "I think" in the bit you quoted ("That, I think, better captures how most Brits* see the empire"). The "I think" denotes someone is giving their opinion rather than stating something as fact.

Hope this clears up that little episode of our lives.

That's my impression, although it's obviously difficult to measure. It seems to me most British people, and particularly English people, have no clue about Ireland's history. That's fine and dandy in and of itself, but when you take into account that Britain looms over Irish history, it's a little concerning. Mind you, I don't think they spend a whole lot of time in American schools on how they all wiped out the Natives....

I agree with this about Brits and Ireland, it does feel like to far too many Brits the extent of their knowledge of Irish/British relations is that there are bad guys called the IRA, to whom there'll be "no surrender". And that there are some protestants and catholics who hate each other in the north. That's it.

I also get the impression though that, on the whole, we're even more ignorant about Ireland than the average American is about Native Americans. Even though Native American history/genocide may not be taught in schools out there, there does seem to still be a widespread knowledge of what went on through tv, films and generally being a big cause. We don't get too many people shouting about British atrocities in Ireland over here.


(These are all just my impressions Yorkykopite, not the definitive view by British people).

[Yorkykopite]

Well I did say "I think" in the bit you quoted ("That, I think, better captures how most Brits* see the empire"). The "I think" denotes someone is giving their opinion rather than stating something as fact.

No, it was pure assertion. Or a series of assertions actually. Here's what you said.

I say "most Brits" - as I mentioned earlier, most Brits don't actually give a fuck. But for those who are aware of the empire, that's how most perceive it.

Again, you might be right. But in the absence of any supporting evidence I was surprised by your confidence on this matter. 

[Xabi Gerrard]

No, it was pure assertion. Or a series of assertions actually. Here's what you said.

Again, you might be right. But in the absence of any supporting evidence I was surprised by your confidence on this matter. 

So now you've just quoted something that was linked (via asterix) to the "I think" sentence. Infer from that that I was still in "I think" mode.

Apologies if you misunderstood. Maybe we can get back to the topic now.

[So… Howard Philips]

That's not true of course. Some things are measurable. Things like school curricula, cultural output etc. But it's always tricky to claim you know what's inside people's minds.

'Zulu' isn't quite as you describe it either. It's a rather more complex film than that. Interestingly it features Chief Buthelezi playing his grandfather, the King of the Zulus. And, inevitably, the film was banned in South Africa (where it was shot) because it involved black men killing white men. 

Yes, the film is about a British victory - but even that's unusual in the British film tradition. We prefer to see films of military failures and cock-ups generally. 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' is the archetype, but there's 'Dunkirk' too - and we can't get enough of The Battle of the Somme.

Cecil Woodham Smith's 'The reason why' deals with the military cock-up of Balaclava as well as having a useful potted history of Lucan's role as an absentee Irish landlord (he was a worse landlord when he was present) and the potato famine.

Well worth a read.

[oldfordie]

Went to see the Darkest Hours movie today. brilliant, 2 hrs flew over. Darkest hours sums the period up perfect.he was a bas... all right but a clever ba.. who was on our side.

[Peabee]

He was a horrible c*nt, but that’s probably what we needed at the time. Any negotiated surrender would have likely been a failure. We can hold both viewpoints that he was a nasty supremacist bigot AND a great wartime leader.

[armchair-fan]

I think a much better example of a film that resonates with the average Brit's psyche would be Zulu, with the colonialist Brits cast as the plucky heroes up against the native savages. That, I think, better captures how most Brits* see the empire - "the sun never sets", "ruling the waves", "bringing law and order", etc. All the bad stuff? Just seen as a footnote. Bit like how we see Churchill actually (to bring it back on topic).

I say "most Brits" - as I mentioned earlier, most Brits don't actually give a fuck. But for those who are aware of the empire, that's how most perceive it.

I agree with this about Brits and Ireland, it does feel like to far too many Brits the extent of their knowledge of Irish/British relations is that there are bad guys called the IRA, to whom there'll be "no surrender". And that there are some protestants and catholics who hate each other in the north. That's it.

I'm glad I don't know the same 'Brits' you seem to know.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

the military cock-up of Balaclava

Well I had no idea that was a place and not just headgear, you learn something new every day!

And raglan sleeves are from Lord Raglan, fucking hell military history is full of fashion firsts!

[Xabi Gerrard]

I'm glad I don't know the same 'Brits' you seem to know.

