Dr. A. Roberts presents: Why Hitler Lost the War - German Strategic Mistakes in WWII - Page 3




 
--
 
September 11th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
This would be the same Churchill that created a famine in India/Bangladesh to ensure Britain had more than it needed?

I am sorry I realise that this will draw the ire of a few but Churchill was an a-hole.
I agree, Churchill was an arsehole, but the right one at the right time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
I thought Britain depended heavily on lend lease for food? Spam and such.
Yes we did, we couldn't produce enough of our own despite severe rationing.
September 11th, 2014  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
This would be the same Churchill that created a famine in India/Bangladesh to ensure Britain had more than it needed?

I am sorry I realise that this will draw the ire of a few but Churchill was an a-hole.
Churchill did not create a famine in India :regularly,there were famines in India which were created by nature (drought, to much rain) ,the only thing of which one could accuse Chuchill was that he was indifferent to the fate of the victims.
OTOH,there was a war on,and it is more than questionable that Britain could have done more than it did .

It is the same for the Irish famine (although I would not advise to say this in Boston) :the Irish (better European famine) was created by nature,and there was little ot nothing that Britain could have done to prevent 1 million people of dying from hunger and disease.

It is the same for the Holodomor (but do not tell this in Kiew) which was created by nature:that the reaction of the Kremlin can be translated as : to late and not enough does not mean that the Kremlin created the problem .

It is the same for the starvations in Eastern Africa :"culpable" is nature,and there is not much/nothing that the West can do to alleviate the problems of the victims.
September 11th, 2014  
perseus
 
 
The famine was the result of a perfect storm of events

1) the invasion of Burma restricting food imports to India, diverting available supplies to the military (including China), and the disruption of communications due to the naval dominance of Japan East of Ceylon and a scorched earth policy in East India by the British fearing invasion of that region.

2) a cyclone and tsunamis in previous years causing contingency supplies to be used up.

3) a monumental administrative c0ck up, caused by poor accounting, corruption and localised hoarding by provincial officials. There was also an over-reliance on market mechanisms and local distribution rather than rationing and a nationally/military organised distribution system.

4) Churchill prioritizing supplies from Australia and Americas for Britain due to a supposed shipping shortage due to U boat activity at the advice of Lord Cherwell.* However, this was after the U boat menace had been defeated in the spring of 43.

Quote:
*Fearing food shortages in Britain, he convinced Churchill to divert 56% of the UK merchant ships operating in the Indian Ocean over to the Atlantic, a move that added two million tons of wheat as well as raw materials for war fighting to Britain's stockpile. This meant that few ships would be available to carry wheat from Australia to India. Churchill's Ministry of War Transport warned that such dramatic cuts to shipping capacity in South East Asia would "portend violent changes and perhaps cataclysms in the seaborne trade of large numbers of countries" but was ignored. The "menace of famine suddenly loomed up like a hydra-headed monster with a hundred clamoring mouths," according to C.B.A. Behrens in the official history of wartime British shipping.[24] It has been estimated that this resulted in the starvation of at least three million people in Bengal, while Britain's stockpile of food and raw materials by the end of 1943 totaled 18.5 million tons, greater than ever before.[25] Other British colonies on the Indian Ocean, including Kenya, Tanganyika, and British Somaliland, suffered famine that year as well.[24]
--
September 11th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Churchill did not create a famine in India :regularly,there were famines in India which were created by nature (drought, to much rain) ,the only thing of which one could accuse Chuchill was that he was indifferent to the fate of the victims.
OTOH,there was a war on,and it is more than questionable that Britain could have done more than it did .
You are correct that is what I meant to say although I don't agree that it is questionable whether Britain could have done more, it may be questionable as to whether they could have done less but I do think that Churchill's refusal to release shipping only made matters worse.
September 12th, 2014  
tetvet
 
Churchill was a wind bag that had friends in high places beginning with FDR who was an Anglophobic .
September 12th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetvet
Churchill was a wind bag that had friends in high places beginning with FDR who was an Anglophobic .
Don't you mean FDR was an Anglophile? Morale in Britain was at an all time low, Churchill like it or not stirred the British people, he got things done. Churchill was without a doubt the right man at that time. Joe Kennedy however, was Anglophobic who mouthed off that Britain was going to collapse. I think he got rather upset when his car was damaged during an air raid and that the British people didn't fall to their knee's and begged Churchill to sue for peace.

