[babopeddy]

WW II worked out well in the end for us and the European continent, and we can and should give ourselves the credit no
matter the finer points...

It could also be said that it worked for people in Asia as the European colonial empires fell or were driven out of some areas: Indonesia, Vietnam, and India which don't forget included Pakistan and Bangladesh.

[DoroKickcrofe]

It could also be said that it worked for people in Asia as the European colonial empires fell or were driven out of some areas: Indonesia, Vietnam, and India which don't forget included Pakistan and Bangladesh.

If it weren't for Gandhi, India might have fought and won its independence during or after WW-I. A significant portion of India and its major political party (Congress) wanted to help Britain in its continental European war against Austro-Hungarians and others but at a price: free India. Gandhi put a kaibosh to that, and said in time of need, Indians should help the Brits without quid pro quo. Dumb dumb dumb move. Hundreds of thousands of Indians laid down their lives during Britain's misadventures in Afghanistan, in various battlefields of WW-I and also WW-II. There are war memorials in Flanders and elsewhere that commemorate Indian soldiers alongside the European ones. But what did India gain from all this? Nothing but scorn from guys like Churchill and Gen Dyer.

Even after WW-II, India might not have won its independence were it not for worldwide (especially American) pressure on the Brits to start giving up their colonies, and also of course the bankrupt nature of British economy and inability to continue the supply chain for its administration at long distances. Yet, many African colonies weren't freed as late as into the 1960s. Asian colonies were simply bigger and better organized politically against the British.

[babopeddy]

If it weren't for Gandhi, India might have fought and won its independence during or after WW-I. A significant portion of India and its major political party (Congress) wanted to help Britain in its continental European war against Austro-Hungarians and others but at a price: free India. Gandhi put a kaibosh to that, and said in time of need, Indians should help the Brits without quid pro quo. Dumb dumb dumb move. Hundreds of thousands of Indians laid down their lives during Britain's misadventures in Afghanistan, in various battlefields of WW-I and also WW-II. There are war memorials in Flanders and elsewhere that commemorate Indian soldiers alongside the European ones. But what did India gain from all this? Nothing but scorn from guys like Churchill and Gen Dyer.

Even after WW-II, India might not have won its independence were it not for worldwide (especially American) pressure on the Brits to start giving up their colonies, and also of course the bankrupt nature of British economy and inability to continue the supply chain for its administration at long distances. Yet, many African colonies weren't freed as late as into the 1960s. Asian colonies were simply bigger and better organized politically against the British.

I think as India becomes a larger player in the world we will learn more about it. We'll have to if Americans want to do business there or with Indian firms here. I'm looking at a parking lot right now and wondering when I'll see some Tata's parked there next to KIA's, Honda's, MB's,...oh, I just saw a Ford drive by.

[babopeddy]

BBC - Soutik Biswas's India: How Churchill 'starved' India

[DoctorNiCYDEn]

Yeah we all know the dirty deeds of the British Empire. I never click on links but I get your gist from the header.

Chuchill may have had faults, but he also led his country to defeat Nazism.

The only free world country nowadays pursuing colonization are the Israelis of Palestine.

[DoroKickcrofe]

BBC - Soutik Biswas's India: How Churchill 'starved' India

Thanks for the link, I'd not read that article, but being well read in Indian history, am aware of this fact. A lot of scholarly work has gone into the issue of famines sweeping through India during the British Raj, not just this particular one.

In fact, a few years ago, economist Amartya Sen (American of Indian-Bengali origin) was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for his fundamental research that showed the link between presence of democracy and democractic institutions and absense of famine. India has never suffered famine post-independence to the extent it suffered during the British rule.

And I have nothing but contempt for Churchill for many reasons, this just adds to it. From an Indian perspective, he was a contemptuous SOB pretty much comparable to Hitler or anybody else. Of course, he is held in very high regard in America. I don't know why, because he was a bald-faced liar even to America and sought any and all ways to get Americans to fight for his country's behalf, spilling American blood and costing American treasure.

[babopeddy]

Yeah we all know the dirty deeds of the British Empire. I never click on links but I get your gist from the header.

Chuchill may have had faults, but he also led his country to defeat Nazism...

Field Marshall Wavell was also leading Britain against the Nazis but he was trying to get food to the famine area but Churchill stood in the way. I wouldn't call continuing famine a fault, and think it would be too criminal. However, we have the same sort of attitude toward Stalin. He was our ally but he was a criminal as well. And if justice were purer he would have hung for his deeds.

[babopeddy]

Thanks for the link, I'd not read that article, but being well read in Indian history, am aware of this fact. A lot of scholarly work has gone into the issue of famines sweeping through India during the British Raj, not just this particular one.

In fact, a few years ago, economist Amartya Sen (American of Indian-Bengali origin) was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for his fundamental research that showed the link between presence of democracy and democractic institutions and absense of famine. India has never suffered famine post-independence to the extent it suffered during the British rule.

And I have nothing but contempt for Churchill for many reasons, this just adds to it. From an Indian perspective, he was a contemptuous SOB pretty much comparable to Hitler or anybody else. Of course, he is held in very high regard in America. I don't know why, because he was a bald-faced liar even to America and sought any and all ways to get Americans to fight for his country's behalf, spilling American blood and costing American treasure.

First he was half American, his mother was American. Maybe that's part of it. As to spilling American blood, well, Germany declared war on the US so Churchill didn't really get us into the fight in Europe. Although he certainly wanted us to. However, he was willing to spill just about everyone's blood senselessly: Australians at Singapore, Australians at Tobruk, and the Canadians at Dieppe. He truly believed in the British Empire and I suspect in the superiority of the British race or the English speaking peoples.