You’re lucky, seems like you’ve successfully managed to go through life avoiding the  52% of brits that are officially thick c*nts

[TepidT2O]

That's my impression, although it's obviously difficult to measure. It seems to me most British people, and particularly English people, have no clue about Ireland's history. That's fine and dandy in and of itself, but when you take into account that Britain looms over Irish history, it's a little concerning. Mind you, I don't think they spend a whole lot of time in American schools on how they all wiped out the Natives....

The history of Ireland is taught explicitly in many schools I think it’s on the A level or GCSE syllabus.  I wouldnt classify it under the aegis of colonialism, it stands alone as a separate curriculum area (given its particular importance).

Whilst SP rightly says the development of the empire and the end of the empire are on the 11-14 curriculum, this seldom considers the effects of empire on the peoples of the countries occupied and concentrates on the establishment of the empire....

A missed oppportunity I think..... Given the large number of students with links to Indoasia, African and Irish roots, it’s a good way to bring cohesion to society...

[armchair-fan]

You’re lucky, seems like you’ve successfully managed to go through life avoiding the  52% of brits that are officially thick c*nts

It's the new Godwin's Law - we're only ever a few posts away from a Brexit reference 

[west_london_red]

The history of Ireland is taught explicitly in many schools I think it’s on the A level or GCSE syllabus.  I wouldnt classify it under the aegis of colonialism, it stands alone as a separate curriculum area (given its particular importance).

Whilst SP rightly says the development of the empire and the end of the empire are on the 11-14 curriculum, this seldom considers the effects of empire on the peoples of the countries occupied and concentrates on the establishment of the empire....

A missed oppportunity I think..... Given the large number of students with links to Indoasia, African and Irish roots, it’s a good way to bring cohesion to society...

When I did A level history it was split into two, 50% European and 50% British, and of the British history a decent amount  of it was in relation to Ireland, from the first Home Rule Bill to the creation of the Free State. I think the problem is prior to A levels all we seemed to do was cover the world wars again and again and there is more to British history then fighting the Germans.

[armchair-fan]

Whilst SP rightly says the development of the empire and the end of the empire are on the 11-14 curriculum, this seldom considers the effects of empire on the peoples of the countries occupied and concentrates on the establishment of the empire....

A missed oppportunity I think..... Given the large number of students with links to Indoasia, African and Irish roots, it’s a good way to bring cohesion to society...

I've thought this myself for a long time.  It would surely be a topic that would have the potential to engage almost everyone.  And teaching any sort of History that isn't Tudors or Nazis would surely be a good thing. 

Can you imagine the fume that would be generated if the teaching of the history of Empire was introduced though and some sort of curriculum had to be agreed upon?!

[TepidT2O]

I've thought this myself for a long time.  It would surely be a topic that would have the potential to engage almost everyone.  And teaching any sort of History that isn't Tudors or Nazis would surely be a good thing. 

Can you imagine the fume that would be generated if the teaching of the history of Empire was introduced though and some sort of curriculum had to be agreed upon?!

The Tudors are a fantastic story though...  you can’t ignore stories like that if you want to engage kids... and you just can’t ignore nazism.. but there should be a little room for the impact of colonialism..

[Conocinico]

I've gotta say, I'm grateful to Churchill. I can only imagine the darkness that would have befallen Europe if the Nazis had prevailed, and so everything else pales into insignificance for me.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Because he just needed to release some grains quicker...it was bullshit....Britain would not have lost the war

[oldfordie]

Because he just needed to release some grains quicker...it was bullshit....Britain would not have lost the war
In fact, and you need to really understand this - it was actually dangerous to the war effort to not feed India, because Japan could have invaded India, theoretically taken over, and then could have used that as a base for an attack on the middle east and the Oil there. So if you have starving Indians, dying of famine in Eastern India, that would actually be a detriment to the WORLD war effort
He could have also quickly accepted the grains from other nations not named England. As in immediately when it was offered.
Some of the grains went for the never-happening Balkan invasion route....but a lot went to Britain which was EXTREMELY well-stocked

Another example where we find that Britain could have spared some wheat

 
Did you mention your getting all your information from a book wrote in 2009?