Kennedy rejected the warnings of the prominent Member of Parliament Winston Churchill that any compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible. Instead, Kennedy supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's apparent policy of appeasement. Throughout 1938, while the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany and Austria intensified, Kennedy attempted to arrange a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Shortly before the Nazi aerial bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy once again sought a personal meeting with Hitler, again without the approval of the Department of State, "to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany". It has been surmised that Kennedy also had personal reasons for wanting to avoid war; "He feared for the lives of his three eldest sons, Joe, Jack, and Bobby, all of whom were or soon would be eligible to serve."

Kennedy also argued strongly against giving military and economic aid to the United Kingdom. "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here," he stated in the Boston Sunday Globe of November 10, 1940. With Nazi German troops having overrun Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France, and with bombs falling daily on Great Britain, Kennedy unambiguously and repeatedly stated his belief that this war was not about saving democracy from National Socialism (Nazism) or from Fascism. In an interview with two newspaper journalists, Louis M. Lyons, of The Boston Globe, and Ralph Coghlan, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Kennedy said:

It's all a question of what we do with the next six months. The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time ... As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn't that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That's the bunk. She's fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us..... I know more about the European situation than anybody else, and it's up to me to see that the country gets it.

His views were becoming inconsistent and increasingly isolationist; British MP Josiah Wedgwood, 1st Baron Wedgwood, who had himself opposed the British Government's earlier appeasement policy, said of Kennedy:

We have a rich man, untrained in diplomacy, unlearned in history and politics, who is a great publicity seeker and who apparently is ambitious to be the first Catholic president of the U.S.
September 13th, 2014  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
It is the same for the Irish famine (although I would not advise to say this in Boston) :the Irish (better European famine) was created by nature,and there was little ot nothing that Britain could have done to prevent 1 million people of dying from hunger and disease.
Gosh that is the sort of attitude which led to revolution and eventual Irish independence. I hope no Irish are around to see that post! The situation was in fact similar to India in that food exports were still being made from the starving country!

Quote:
Ireland exported approximately thirty to fifty shiploads per day to Britain, which was more than enough to feed the population.....

Records show Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests.[80] No such export ban happened in the 1840s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_..._during_Famine)

PS how did this thread start again? I've lost the plot!
September 13th, 2014  
lljadw
 
The reliability of Wiki is as great as that of certain politicians :I don't believe any word of the claim that with the meat that was exported,one could feed the population of Ireland,which in 1845 was some 8 million.

The truth is that in 1845,in Ireland,as in continental Europe,the average inhabitant was almost never eating meat .Meat costed to much and was reserved to the rich.The man in the street was surviving on potato.And,sadly enough, the potato harvest failed during 3 successive years .
September 13th, 2014  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
The reliability of Wiki is as great as that of certain politicians :I don't believe any word of the claim that with the meat that was exported,one could feed the population of Ireland,which in 1845 was some 8 million.

The truth is that in 1845,in Ireland,as in continental Europe,the average inhabitant was almost never eating meat .Meat costed to much and was reserved to the rich.The man in the street was surviving on potato.And,sadly enough, the potato harvest failed during 3 successive years .
Why do people who criticise wikipedia never bother to check the sources? There is a free book here if you follow the reference.

Quote:
According to John Mitchel, quoted by Woodham-Smith, "Ireland was actually producing sufficient food, wool and flax, to feed and clothe not nine but eighteen millions of people," yet a ship sailing into an Irish port
during the famine years with a cargo of grain was "sure to meet six ships
sailing out with a similar cargo." (31.)
If there was enough food produced locally to feed the population, there was enough food - end of story, what has cost got to do with it? You're treating money like a inherent resource rather than a mere method of exchange. You can feed a population on caviar and vintage wine if there is enough of it! The reason why it didn't happen was because the rich wouldn't allow their profits to be compromised, let's get the story correct!
September 13th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: Wiki


good point perseus on Wikipedia
 


Similar Topics
Turning point of WW2
"Tommy's Dictionary Of The Trenches" WWI
Animals in War Did you know.........?
Best Army Commander of the WW2 Allies
Allies and neutrals in WW2