Holocaust Memorial Day

[Conor the Bold]

Boy are you in denial. Here's a few books that you shoud read, they are authoritive works on the subject and they all reach the same conclusion.

Ghosh, K.C.(1944) Famines in Bengal 1770-1943 (National Council of Education, Bengal, Calcutta, 2nd edn, 1987).

Das, T.(1949) Bengal famine (1943) as revealed in a survey of the destitutes of Calcutta (University of Calcutta, 1949).

Maloo, K.(1987) The history of famines in Rajputana (1858-1900 A.D.) (Himanshu Publications, Udaipur & New Delhi).


Greenough, P.R. (1982) Prosperity and misery in modern Bengal. The famine of 1943 - 1944 (Oxford University Press, New York).

Uppal, J.N. (1984) Bengal famine of 1943. A man-made tragedy (Atma Ram & Sons, Delhi).


Kachhawaha, O.P. (1985) Famines in Rajasthan (1900 A.D. - 1947 A.D.) (Hindi Sahitya Mandir, Jodhpur).

Hopi... You've not read a single one of those books. Indeed all you've done is post some of the good doctors references. So how you can actually say that they 'reach the same conclusion' is actually plain baffling.

Are you saying that these authorities are wrong?

Considering that there is no indication of what is in these 'authorities' books save what the good doctor has drawn from such conclusions.

If you are then you should have no problem linking us to some source material that will support that.

Whats that stupid? Oh yes, the source you have posted (in reality, that I posted has even remotely claimed that the British conducted genocide in Bengal. Excarbated the situation yes. Conducted Genocide? No. Which was your point was it not?

And the Good Doctors insistance that the British Excarbated the situation is based on the fact that India was colonised by the British and that they allowed trade of foodstuffs to continue out of Bengal.

Oh, and claims that British acquired ( authors own word, note the word, not stole as you claimed) surplus (note the word and its definition) and unreferenced claims that the British confisicated or destroyed Fishing boats to deny the Japanese the ability to tranist waterways in a 'waterway rich' region.

None of which remotely suggests genocide as you claimed.

By repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered you seek to give the impression that there is some inaccuracy regarding what is written in these works. But readers here can make their own minds up on that

Hopi, you've not read those books and you've been shown to be a moron time and time again on this very thread. I think readers can make up their own minds. That you and your grip of reality is directly proportionate to the axe you have to grind.

BTW you mention Wavell, he also knew the truth and was highly critical of Churchill and actully went against him and tried to help the starving people. Do yourself a favour and at least find out what he had to say on that matter, it might assist you to stop making an ass of yourself.

Well you would be in an unparralelled position to post relevant quotes from Wavell on the matter. Since you claim to have read all the sources on the Good Doctors references. Whilst Wavell and Churchill had a poor personal relationship, Who exactly do you think appointed Wavell, and what exactly do you think Wavell's role in Bengal was? Hmmm? It wasn't to oversee the starving to death of millions of people. I can't see exactly why it would be in anybody interest. But I guess you'll be able to explain that.

[hopi watcher]

Hopi... You've not read a single one of those books. Indeed all you've done is post some of the good doctors references. So how you can actually say that they 'reach the same conclusion' is actually plain baffling.



Considering that there is no indication of what is in these 'authorities' books save what the good doctor has drawn from such conclusions.



Whats that stupid? Oh yes, the source you have posted (in reality, that I posted has even remotely claimed that the British conducted genocide in Bengal. Excarbated the situation yes. Conducted Genocide? No. Which was your point was it not?

And the Good Doctors insistance that the British Excarbated the situation is based on the fact that India was colonised by the British and that they allowed trade of foodstuffs to continue out of Bengal.

Oh, and claims that British acquired ( authors own word, note the word, not stole as you claimed) surplus (note the word and its definition) and unreferenced claims that the British confisicated or destroyed Fishing boats to deny the Japanese the ability to tranist waterways in a 'waterway rich' region.

None of which remotely suggests genocide as you claimed.




Hopi, you've not read those books and you've been shown to be a moron time and time again on this very thread. I think readers can make up their own minds. That you and your grip of reality is directly proportionate to the axe you have to grind.



Well you would be in an unparralelled position to post relevant quotes from Wavell on the matter. Since you claim to have read all the sources on the Good Doctors references. Whilst Wavell and Churchill had a poor personal relationship, Who exactly do you think appointed Wavell, and what exactly do you think Wavell's role in Bengal was? Hmmm? It wasn't to oversee the starving to death of millions of people. I can't see exactly why it would be in anybody interest. But I guess you'll be able to explain that.