    When there was a danger of serious famine in Bengal in 1943–4, Churchill announced that the Indians “must learn to look after themselves as we have done… there is no reason why all parts of the British empire should not feel the pinch in the same way as the mother country has done.” Still more disgracefully, he said in a jocular way that “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks.” This is more than amusingly politically incorrect language: it had real consequences. Three million Bengalis died of starvation. A true historian would not have neglected this in order to suggest that the imperialist was making a stand against ‘barbarous practices.”1

There’s a good reason why Mayor Johnson omits the now-famous accusation that Churchill starved the Bengalis: it is not true. Alas, in the words of a wartime statesman, “a lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on.”2

The charge stems from a 2009 book accusing Churchill of irresponsibility over Bengal that amounted to a war crime, repeated by scores of sources since. As Churchill once remarked, “I should think it was hardly possible to state the opposite of the truth with more precision.”




One can sense Churchill’s frustration. Whatever they did, however they wriggled, they could not appease the continued demands from India—even after calculations showed that the shortage had been eased.

Churchill agreed to write President Roosevelt for help, and replace the 45,000 tons lost in the explosion. But he “could only provide further relief for the Indian situation at the cost of incurring grave difficulties in other directions.”19

As good as his word, and despite preoccupation with the upcoming invasion of France, Churchill wrote FDR. No one, reading his words, can be in doubt about his sympathies:

    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 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.”

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-the-bengal-famine/

[armchair-fan]

The Tudors are a fantastic story though...  you can’t ignore stories like that if you want to engage kids... and you just can’t ignore nazism.. but there should be a little room for the impact of colonialism..

I'm not suggesting airbrushing out Henry the bloody 8th and his wives, and I appreciate you must need to have a certain amount of the 'Horrible History' element, especially with younger children.  I can also see that the story aspect of WW2, with pretty clear goodies and baddies is an almost irresistible one to teach over and over again.  Don't get me wrong, it's fascinating stuff, and even in my free time I've probably read more Antony Beevor and watched more trashy 'Hitler's Henchmen' documentaries than is healthy.

But I took History as far as A-Level and came out knowing far, far more about 12 years of German history than any period of English, or British history.  I learnt nothing whatsoever about the British Raj, by any measure an important chunk of relatively recent history for any of us with any sort of family roots in modern day Britain, India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.  What I knew of the importance of Jamaica would have been gleaned from Rasta gibberish on reggae albums.  It's a very narrow focus.  I could only think teaching at least some aspects of Empire history would be more engaging for more people - we can't all be Third Reich obsessives.

No doubt this narrow focus contributes to the paucity of reference points any of us have for contemporary events - Trump is like Hitler, David Cameron is like Hitler, etc, etc.

Although a major practical problem would be that in order to teach any sort of nuanced view of the history of Empire you'd need a new set of teachers (present company excepted of course Tepid, you've always struck me as being at least somewhat balanced!).

[armchair-fan]

I've gotta say, I'm grateful to Churchill. I can only imagine the darkness that would have befallen Europe if the Nazis had prevailed, and so everything else pales into insignificance for me.

As unfashionable as that view is, I think you may just be onto something here!  Wild that millennials get all aroused by a Churchill cafe or film, but I have lost count of the number of Cuban themed bars and restaurants I have been in with pretty pictures of Che and not quite so pretty pictures of Castro and everyone seems cool with it.

[Djozer]

I wonder how much our respective views on Churchill are informed by our respective backgrounds or nationalities. Are many of us with a more jaundiced view of Churchill from the countries where he is historically less well regarded like Wales, Ireland, or various British colonies?

For example I'm Welsh, and though I remember being taught about the second world war it did not appear to be from the viewpoint of Churchill being the key figure in the allied victory, perhaps due to the fact that he is viewed with a certain amount of bitterness in Wales due to the events of the Tonypandy riots (which I did not become aware of until a few years later). I'm sure this has influenced how I perceive him today, as in fairness he appears to have played a crucial role in the war effort, although I'm still not 100% convinced that we'd have lost the war without him.

Conversely, are most of those who regard him as a hero English or American, two countries where, as I understand it, he's often regarded as a hero? I'm not wishing to stir up any international hostility here, I'm just quite interested in how historical figures such as Churchill can be seen in different ways, and how these viewpoints come about.

[Conocinico]

As unfashionable as that view is, I think you may just be onto something here!  Wild that millennials get all aroused by a Churchill cafe or film, but I have lost count of the number of Cuban themed bars and restaurants I have been in with pretty pictures of Che and not quite so pretty pictures of Castro and everyone seems cool with it.