[DoctorNiCYDEn]

Thanks for your insight Colin, believe it or not I just read a Churchill biography about a year ago. I'll keep my mind open to
learn more about said famine. One thing probable is had the US not intervened Britain would have been lost.
I guess from a present day viewpoint the UK is our closest ally, come hell or high water.
Stalin was the embodiment of evil, his only saving grace was Russian winter and US invasion.

[DoctorNiCYDEn]

First he was half American, his mother was American. Maybe that's part of it. As to spilling American blood, well, Germany declared war on the US so Churchill didn't really get us into the fight in Europe. Although he certainly wanted us to. However, he was willing to spill just about everyone's blood senselessly: Australians at Singapore, Australians at Tobruk, and the Canadians at Dieppe. He truly believed in the British Empire and I suspect in the superiority of the British race or the English speaking peoples.

Your quick recall of those battles is amazing. I wish I could retain everything I read which is alot. Maybe Churchill was a bum, but he was our bum. However this talk of giving up lives needlessly will also get looked into further.
My wife's father who is doing well flew B-17 missions over Germany and Africa. What do you make of the Germans attacking
Russia at the start of winter?````

[DoroKickcrofe]

First he was half American, his mother was American. Maybe that's part of it. As to spilling American blood, well, Germany declared war on the US so Churchill didn't really get us into the fight in Europe. Although he certainly wanted us to. However, he was willing to spill just about everyone's blood senselessly: Australians at Singapore, Australians at Tobruk, and the Canadians at Dieppe. He truly believed in the British Empire and I suspect in the superiority of the British race or the English speaking peoples.

As I remember it, he was a civilian leader of the British Navy during WW-I and even at that time, he schemed to get America into the war on behalf of Britain. Then, as you know, WW-II unspooled in phases. Germany had no interest in getting America involved in the war and tried hard to not anger America. To that end, the German U-Boat fleet was keeping a keen eye on SLOC in the Atlantic and avoided attacking American vessels. And FDR was of the mind of non-interference in the affairs of Europe to the extent possible. So Churchill played underhanded tactics and got American merchant marine targeted as the war carried on, in an effort to get America involved. And as you know, America finally got into the war after it was attacked by Japan in the Pacific.

[babopeddy]

Your quick recall of those battles is amazing. I wish I could retain everything I read which is alot. Maybe Churchill was a bum, but he was our bum. However this talk of giving up lives needlessly will also get looked into further.
My wife's father who is doing well flew B-17 missions over Germany and Africa. What do you make of the Germans attacking
Russia at the start of winter?````

You should stop reading and start watching TV. Hitler ordered the attack on Russia in the summer and made great advances through the summer. The Russians let the German army over extend itself and then they waited for winter. Talk about your summer soldier.

We should all be grateful to you wife's father.

[babopeddy]

Thanks for your insight Colin, believe it or not I just read a Churchill biography about a year ago. I'll keep my mind open to
learn more about said famine. One thing probable is had the US not intervened Britain would have been lost.
I guess from a present day viewpoint the UK is our closest ally, come hell or high water.
Stalin was the embodiment of evil, his only saving grace was Russian winter and US invasion.

Britain would have been lost? You know I was watching something a few years ago, probably on the History Channel, and they were talking about Hitler's plan to invade Britain. They went over some of the problems he faced, one being secrecy and the difficulty for the Germans to keep their invasion a secret. One of the problems was landing craft design. They had landing craft disguised as fishing boats, but this limited the size and the number of troops that it could carry. They showed one of these "fishing boat/landcraft" it was very small. Also, I doubt the German Navy could have stealthly launched a surprize attack against Britain. The long and short of it was that the Germans were never in a position to have an effective invasion of Britain, and they didn't even try to explore such a possibility with a raid.

As to Stalin and D-Day, Albert Speer said the the American 2nd Front was really American daylight bombing and this is what really helped the Soviets gain their ground.

[babopeddy]

As I remember it, he was a civilian leader of the British Navy during WW-I and even at that time, he schemed to get America into the war on behalf of Britain. Then, as you know, WW-II unspooled in phases. Germany had no interest in getting America involved in the war and tried hard to not anger America. To that end, the German U-Boat fleet was keeping a keen eye on SLOC in the Atlantic and avoided attacking American vessels. And FDR was of the mind of non-interference in the affairs of Europe to the extent possible. So Churchill played underhanded tactics and got American merchant marine targeted as the war carried on, in an effort to get America involved. And as you know, America finally got into the war after it was attacked by Japan in the Pacific.

Indeed, Churchill wanted the US in the fight in WWI & WWII. Underhanded tactics, probably. The British were desperate. It should also be mentioned that FDR was sympathic to the British but his opinion was at odds with national opinion. Without Germany invading Britain I'm not sure if the US would have declared war on Germany, or without Germany sinking a big US ocean liner which you suggest they were unlikely to do. It's just luck for the British the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on US. In 1941 we certainly weren't ready to fight on two fronts with such powerful and determined enemies. But the US can change quickly and that was something Tojo and Hitler didn't understand. They spent a decade building their military strength and we just needed a year.

[DoctorNiCYDEn]

WW II worked out well in the end for us and the European continent, and we can and should give ourselves the credit no
matter the finer points.
As stated I can't retain everything I read nor care to, but is great to be reminded here. So the Germans started their Russian
invasion in the summer, but by the time they got to Moscow it was high-winter. Maybe they should have invaded in winter
and arrived in summer? Just a thought for future invaders.
The Japs surely miscalculated and I understand to this day are still in denial.
You are correct that the British Isles pose a very difficult invasion target, much like the United States.