We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

What they will not be telling you: Nehru was not good for India

With the 60th anniversary of the end of British rule in the sub continent, there is the normal talk of whether the vast numbers of rapes and murders during partition could have been prevented. The British will, perhaps quite rightly, get the blame for not delaying independence and for not using enough force to try and prevent the violence on partition.

However, it is almost forgotten that Nehru (the leader of the Congress party and first Prime Minister of India) was demanding that the British leave (every day we stayed was a day too many for Nehru), and even claimed that it was mainly where the British were that violence took place.

This was the exact opposite of the truth (and Nehru knew it) – as it was where British forces went in (sadly much too rarely) that the mass rapes and killings were prevented. Nehru had “form” in letting his “get the British out of India” obsession cloud his judgement.

For example, in 1942 he had gone along (whatever doubts he must have had) with the demented “Quit India” campaign. Had the British actually “quit India” the Japanese would have come in (they were at the gates of India) and the Congress party would have found out what “slavery to an Imperial power” really was.

As Prime Minister of India Nehru followed a policy of armed aggression (so much for “non violence”) against such places as Portuguese Goa. But also did not bother to prepare against real threats to national security.

The classic example is relations with Red China. Nehru ordered a policy of confronting China in the border area – but did not send a decent level of troops or equipment (the Indian troops did not even axes to cut down trees and where forced into trying to use spades for the task – much to amusement of the watching People’s Liberation Army). Nehru also refused to approach the United States for aid – he could handle matters.

When the Chinese invaded in 1962 the Indian force fought bravely, but was hopelessly out-numbered and out-equipped – their defeat was inevitable. The Chinese captured the entire disputed area (which they had no legal right to) and Nehru was left begging the United States for aid – in case the Chinese decided to take any more of India.

But the worst aspect of Nehru was his domestic policy:

Nehru loved talking of “five year plans” and an industrial revolution for India. However, his policies condemned the population of India to poverty, often extreme poverty. Not only was overseas competition virtually banned (for almost all goods and services), but the “permit Raj” meant that almost all domestic competition was crippled as well.

The “freedom” that the Congress party promised India turned out to be so many rules and regulations that it made the British Raj look almost libertarian by comparison (although the British Raj was bad in many ways).

I doubt that most of the above will be mentioned in many places, but people deserve to know.

85 comments to What they will not be telling you: Nehru was not good for India

  • Cynic

    Although India’s post-independence economic policies were idiotic until the 1990s, the same could largely be said for Britain for most of that period. Britain wanted its colonies to imitate them, and India sure did with regards to its economy. The British had imposed protectionist policies in India too, and these were kept in place after independence.

    If Japan had invaded India, its questionable whether they would have ever conquered it. They would have been brutal no doubt. But Japan always struggled to conquer China, despite having dozens of divisions in the country. And India even in the 1940s had a huge population. From a British perspective, leaving India before the war would have freed a lot of troops and military resources that could have been used probably more effectively against Hitler (all the crucial victories for the Allies against Japan were American/Australian victories).

  • Counting Cats

    I blame the London School of Economics. In terms of maintaining corruption and grinding poverty the LSE has a lot to account for.

  • People never show the proper gratitude to those who conquer them.

  • Cynic

    In Martin Wolf’s ‘Why Globalization Works’, he recalls his time at the world Bank in the 1970s and the kind of Keynesian ‘advice’ they gave to India.

  • Frederick Davies

    …(all the crucial victories for the Allies against Japan were American/Australian victories).

    I am quite sure the British and Indian soldiers that took part in the defense of Kohima and Imphal against Japanese operation U-Go (15 March-4 July 1944), and later fought the Meiktila campaign (January-March 1945) as a prelude to reconquering Burma, would beg to differ to the statement above.
    During operation U-Go, the Japanese lost 60000 soldiers, the worst defeat the Japanese army has ever suffered; and at Meiktila, the 14th Army (British and Indian, with even one East African brigade, the 28th) led by General Sir William Slim, defeated the 15th, 28th and 33rd Japanese Armies of General Kimura Hyotaro, forcing them out of Burma by 1st May. In all these operations the only American intervention was support from the USAAF’s 12th Bombardment Group and the 1st and 2nd Air Commando Groups, which complemented the planes of the 221 and 224 RAF Groups.

