According to the manual of the old subsim ´aces of the deep´, some 19,000 of some 39,000 german submariners did not return, iirc, making for a fatality rate of roughly 50%. [quotation only for reference to sub-topic]
Did you Know?
- Thread starter wildbillhdmax01
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
According to the manual of the old subsim ´aces of the deep´, some 19,000 of some 39,000 german submariners did not return, iirc, making for a fatality rate of roughly 50%. [quotation only for reference to sub-topic]
There was actually enough food in India during the Bengal famine but the democratically elected provincial governments in areas like the panjab where there was plenty of food had banned the export of food to Bengal. You could actually argue that if the british had been more dictatorial towards the Indians the problem would have been solved.
Well, see it this way-
Country of India- population of X, each man consumes food = Y per day, total consumption per year = X*Y*365
Food Available in total = Z, where in Z> 365* X*Y, but only by a small margin of 10-20%, say 'Z= X*Y*365*1.1'
now if 0.25*Z is shipped out of India,
Z1 = 0.75 Z which is < X*Y*365
Now since only some 82% food is available instead of earlier 110%, it becomes a question of demand and supply, will each person reduce his intake communism style by 20% or will the Rich and Middle class and also the major food producing areas decide it is better to keep their rations (in the fear that some more food may be taken away) and let the remaining starve?
This is how - human psychology works everywhere. The British were aware of this fact, but 'White A - non Rice eating' was more important than say 'Brown B- eating rice'.
I do not have enough knowledge about Neuro-Psychiatric casualties to render an opinion on if it was high or not. However the bits of research Note 34 HERE and pg 144 HERE in the American Army shows wildly different numbers that I am unsure of how to translate into plain words.
The Divisional Neuro-Psychiatrist R. A. Gregory noted:
"Of the N.P. cases occuring during this battle about 90% had three months or more of battle experience. Because of the length of time in contact with the enemy... and because of the fighting conditions which were severe, the N.P. casualties rate was high."
As for the battle itself, the War Diary of the 3rd Division shows it was involved in "close contact" for almost 90 days straight. The Scheldt involved sieges, seaborne landings and river crossings against often heavily dug in German forts. Jeffery Williams called Walcheren Island the "strongest concentration of defences the Nazis had ever constructed" in his book The Long Left Flank. Gregory stated in his October 1944 report that there was a steep drop in morale mostly due to the soldiers' perception that there was "nothing to which to look forward - no rest, no leave, no enjoyment, no normal life and no escape".
Do you have any real source for the sex doll thingy? According to the German Wikipedia, it is a hoax.
The Germans operated more than 500 military brothels (mainly with forced labour) to reduce STDs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_military_brothels_in_World_War_II
So...
Rice that could have been used to feed the starving Bengalis was shipped out to rot on the docks of Singapore & Hong Kong in 1943/44. And this was the fault of the British?
I shouldn’t need to remind you that Hong Kong fell to Japan in December of 41 & Singapore in Feb of 42?
This entire section of this “Did you know?” thread has been hijacked by trolls. It’s been demonstrated that there was plenty of food in the Indian sub-continent but the local distribution was at fault. You can hardly blame the Brit’s, or Winnie in particular, (others, not you) for local greed.
But your analysis of the word "volunteer" is, IMHO, very accurate.
Well, stocks are usually a year or two older, i.e. Rice in stocks in 1944 will have been produced in 1941-42. I do know HK & SING fell in late 41/early 42, also i did not specifically say that stock of 1943-44 was stored there, i just meant existing stocks transferred there. The British wanted to hold SINGAPORE (like HITLER wanted to stand and hold in Russia), hence the stockpiling done there. Also 'RICE' is primarily a carbohydrate consumed in ASIA, so stroing it in Alexandria or transporting it to Greece/Italy is like wasting it. (those people do not need it, it is often used as animal fodder or wasted/rotted).
As for blaming the Brits and Winnie, i think if they get the credit, they deserve the debit too. The local greed was born more out of fear, i gave an example above of how it is caused. It is basic Human Psychology- Self Preservation above all.
Well, actually the rate was nearly 75%. 30.000 out of 40.000 crewmember never returned...
I can tell you for a fact that there wasn't much stockpiling of food in Singapore. Every scrap of land, however small, needed to be turned over to agriculture. Even strips less than a foot wide by the sides of pavements between bunkers at Siloso were cultivated.
Not that it did much good. The campaign was barely long enough to finish planting.
Did you know:
That wanting to win a war you're fighting makes you just like Hitler? After all, Hitler wanted to win the war too!
Indeed. The French are the true heroes here.
Also noteworthy: Hitler had a dog, was a vegetarian, and a hetereosexual. Therefore, only own cats, eat meat, and sleep with your own sex. I would say that Churchill was a 3/4-Hitler, since he owned poodles, was hetereosexual, and wanted to win the war, but did eat meat.
Well, please understand what operation situation i am speaking about, obviously no one wants to lose.
The British starved Singapore of Aircraft but built a huge docks for the RN, ultimately the entire or bulk of RN never came, what came was a small task force which was easily sunk. Further, those men sent did not have the proper training and weaponry to resist and they were told to stand and fight. Hitler did the same thing in Russia, instead of retreating his troops and counter-attacking later.
Oh God, I find that phrase incredibly hilarious for some reason.
Can I use that as my new Sig?
Yes but you've been having a go a the british as if the Bengal famine was some sort of genocide by the british. when the Indian provincial governments and corrupt indian officials were preventing the flow of food from parts of india where there was a surplus, to Bengal. The british did solve the problem when Wavell started using the army to distribute food.