Remind these romantics that Churchill was instrumental in introducing the first minimum wage legislation and you'll see their little hearts melt.

[Zeb]

That was from October 1943 [Amery]
I am not sure of the order to Wavell that you refer to, but please post it. The information I have is that Wavell continued to face resistance from Churchill as far as feeding India, even after the first famine deaths. Only after constant pressure did he get a small amount of wheat.

Priorities for Wavell as Viceroy, as discussed by the cabinet, Thursday 7th October 1943. So around the time Churchill's sounding off to Amery. If you check the minutes which follow you'll see it is Churchill's own formulation (numbered as 44).

It was suggested that the Viceroy would be ill-advised,
at the outset of his term of office, to lay too great emphasis
on the constitutional problem. Would it not be better
that the new Viceroy should place in the forefront of his
programme the preparations for offensive operations
against the Japanese, the regulation of food supplies and
and the relief of famine conditions, and a sound policy
in the development of social legislation and the improvement
of the social condition of the Indian population ?

(p.71, Cabinet Papers - careful big pdf).


The next day, Churchill wrote a directive for Wavell. In part it reads:

The material and cultural conditions of the many peoples of India will naturally engage your earnest attention. 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. But besides this the prevention of the hoarding of grain for a better market and the fair distribution of foodstuffs between town and country are of the utmost consequence. The contrast between wealth and poverty in India, the incidence of corrective taxation and the relations prevailing between land-owner and tenant or labourer, or between factory-owner and employee, require searching re-examination.

That's sourced from Prime Minister's Directives (CHAR 23/11).

See what I mean about the language being different? I can't speak to what ships were available, when and where, and the whole complex supply network the war had disrupted, but something doesn't ring true about seeing Churchill only in those moments when he's being an unconscionable arse about or to other people. There's a more complete picture to be had, in my view.

[Djozer]

Remind these romantics that Churchill was instrumental in introducing the first minimum wage legislation and you'll see their little hearts melt.

Interesting. I didn't know that, cheers. I still don't particularly like the man, but am learning that perhaps he wasn't as irredeemably awful as I'd always assumed, despite some pretty reprehensible actions he may have undertaken and views he may have held. As with every public figure, and probably every human being that's ever lived, he was neither as black nor as white as he has subsequently been portrayed.

That said, I'm finding my "little heart" is still fairly frozen stiff at the thought of the fucker but hey, he could have been worse. Thanks all for the posts in here, I think I may actually be learning something in this thread. I could always try books of course, but they're a bit passé.

[SP]

Shook is ultimately arguing from Madhusree Mukerjee‘s book. From the selective quoting, I suspect that it is via a distilled source that will have removed much of the nuance. Mukerjee’s book was and remains much debated. She is not a professional historian, which raises issues, and prompts a different reaction from academia. Her book downplays that there was a war on far too much. You cannot under Churchill’s decisions without looking through that prism. Parts of the book have been been appropriated by nationalist elements in India for less than pure motives - thus a pale shadow of her scholarship is actually being propagated.

Similarly, the official biographers account is a little too airbrushed - although their factual rebuttals will be impeccably sourced.

The truth as ever likely lies somewhere in the middle. He could have done more to alleviate the famine, but he could equally well at the time not believed that he was not able to do any more without risking more lives in the war effort. Churchill was not a pleasant man, but he was driven to do whatever he thought was necessar6 t9 defeat the Axis powers.

[Zeb]

@shook - We may be getting our wires crossed. What Amery records in his diary, and which you quote, is what Churchill said. What Churchill wrote in a directive is what he did - those are orders. I am in no position to argue a counterfactual on shipping. I suspect very few are. I would, however, question the idea that Britain had ships if Churchill says he hadn't them spare. His days were taken up with questions of shipping, and watching the losses of the merchant navies rise. We don't question FDR's refusal to grant aid for that reason after all.

[TepidT2O]

I'm not suggesting airbrushing out Henry the bloody 8th and his wives, and I appreciate you must need to have a certain amount of the 'Horrible History' element, especially with younger children.  I can also see that the story aspect of WW2, with pretty clear goodies and baddies is an almost irresistible one to teach over and over again.  Don't get me wrong, it's fascinating stuff, and even in my free time I've probably read more Antony Beevor and watched more trashy 'Hitler's Henchmen' documentaries than is healthy.