    From a British perspective, leaving India before the war would have freed a lot of troops and military resources that could have been used probably more effectively against Hitler…

    India provided many of the troops that were used in the Mediterranean, Middle and Far Eastern theatres; it was a military resource the British used well. If the Japanese hadn’t had to base so many troops in Burma to cover their Indian flank, they might just as well have invaded Australia.

  • Cynic

    Defeating the Japanese army was never necessary for America to defeat Japan. Japan’s army was mostly deployed in continental Asia and Japan itself. The Americans mostly fought the Japanese navy, marines, and airforce. The crucial battles were at sea, on the islands, and over Japan’s airspace, not on the Asian mainland. America would have only had to crush the army if it had ever invaded Japan.

    Although the British/Indians no doubt fought hard for Burma, the fact is that America would have won regardless of what went on Burma. Burma, China, Vietminh insurgency etc were all peripheral fronts compared to the Battle of Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa etc.

  • Cynic

    Correction- my bad. The US did engage the Japanese army at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. But I think my main point stands. America never had to take on the mass of the Japanese army to win the war as long as they destroyed Japan’ s fleet and airforce.

  • Cynic

    That contrasts the European war, where it was necessary to destroy Germany’s army, airforce, and navy to force a surrender.

  • RAB

    My dad went on a guided tour of the Prince of Wales the day before Japanese bombers sank it in Sri Lanka(then Ceylon).
    He was in the RAF. His collegues went after the buggers with a bit of vim and Ceylon was not troubled again. Had we not been there the Japanese would have walked in.
    My luddite hippie friend in San Fran, had a dad who was a Major in the Gurkha Regiment. They served in the European theatre. Not the East or Far east.
    We owe our colonial troops a great deal more than we have acknowledged.
    I want to see a British movie Called Saving Private Singh. But I wont hold my breath, or if somebody suggests Dicky Attenborough for the job, then I will be running in the opposite direction!!!

  • Cynic

    ‘Had we not been there the Japanese would have walked in.’

    Had Britain left long before, the Indians may have been able to have set up their own defenses. I doubt they would have been helpless without British overlords.

  • RAB

    You’ve just read the one book on WW2 then Cynic?
    I used to hang out with folks who took part.
    I think you have a rather naive idea as to how well organised the rest of the world was back then in matters of defence. It was down to the Colonial power to provide it. The Prince of Wales was not built in Ceylon you know, and was only there to defend the island.
    Of the fate of parts of the world which were not colonies of anyone, er let’s take Ethiopia for instance.
    They were well prepared when the Italians attacked??
    Great state of the art army? Navy?? Airforce???.
    Nope.
    Sharpened fruit on a stick!
    That’s why Haili Suspicious spent the war years just down the road in Bath whilst we Brits got his Country back for him. There is no way in hell he could have done it for himself. With or without his countrymen.

  • Cynic

    The United States became free of British rule in 1783. When attacked at Pearl Harbour, America was able to resist the Japanese and Germans. Now, I doubt India would have been able to match America, but had the British cleared off from India in 1783 as well, perhaps India would have been able to defend itself in the 1940s without British overlords. If India was really unable to defend itself, the British are to blame for denying India self-determination (and therefore have control over its own defenses rather than having to slavishly rely on an occupying power) until 1947.

  • RAB

    Damn! the light is on but nobody appears to be home.
    My example was Ethiopia and Italy, not Britain and India. Discuss…

  • Cynic

    You asked for countries that were not colonies of anybody at the time.

    Ok, so Ethiopia got overthrown by Italy.

    But the United States, which had overthrown colonial rule in 1776, fared much better than all the European colonial powers.

    Finland, no longer under Russian domination, successfully stopped the Soviets from overrunning their country.

    South America also seemed to be able avoid being blasted to hell, despite having kicked the Spanish/Portuguese out years before.

    Britain, occupying Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia didn’t do much of a good job defending them. France was the same with Indochina. Holland with Indonesia. The USA with the Philippines.