It is remarkable indeed that a poster would make the claim that he/she knows that some unknown other person has or has not read a book and presents this as part of an overall argument. It really indicates the shallowness of that argument. That aside, I can assure you that I have read Famines in Bengal 1770-1943 Ghosh, K.C. as part of a Social Studies Course and within that book, if you would only care to read it, most of the other works are quoted along with official and other reports relating to the subject matter.

That aside, judging from your posts you accept two of the statements that I made which were conclusions that I arrived at, 1) There was a famine, 2) British policy and decisions caused it and exacerbated it 3) Millions died. You only have difficulty with point 2) regarding culpibility. The most likely reason for this is that in your googling in seach of supprt for your denial theory you came across the official The Famine Inquiry Commission's Report on Bengal (published in 1945) which confirms both points 1 and 3 above and concentrates on apportioning blame which it lays at the feet of locals-the theory went that there was ample food in the region and the shortage was caused by those enaging in food hoarding for profit. This particluar report was however greatly undermined very soon after it's publication by the person who chaired it, Sir John Woodhead. Woodhead admittesd that the figures from which they formed their conclusion were greatly inadequate ( Source; The Ripple that Drowns-Twentith Century Famines as Economic History by O Grada) The case that hoarding was the cause was totaly debunked by Suhrawardy's Food Drive started in 1943, which was a plan to search and find the hoarded food. The drive involved " hundreds of committees and 30,000 full time workers" who between them located only 100.000 tons of rich. Asok Mitra was later to confirm that he "scoured the countryside of Viknapur but found not a grain of rice" Pinnel, Mimister responsible for procurment, now accepted that the 'hoarding' theory was a scam. Under serious pressure he suffered a breakdown in 1943 and resigned. He knew that the impeding holocaust was, at this stage, unstoppable.
Further evidence can be found in what were then coinfidential papers between British Ministers but which are now in the public domain (Source: Transfer of Power, Mansragh) They reveal British Ministers pressuring local administrators to 'squeeze more food out of Bengal for the war effort" This was happening even when the extent of the shortage of food generally was becoming widespread knowledge. The war effort was placed ahead of the lives of millions of Indian people. Linlithgow memo to Fazlul Huq 1943. Although Linlithgow's attitude was to change on realising the extent of the problem and the likely numbers that were exposed to death, his pleas to Churchill went unheeded. In a memo from Amery to Linlithgow he informs him that "his earnest representatons for food (to Churchill) had produced not good results".

Aside from these sources and the list of works of other authorities, there is also the record of the victims themselves. These accounts are to be found in the books posted and here is the quote from Dr Poyla's contribution,

"Differential victimisation - children, women and famine-enforced sexual abuse

Detailed demographic analyses of Calcutta destitutes and other famine victims reveal distressing discontinuities [1,2,5,6]. Young children were by far the most vulnerable in this famine and young adults the least so [1,2,5,6].


A nearly 2-fold difference in the percent mortality increase of males as compared to females in the age groups of 10-15 and 15-20 years has been taken as evidence of substantial young female survival through sexual submission. A similar conclusion has been drawn from the greatly decreased ratio of females to males in the 10-15 year age group among destitutes in Calcutta during this period [2,6].

The distressing testimonies of famine victims attest to the famine-enforced sexual exploitation of women [5]. There was a major military presence in Bengal and the Military Labour Corps was an avenue of survival for starving women, the price of survival being sexual submission and abuse and venereal disease [5].

Testimonies of victims and observers describe horrendous realities: dogs and vultures devouring the nearly dead, bones and bodies littering roadsides, desperate attempts to find sustenance, starvation-enforced prostitution, sale of children and even infanticide by despairing, deserted or widowed, starving mothers and tortured deaths in a lush countryside or in well-provisioned Calcutta [1,2,5,6].

Famine relief was belated and grossly insufficient [5,6]. Thus before the famine the average Bengali in 1 year consumed about 140 kg of rice (the crucial staple) and a bare-subsistence rural farming family consumed 90 kg per head each year. The famine relief diet amounted to 30 kg of grain per person per year. There were major added complications of disease, notably malaria and cholera, the shortage of medicine and the malabsorption of food [1,5,6]."

Once again you will note that this peice is fully referenced.

There is no doubt that if the outcome of WW11 had been different, war crimes would have been brought against many in the then British esatablishment. Using Numemberg as the yardstick, there is no doubt either that 'guilty' would have been the verdict as the excuse for depriving civilians and those under your charge of food and other necessary supplies on the grounds that they were required for the war effort was dismissed out of hand there.