But I took History as far as A-Level and came out knowing far, far more about 12 years of German history than any period of English, or British history.  I learnt nothing whatsoever about the British Raj, by any measure an important chunk of relatively recent history for any of us with any sort of family roots in modern day Britain, India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.  What I knew of the importance of Jamaica would have been gleaned from Rasta gibberish on reggae albums.  It's a very narrow focus.  I could only think teaching at least some aspects of Empire history would be more engaging for more people - we can't all be Third Reich obsessives.

No doubt this narrow focus contributes to the paucity of reference points any of us have for contemporary events - Trump is like Hitler, David Cameron is like Hitler, etc, etc.

Although a major practical problem would be that in order to teach any sort of nuanced view of the history of Empire you'd need a new set of teachers (present company excepted of course Tepid, you've always struck me as being at least somewhat balanced!).

A very fair response... but I’m mostly unbalanced...

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I was expecting this typical type of response. Before I begin, I will certainly say that Churchill was driven to defeat the Axis powers and was great for White Englishpeople, without a doubt.

And French & Dutch & Polish & African & Asian and every other group that didn't jump into bed with the Nazis.

[Alan_X]

"...Her book downlplays that there was a war" - again, the British blinkered view is the war in European soil...

Wind your neck in mate. What a stupid fucking thing to say. There’s a set of blinkers in this thread and you’re wearing them. Utter fucking shite.

[SP]

When do the British ever acknowledge the famines and looting of wealth? And if you read British accounts there is scarce mention of the Indian troops in both wars . It is fucking outrageous that famine was allowed to happen in India while the troops were fucking fighting for the Allied cause both in Asia and in Europe. Outrageous.
How does the book downplay the war when it mentions clearly that the Indian commander begging for food from Churchill, as I posted earlier?

Not to mention the Indian sepoys used all over the place during the British Empire
I'm asked to wind my neck in when the this thread barely scratches the surface of the heinous British rule over India

My post was deliberately balanced, criticising both extreme positions. You are not engaging in any kind of debate, you are just indulging in the forum equivalent of bellowing from a soapbox.

If you actually read what I posted, I was allowing to the reception in academic circles to Mukerjee's book being coloured by her not being a professional historian. Which it was. Historians can be a strange insular lot.

Have you actually read Churchill's Secret War? Germany and Japan do not feature a great deal. And many of the mentions of Japan are in relation to Indian nationalism rather than as an probably invading force.

Most of the war accounts focus on the generals and leaders. The cannon fodder rarely takes a starring role. The working class Tommy from England is similarly neglected in most accounts. I am well aware of the sacrifices that all of the commonwealth made in both World Wars.

Your criticism of Churchill is not attracting the negative reaction, your needlessly aggressive posting style is. Corkboy who after all started this topic is not getting the same reaction. 

[oldfordie]

Well Wavell for one was not convinced that ships couldn't be given
This is referenced to Nicholas Mansergh "The Transfer of Power" Vol. IV, 1034,900

Am sure theres some truth in some of the quotes you give, the problem I have is there very selective and I suspect they don't tell the full story. eg, you posted a quote from the book saying thousand of tons of rice was taken out of India while people were dying of starvation, tore into Churchill. I posted a quote by Churchill saying he could get another 150,000 tons of wheat from Ceylon in exchange for excess rice. “The net effect, counting 50,000 tons previously arranged [was] 400,000 tons of wheat.
 Churchill sometimes says he can't satisfy India's demands no matter what he does which makes me wonder just how much he did, I have not seen one post quoting all the aid he actually gave to India. this is more about getting a balanced fair account of what actually happened rather than character assassination.

[SP]

We should remember that India may well have become a secular, democratic state of its own accord. I believe the elephant god espouses such doctrines.

Don't go there. This topic is contentious enough just focusing on Churchill.

[oldfordie]

Yes I am aware of the Churchill-Roosevelt correspondence, in which you will find Churchill furious at Roosevelt for telling him that the colonies must go. But notice in the correspondence that it says, as you mention, "Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died". When in fact he could have done things a lot earlier, it was only after the famine that he took more appropriate action by involving the Americans, which he actually knew would be rejected (of course stuff like that will never be openly said) because the Americans were very suspicious of British activities regarding shipping. In fact from that correspondence you bring up, we find the conflict over British imperialism:

Part of that distrust was related to the shipping. The Americans knew that the British certainly had the ships, they were just sending them to other areas to increase their exorbitant stockpile. Indeed going back to the year before that  correspondence with Roosevelt, and the same month of that memo just quoted, we see...