  • Cynic: You are playing with total straw men. RAB owns you in this debate. Try providing some *relevant* examples…

  • Cynic

    Well I suppose you are right. Britain and France after all, the supposed imperial giants, had to rely on the US, the new Empire, to bail them out of the mess they had made.

  • The Last Toryboy

    I think Woodrow Wilson has much blame to bear regarding “the mess they had made” with his interference in WW1.

  • Midwesterner

    You keep citing the US as a colony in the same terms as India. There is a slight difference. The future US was full of British, mostly English people. Our war for independence was an English civil war in the eyes of many at the time. I view it as one to this day. Britain’s history and culture is MY nations history. The US did not win its independence from control by the English. We were English. It was an English population fighting against the government in Whitehall. In fact, it’s a sad state of affairs that much of the English culture and tradition of liberty has survived better over here than in its own birthplace.

    Also, Finland would hardly have stopped the Soviet Union without the help of world public opinion and the proximity and nervousness of NATO and the Cold War. Like Chechnya, they would have just kept throwing conscripts at it.

    And in regard to South America, Brazil might have “kicked the Spanish/Portuguese out years before”, but that sure didn’t stop them from playing the America card.

    But that’s okay. It’s a big world. Got any more?

    Oh, as for India. The Mughal empire ended 50 years before the Colonial era began. India was already fracturing and would probably have turned into a great many competing states all making alliances against their neighbors. They would probably have made an easy target.

    If anything, it appears that a history of being a British colony, and particularly membership in the Commonwealth, is a marker for countries that faired better than countries that were not colonized by the British.

  • How different would the world be if India had followed more sensible economic policies? Imagine one billion Indians with GDP per head similar to Singpaore, Thailand or Malaysia.

  • Nasikabatrachus

    Ah, but you see, Nehru’s policies were necessary to prevent foreign competition from destroying the country’s economy. If only he had enacted a law mandating that all people do work with one hand tied behind their backs, the country’s economy would be twice as strong today!

  • Counting Cats

    Cynic,

    If the English had not established dominance in India in the eighteenth century the French would have; and failing France? Russia. There was no such thing as India as a country, it existed only as a geographical region made up of balkanising states and statelets. Given the condition of all of Asia (excepting Japan) at the time of the war, from the Dardanelles to the Philippines, Japan would not have had to face a single industrialised adversary had the colonial powers not been present.

  • In Swedish newspapers it is very little reported about India and the anniversary. Most it is written and reported from the angle to compare with Pakistan. What did India to right and what did Pakistan do wrong, while one is a economy in growth and one a nation in despair. So your post about Nehu is really something we never will read in Swedish media, I suppose.

  • Finland, no longer under Russian domination, successfully stopped the Soviets from overrunning their country.

    South America also seemed to be able avoid being blasted to hell, despite having kicked the Spanish/Portuguese out years before.

    Britain, occupying Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia didn’t do much of a good job defending them. France was the same with Indochina. Holland with Indonesia. The USA with the Philippines.

  • Midwesterner: Britain’s history and culture is MY nations history.

    As a Brit, I am very glad to hear such sentiments. However, I do believe it is India that will come to the rescue of Western Democracy in the next decades by effectively confronting China.

  • Julian Taylor

    Nehru’s principal problem was his parochial view that “Imperialism = bad, anyone who has fought against imperialism must = good”. That accounted for the ridiculous “Hindi-Chini bhai bhai” (Indians and Chinese are brothers) and probably also for his appointment of strongly pro-Chinese/pro-socialist Cabinet members. His eventual humiliation both at the hands of the odious Zhou Enlai and by the PLA’s invasion across the McMahon Line must have caused him no end of anguish, not least to finally comprehend that the USA was actually completely correct about China’s ambitions toward India but also the realisation that Nehru had yielded his place on the UN Security council (sponsored by the USA) to … China.

  • Nick M

    Chadie,
    India produces more PhDs per capita than Pakistan and 80% of Pakistan’s PhDs are in theology. Most Indian PhDs are in sciences and engineering. So while the Pakistani educational elite are arguing the toss over the veracity of an obscure hadith…

    Erm… Finland actually lost the Winter War with the Sovs and ceded a lot of territory. The Sovs though did get a pasting and their losses were tremendous. I once had a fling with a Finn and did she not like Russians…

    Mid, the Winter War was in 1940 so NATO doesn’t enter the picture.