Did you know its a bannable offense to put up moderator quotes in your sig?
First, not a mod- paradox staff. Second, only if they use their 'mod font'- most of them have it in their signatures. But regardless of any rules, if they say you can use it it's probably fine to use it.
By the way, sig rules:
{Have a good Signature} Signature Rules
Your signature should be composed of the default font size or smaller and should be 10 lines maximum (including lines of spaces) when viewed at 1200 x 1080, and with the "User post bit set left". That means the option to display user information on the left of the post rather than the top of the post. We strongly encourage much shorter signatures.
Your signature should conform to the normal Forum Rules regarding content.
Your signature should not include ASCII made images.
Your signature should not include vBB code quotes.
Colours, links (in accordance with Forum Rules) and other vBB codes may be used. Note, however that bad nesting of vBB tags may cause problems and these signatures may be removed without notice.
Any signature seen as being overly long or of an offensive nature etc is liable to be removed without notice.
Inflammatory Political Statements or Quotes (as Perceived by the Paradox Staff) are not permitted in signatures and will be removed.
Paradox forum staff have the final say over what is deemed appropriate.
Your signature should be composed of the default font size or smaller and should be 10 lines maximum (including lines of spaces) when viewed at 1200 x 1080, and with the "User post bit set left". That means the option to display user information on the left of the post rather than the top of the post. We strongly encourage much shorter signatures.
Your signature should conform to the normal Forum Rules regarding content.
Your signature should not include ASCII made images.
Your signature should not include vBB code quotes.
Colours, links (in accordance with Forum Rules) and other vBB codes may be used. Note, however that bad nesting of vBB tags may cause problems and these signatures may be removed without notice.
Any signature seen as being overly long or of an offensive nature etc is liable to be removed without notice.
Inflammatory Political Statements or Quotes (as Perceived by the Paradox Staff) are not permitted in signatures and will be removed.
Paradox forum staff have the final say over what is deemed appropriate.
Interesting. Not sure where i got the 60 subs figure from, as i just checked Max Hastings book and i couldnt find the reference anywhere.
My mistake.
Funny that, because that is exactly what the Indians did when the British found there was a supply shortage.
Did you honest just say that? Indian industry boomed from the inception of the British Raj with many companies (including some famous ones like Tartar Steel) still around today. India was rapidly industrialising and by WW2 had a hell of a lot of industry of its own.
It was this industry that was retooled to supply the British and Indian troops in the Pacific theatre.
The religious hatred between the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims went back over a 1000 years. You cant blame that on the British in any way.
As for anti-british sentiment, it depended on the group. Minorities such as the 'martial races', and also large portions of the Hindu population were actually rather pro-british. The main anti-british sentiment came from the Muslims of India, who saw the British as the reason for the fall of their 'glorious' Mughal empire and the end of their rule over the peoples the Muslims saw as lesser.
And yes, the British did end religious and civil war as, once Britain had control over the subcontinent, they prevented the usual conflicts between Indian princes and religious groups that would have erupted into war.
And one country makes sense. The fact Indian would fight Indian over petty things is ridiculous. And the British saw it as ridiculous. There is no reason India cannot be a fully functioning, united country. The Indians are more than capable of making it happen.
Churchill refused to release shipping because, like many in the British government at the time, he was paranoid about Britain running out of supplies and starving to death.
You say the statistics were off, but there was enough food in India, as the British said, but it was internal politics and religious conflict that prevented food reaching Bengal. Hindus and Sikhs would rather give their surpluses to other Hindus and Sikhs, and not the Muslims who they hated due to the history of the Mughals.
I dont think many Indians except Muslim Indians outside Bengal lost sleep over the Bengal famine. Britain and its rule over India brought many benefits. A famine would not undo all that.
The British said what they saw. They put different peoples into different 'boxes' for easier management. It is called 'categorizing'. It helps when ruling and/or when dealing with them diplomatically. Not quite sure that could be called 'seeing people as lesser'.
That guy totally sees Indians as his equals.
Totally forgetting the fact that Indians were employed to do that. Employed. What he is doing is no different to a shoe shiner in Europe. He is most likely a domestic servant employed by the household. It by no means is evidence for seeing someone as 'lesser'.
By that logic, every image of a boy shining someones shoes in the west is an image of the one getting his shoes shined 'looking down on' and thinking the boy is lesser.
You seem to be making no distinction between East India Company rule and British Raj rule. What you said is mostly true for the former. India was dependent on the British for goods, usually given at discount prices i return for raw materials.
What you said does not apply to the British Raj, especially as late as WW2.
Indian industry had blossomed, with much of the funding actually coming from the British themselves. India was producing a lot of its own things by 1939. The fact India was rather heavily industrialised is proven by the fact that the deficit in military supplies and equipment was filled very quickly by Indian industry after it had retooled.
The British shipped food to Greece because Greece was on the front line of the European theatre and its food was running out.
Not so in India. Whilst parts of India were enduring famine conditions, other parts had huge food surpluses. The British knew this, as they made it their business to know everything in their empire. this is where Churchill's comment about there been enough food in India to feed Bengal comes from.
There was, but as i said above internal, millennia old chasms of both political and religious nature prevented food been delivered to Bengal were the famine hit hardest. Eventually the British brought in relief and forced food shipments from the rest of India to Bengal.
Britain's mistake was not taking direct control of the surplus food and distributing it themselves instead of relying on the Indian administration to do it themselves.
Well said. It was internal fissures and British overconfidence in the Indian administrations that exacerbated the famine.
The British did not want the Bengali's to starve.
- Status