As I've posted earlier, all to increase, unnecessarily, the absurd stockpile of the British during the war. But that is par for the course of the British Empire, perhaps the greediest of all empires to ever exist.

The thing is, this was hardly the first famine the British oversaw when ruling India. It is not at all surprising that a racist like Churchill would oversee one in Bengal.

Oh and by the way, Churchill didn't cause the famine, but he did nothing to stop it other than half-hearted measures, when he as the Prime Minister, could have done much more. Your post actually confirms this, since there is no evidence of Churchill even asking for American ships before 700,000 died.

Do you think India itself could have done things better early on. was Churchill responsible for everything.?
Mid-1942: Trade barriers and prioritised distribution

Powers to restrict inter-provincial trade had been conferred on provincial governments in November 1941, as an item under the Defence of India Act, 1939.[W] Provincial governments began erecting trade barriers that prevented the flow of foodgrains (especially rice) and other goods between provinces, as a step towards ensuring sufficient food for their own population and thus forestalling civil unrest.[101] In January 1942, Punjab banned exports of wheat;[102][X] this increased the perception of food insecurity and led the enclave of wheat-eaters in Greater Calcutta to increase their demand for rice precisely when an impending rice shortage was feared.[103] The Central Provinces prohibited the export of foodgrains outside the province two months later.[104] Madras banned rice exports in June,[105] followed by export bans in Bengal and its neighboring provinces of Bihar and Orissa that July.[106]

The Famine Inquiry Commission of 1945 would characterise this "critical and potentially most dangerous stage" in the crisis as a key policy failure. "The trade machinery for the distribution of food [between provinces] throughout the east of India was slowly strangled, and by the spring of 1943 was dead."[107] Bengal was unable to import domestic rice; this policy helped transform market failures and food shortage into famine and widespread death

[Zeb]

I could be wrong - shook may be able to date it properly - but I suspect Wavell's comment is from mid-1944, and he wouldn't be the only officer in the theatre thinking similar things about the D-Day logistics. Do you know when the first harvest of 1944 was shook? It would have been by then? I was under the impression, which could be totally wrong, that by then the argument was over the level of stocks India required to insure against further famine. This being a debate because of false assumptions made in the previous years by administrators in India.

[conman]

Cheers.

Can you expand on 2) a bit please? Why was Germany's land grabbing worse than the UK's?

I'm sure Hitler would have sent us to hell or to connaught, had he got his mittens on us.

[Alan_X]

Cheers.

Can you expand on 2) a bit please? Why was Germany's land grabbing worse than the UK's?

Read Mein Kampf (if you can’t find a copy try ordering a copy from India where it’s a best seller). Hitler wasn’t just grabbing land. He wanted the systematic destruction of entire groups of people, Jews being the principal target, to provide lebensraum for Germans and people of German descent.

In India the midel was different with a small population of administrators and military leaders. There were a few hundred thousands British in a total population in the hundreds of millions.

[Nitramdorf]

I have enjoyed reading this thread over the last couple of days, I'm on light duties at work and keep sneaking in to read. So thanks to everyone involved.
I'm an avid reader and got O level history, so please excuse my more limited knowledge.
Was just wondering about Churchill the man rather than Churchill the political figure and Historical giant/bastard.
He was in the trenches in World War 1, with his Adrian helmet, voluntarily, however briefly. Seemingly making his troops happy after initial doubts over his apppointment. Obviously this was after that disaster of the Gallipolli campaign.

There cant be many politicians who became soldiers, rather than the more common soldiers who became politicians.
Just wondered if he deserves a few brownie points, so to speak, for that?

[A-Bomb]

War is never a pretty business and by its very nature immoral. You don't have to look far to find instances / actions / behaviours which in ordinary context makes your skin crawl.

Does the end justify the means? Well I'm pleased we have a certain freedom that undoubtedly would not have been available had Germany conquered all.

The reality is at a time where sometimes there are no 'good choices' -  we had somebody able to make choices and see them through, thankfully achieving an end result which has evolved into many positive things including the European Union.

Famine - withholding food, whatever the motivation - is irrelevant now, what good does debating it solve?

[SP]

Famine - withholding food, whatever the motivation - is irrelevant now, what good does debating it solve?

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.