    As far as Cynic (if he returns) is concerned I’ll say no more because RAB is like totally pwning him.

    Except, there is now on the Mall a small but very good* war memorial to our colonial troops. The one good thing Cherie Blair ever did was champion the rights of Gurkhas. Not nearly well enough it would seem because one was recently (after long service) denied residency in the UK because he “couldn’t demonstrate strong enough links with Britain”. If we had kept up Gurkha recruitment at earlier levels and sent them into Iraq and the ‘stan with “liberal” rules of engagement Moqtada al Sadr (and all the rest) would have soiled their robes and our problems there would rapidly have been over. Especially considering the terrain, I have no idea why we have never deployed Gurkhas to Afghanistan.

    Paul, very interesting post. Have you read “Midnight’s Children” by Rushdie? It’s written from the POV of a Muslim family so Nehru isn’t mentioned as much as he might be but it really captures the dashed hopes of Indian independence and the horrors of partition and the somewhat subsequent Pakistan civil war. And what is said about Indira Ghandi is…

    I have known a lot of Indians (I don’t mean Brits of Indian descent either – but Indians citizens) and without exception I have never heard one of them bitch about the colonial period. They all spoke excellent English and were acutely aware of how useful that was in a global market. One of them had attended an elite public school (in the English sense) and was obsessed by cricket and had the most impeccable manners for a student I have ever encountered. In a sense he was more “English” than I am. I guess several thousand years of culture and a massive potential for the future makes the mere blip of being run for a couple of hundred years by a collection of pallid individuals from this moist island become something not to get your knickers in a twist about. Please inform Comrade Bob, preferably with a ball-peen hammer in morse.

    *I don’t quite know how to describe a war memorial positively.

  • Nick M

    Julian,
    Are you saying that India could’ve been a permanent member of the UNSC? Wow! I never knew that…

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Paul Johnson’s book, Modern Times – which may not be in print any longer – roasts both Nehru and Gandhi for their conduct. It is a bit biased but there is no doubt that Nehru was not quite the splendid chap he’s made out to be. That said, I am glad that India has broken free of its imperial chains and think the emergence of India as a major capitalist economy can be only great news for the world as a whole.

    Right, now to focus back on the cricket.

  • Cynic

    I quote from an essay by William Dalrymple in Time magazine:
    ‘In 1600, when the East India Company was founded, Britain was generating 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was producing 22.5%. By 1870, at the peak of the Raj, Britain was generating 9.1%, while India had been reduced to the epitome of a Third World nation, a symbol across the globe of famine, poverty, and deprivation.’

    So any talk about how the Indians were under British overlords for their own good is bogus. And looking at modern Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, South Africa, Burma, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, I think it is questionable that former British possessions have necessarily done better than countries that were never controlled by Britain.

  • Cynic

    ‘In fact, it’s a sad state of affairs that much of the English culture and tradition of liberty has survived better over here than in its own birthplace.’

    Well, America certainly has its own mad King George right now.

  • The Last Toryboy

    India didn’t even exist in 1600, so enough said on a fictitious nations economic clout.

    And besides, in 250 years maybe the US will be the epitome of a third world nation, thats a bit of a long stretch of time to draw snap conclusions to.

  • Badgers

    Cynic, the assertion in the article that India’s economy declined over the period is baseless without producing absolute GDP figures. Citing economies in terms of the world’s GDP assumes a zero-sum situation which was palpably untrue – this period includes the Industrial Revolution in western countries. Without absolute figures we can’t infer what happened to India’s GDP – it probably increased over the period.

  • Cynic

    From the article:
    ‘What changed was the advent of European colonialism. Following Vasco da Gama’s discovery of the sea route to the East in 1498, European colonial traders — first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and finally the British — slowly wrecked the old trading network and imposed with their cannons and caravels a Western imperial system of command economics.’

  • Jacob

    the Prince of Wales the day before Japanese bombers sank it in Sri Lanka(then Ceylon).

    The Prince of Wales was sunk off the coast of Malaysia, while it was trying to protect Singapore, the main British base in the Far east.

  • Maybe its too obvious to state, but the greatest thing the Brits did in India was to give them the English language.

    I head a story that Hi Chi Minh once said that if Ghandi had been operating in a French Colony he would not have stayed alive more than five minutes.

  • RAB

    I do beg your pardon Jacob. Perhaps it was the week before it was sunk.No way I can check with dad as he has been dead for a decade.
    It was definately in Sri Lanka though. I have a picture of Dad and his mates standing admiring the front gun turret.

  • Nick M

    Cynic,
    Where precisely do accurate GDP figures from 1600 come from?

    And to riff on badger’s point – please define India in 1600.

    The “Mad King George” line is a very cheap shot. You should know that societies and economies prosper (if they do) despite the depredations of their rulers. Are you suffering from BDS?

    And answer me this. Why have I never met an anglophobe Indian. If they were so oppressed why aren’t they more upset about it? Instead they take the piss about us Brits love of curry and tea. Colonialism is a two way street. I am not BTW glossing over such atrocities as the Black Hole of Calcutta or the Amritsar massacre.

    JP,
    Does “Modern Times” mention that Gandhi used to sleep in the nip* with attractive twelve year old virgins in order to test his own chastity?

    *Not that he had much to remove anyway… Call me old fashioned but I do believe that world statesmen should wear a suit, with a tie (pay attention Dave). I might work in jogging pants and a NUFC top but that is not the attire I would meet a prospective client in. For reasons I hope are obvious I affect a tailored (Hong Kong Indian) suit, similar shirts and a boiled worm tie. For some reason it opens many more doors than turning up in a nappy… Admittedly that does open a door. Usually one marked “Exit”.

  • Cynic, cynic…

    Forget the college-level critiques regarding GDP in non-existent nations, and prime-divider societies vs. civil societies. Let’s take this back to the high-school level (don’t remember what Brits call it), and see if you can hang there…

    1. Have you ever heard of a little economic phenomenon known as the “Industrial Revolution?”
    a)yes
    b)no
    c)The Industrial Revolution kicked Britain’s Oppressive Imperial Hegemony out of Industry

  • kaj

    As for Finlands role in WW2, they actually fought 3 separate wars: First the “Winter War, singly against the USSR, finally having to give a lot of teritory in spite of much support from the West, though most of it verbal in nature.
    Secondly, the “Continuation war”, 1941-44, allied with Germany, attempting to retake lost territory, but later forced to throw in the towel.
    Thirdly, the “Lapland war”, throwing the Germans out of Finland, leaving much of Finlands territory desolate.

    Not bad for a small country?

    As for the Raj’s role in India and Burma during ww2, read George MacDonald Frasers “Quartered safe out here”, very unPC and highly readable.

  • Paul Marks

    Rich Paul

    You claim to have been born in 1968. If this is really so then at least try not to write like a smug school boy.

    Nothing in my post said anything about the Indians having to be “greatful” for the conquest of most of the subcontinent by the East India Company (or anything like that).

    Even the British Ray itself (long after the wars with various warlords in the sub continent) was hardly a free market area (as I said their were various bad things about it – although, in comparison with the rule of Nehru and the Congress party there was more freedom).

    To give only one example, as far back as the 1700’s such men as Philip Francis and Edmund Burke were attacking the tax on salt (inherited from previous empires). Yet as late as the 1930’s it was still there – in all its vicious absurdity.

    It is also odd that you say nothing about the areas that Nehru used armed violence to take, such as Goa (or was conquest only a bad thing when it was done by men like Clive?).

    “But Portugese Goa was a natural part of India” – the subcontinent has seen many empires, but one thing it has never been is a single country (the history and cultures of the sub continent are at least as complicated and varried as the history and cultures of Europe – actually far more so).

    Cynic

    You need a new name.

    It is not “cynical” to believe that Nehru could have defeated the Japanese slave empire (sorry “co prosperity sphere”). It is star eyed “idealism” of the most dreamy sort.

    Vast numbers of Indians faught under General Slim (I wonder if Rich Paul and the uncynical Cynic have ever heard of Slim) and others. But these Indians were not the people the Congress party tend to praise – on the contrary they tend to praise the “Indian National Army” of Bose – a man who not only supported Imperial Japan, he supported Nazi Germany as well.

    Had the Japanese managed to defeat Slim and go deeper into India tens of millions of Indians would have died.

    India was already an overpopulated land whose system of communication and supply was at its limit because of the world war.

    Even without Japanese victory there was famine in Bengal (as there has been so often in history) – with it the whole of India would have reduced to this condition (and what Bengal would have been reduced to does not bare thinking about)

    Anyone who wants to know how the Japanese would have acted in India should study how they acted in China in the same period.

    I am willing to give Nehru the benefit of the doubt, and to assume that he would have given up the Congress parties policy of “non violence” if he had seen millions of Indians being killed by the Japanese (after all as Prime Minister he used violence when it suited him).

    However, the idea that Nehru would have been a great national leader who would have led India to victory over an invading Japanese Empire is absurd – utterly absurd.

    On economic policy.

    “India just copied Britain”.

    There is a grain of truth here (I must admit that). Nehru (like his daughter) got his fashionable Fabian socialism from his time in Britain, and the Atlee government in post war Britain put some Fabian ideas into practice – one reason it was not keen on spending money on trying to stop various factions in the sub continent engaging in mass rape and murder (it needed the money for the N.H.S. and so on – let Mountbatten take the blame whilst we wash our hands of the place).

    However, Nehru took the “permit Raj” further than Atlee did (and he had a much poorer land to start with – a country that could not afford socialist experiments). The de facto monopolies set up and maintained in almost every part of the Indian economy would have made even Sir Stafford Cripps blush.

    Also it seems to have escaped your notice that Britain rejected Fabianism in 1951 (“set the people free”). Price controls and other such were got rid of by the governments of Churchill and Eden.

    In India Nehru ignored all evidence that statism was not working right to his death in 1964. And the Congress party (normally dominated by his daughter) carried on with the permit Raj till the 1990’s

    It is true that in recent years governments (both Congress party and non Congress party) in India have abandoned the principles of the permit Raj and the results of allowing some freedom have been very impressive indeed.

    However, the present government in India (an alliance of the Congress party with various leftist parties) now seems set on building a Welfare State.

    There has been a great increase in welfare spending in recent years and now (the Prime Minister’s speech at the Red Fort today) we have promises of yet more state schools and even of pensions for all poor people over 65.

    In short nothing has been learned from the mistakes of European welfarists from Bismark onwards.

    The idea that a vast land like India (hundreds of millions of whose population are still very poor indeed, in no position to pay taxes) can afford all these programs (which will, of course, grow in cost out of control) is simply false.

    It is so unfortunate that these mistakes continue to be made. Thus one sees the future prospect of the progress that has been made in recent years being thrown away.

    Lastly.

    I think it was Counting Cats who mentioned the London School of Economics.

    This was a little unfair.

    There have been many poor thinkers at the L.S.E. over the years, but also many good economists. For example, Edwin Cannan back in the 1920’s – or Plant and Robbins (the 1930’s Robbins before he sold out) or F.A. Hayek.

    Even in “development” one should not forget Lord Peter Bauer.

    Even in Cambridge (the home of Lord Keynes and so many other poor economists) there were a few good economists.

  • Paul Marks

    If Cynic and Rich Paul had wished to launch an honest attack upon what I wrote they could have done so. Such an attack might have gone along the following lines:

    Nehru supported democratic elections – if the voters had prefered (say) the relatively free market Independence party they could have voted for it.

    Nehru allowed a relatively. free press. His daughter Indira practiced censorship, and many other nasty things, during the Emergency – but Nehru did his best to avoid such practices.

    Nehru might well have opposed the revolting “content code” (similar to the “fairness doctrine” in the United States, but even more openly designed to crush any opinions the powers-that-be do not favour), that the government is now seeking to impose on broadcasters in India (after all there is now a choice of television stations – so the supposed need for “fairness” in any one station does not exist, and talking of the “national interest” is so often a cover for censorship).

    Lastly one could compare Nehru favourably to Prime Minister Bhutto in Pakistan.

    Prime Minister Bhutto, in the early 1970’s, ignored the evidence before his eyes (the evidence of the relative economic success of Pakistan, compared to Fabian India, since independence) and nationalized everything in sight.

    Nehru chose bad economic theory over good economic theory (he was not ignorant of the existance of free market ideas – he just rejected them). Bhutto not only chose bad theory over good theory – he rejected the evidence of his own eyes as well (neither a priori reasoning nor empirical evidence could reach him).

    Bhutto also established a government monopoly of schools (for example closing down the mission schools in Pakistan – even though these had been good enough to send his own daughter to) and opened the door to the rise (some years later) of Islamic militant schools (as the only alternative to the pathetic government schools).

    Nehru did not do this.

    And so on.

    Of course to present such an attack upon what I wrote, Cynic and Rich Paul would have to have known something about the subject.

  • Cynic

    Britain rejected fabianism? Bosh! To most Brits, welfare statism is axiomatic. The Tories since 1945 have supported government schemes they would have denounced as communism in the 1920s.

    You totally misunderstood my points about India and the war. I said Japan would have been brutal if they had invaded India. They were brutal in China. But they never managed to defeat the Chinese, no matter how many they killed. It would have taken a long time for the Japanese to capture the entirety of India and pacify it. They certainly would have struggled in Waziristan and other mountainous regions, as all empires that have dared to tread their have always failed in that area.

    And even if Japan had killed millions of Indians, your failing to look at the bigger picture of that war. To win that war, Japan had to defeat America. In what way would have conquering India and having to use dozens of divisions to permanently occupy the country helped towards that end? It would not have stopped America from destroying Japan’s fleet, capturing Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and then dropping the A-bombs. This is why I said Britain’s involvement against Japan in the war was mostly peripheral. What happened in Burma and India had little impact compared to what happened in the Pacific Ocean and later over Japan’s skies.

  • RAB

    Masterful as usual Paul!
    It is rather like talking to a wall
    though isn’t it???

  • Paul Marks

    Cynic you are not fully informed about the policies followed in the early 1950s by Churchill and Eden. It is certainly true that they should have gone much further (some other countries in Europe did – and, of course, the United States had already done so, the so called “do nothing Congress” of 1947 to 1949) – but they did get make a bonfire of many regulations and they denationalised some industry.

    It is true that “Super Mac” and Home did not achieve much – but they did not really reverse the previous achievements of deregulation and denationalization.

    The United Kingdom of 1964 was certainly not a libertarian place, but it was more free market (overall) than Britain is now (even after Mrs Thatcher’s efforts0 and also more free market than the United States is now (for example government health, education and welfare spending was a smaller percentage of the British economy in 1964 than it is the United States today – let alone Britain today).

    As for the nationalized industries, by 1964 they made up (at most – I suspect rather less) 10% of the economy.

    You also seem to be having trouble understanding just how bad the India of Nehru (and his followers) was.

    Let me give you some simple examples (I have heard these things many times – but most recently from the very experienced B.B.C. journalist Mark Tully).

    Let us say you were a wealthy man (not one of the vast number of people on the verge of starvation – or actually starving). It still hurt when you shaved – because of the regulations of the permit Raj (you want to compete in the blade business – sorry no).

    When you drank beer you had to be careful with with what was in the bottle (the details would take some time) – of course drinking water would be a big mistake.

    And so on and so on. With almost every good and service.

    Even Atlee’s Britain was not really like this.

    To claim that the post Atlee Britain was, shows blindness.

    In terms of regulations, overall, Britain was a less regulated land in 1964 than it is today (not that this would be difficult).

    As for the World War II.

    I APOLOGIZE to you.

    I did not read your writings carefully enough. And assumed that like a Rothbardian you would have left India to the Japanese.

    It is quite true that had the United States managed to defeat Japan (which I admit that the United States might have done even without British help – although I dislike the way that Slim’s “forgotten army” is still forgotten, and the Royal Navy did not die totally when the battleship Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser Repulse went down – armouring the flight decks of American carriers was one idea that it gave to the U.S. navy) then India would have been freed from the rule of the “Co Prosperity Sphere”.

    Of course many millions of Indians would have been dead, and India might have been so destabalized that the Communists might have taken over (leading to the deaths of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS – for India was even less suitable for this economic system than China under Mao was) – but India would no longer have been under the Japanese.

    Russia is the “treasure house of nations” more natural resources than any other nations on Earth (by a vast margin) yet the Soviet experiment was very costly in lives.

    Even China has great natural resources and space – compared to India.

    In packed resource poor India, Union Marxist rule (as opposed to a few state government with Marxist parties playing under the Union governments rules) would have been the death of India (the smell of the dead would have gone round the world).

    Perhaps that is the best argument someone can present for Nehru – for all his faults he was not a full at once socialist (i.e. someone who took all the means of production, distribution and exchange into the hands of the public power).

    However, I deny that the Congress party had to end up a Fabian party – Nehru, and others, made it that way.

    The Congress party did not start out as a Fabian party – and it was not a Fabian party under Nehru’s grandson (perhaps being a airline pilot and marrying an Italian had given him a broader outlook – which showed when he was drawn into politics by the death of his brother).

  • Paul Marks

    I do not know RAB.

    People often surprise me – so I am unwilling to write them off.

    There is also the matter of my own mistakes (in both speech and writing). I have made some absurd mistakes in my time – often because of overconfidence. For example, I will assume because one faction (in a time and place) were swine, the opposing faction must have been O.K. – only to find that the opposing faction were even worse.

    What you said about the Prince of Wales reminded me of the account of Repluse.

    As you may well know the Captain of that old World War One ship (according to the Japanese pilots) managed to throw her around as if she was a “motor torpedo boat” – dodging torpedo after torpedo.

    But in the end there were too many attacks and the Repulse was too old (even though the crew continued to fight till the waves took them).

    If by some strange chance the Captain of the Repulse had been in command of the Prince of Wales (as you know a much newer faster ship) they might have made it.

    Sorry if all this brings up bad memories for you.

  • RAB

    You are a generous man Paul, both with your thoughts and feelings.
    No, no bad memories.
    Dad had a brilliant war. Never heard a shot fired in anger. Played golf at Nura Ella (or how ever it’s spelt) for three years.
    He did come back with every tropical disease known to man though. Disentry, Malaria. He still had attacks into the 70s.
    I have done my pilgrimage to Sri Lanka. The serendipitous Island my dear old dad told me so fondly of. Played the course and bought a round or two in the clubhouse. Looked up his name in the visitors book for 1941.
    If it could sort out the Tamil problem ( which some here will accuse us Brits as to being our fault- with some justification) Sri Lanka could be a paradise.
    I will go again.

  • Midwesterner

    Thank you kaj. I have heard the claim that Finland could (and did) defend itself from the Soviet Union without outside help floated many times in many contexts. It is absurd both at a glance and on analysis.

    Stalin, like most genocidal despots, had put political hacks in control of the military. Finland, in the Winter War, ‘defeated’ the Soviet Union by losing 10% of their territory and 20% of their industrial capacity to the Soviets. Some victory. Yet this ‘thrashing’ they handed out caused Hitler to see an opportunity and he invaded Russia. The Finns joined the Germans in the attack on the Soviets, who by now had attempted to put some actual military people back in control of the military. (I suspect the best military leaders had already disappeared into mass graves)

    Years of war, sieges, etc. etc., Finland and Russia declare an armistice. The Germans attack the Finns, mostly in the Laplands and at sea. The Russians won’t let the Finns have an army. The Germans destroy everything in Lapland while they retreat. The Finns cede to the Soviet Union what they had first taken in the Winter War as ‘war reparations’

    How anybody can draw from this history the conclusion that “Finland, no longer under Russian domination, successfully stopped the Soviets from overrunning their country.” is incomprehensible. And yet many others beside Cynic have made the same claim. At no time did the Finns ever defeat the Soviets. They just lost less to a politically staffed military than most people expected. The writing was on the wall. They were a hockey puck in a game between the superpowers.

  • Nick M

    Mid,
    The Finnish bird I once, er, dated, would’ve thrown you over a wall for such sentiments. I remember her pissed beyond belief and incredibly exuberant because Finland had just beaten Russia at ice hockey… She was a force of nature and once wept at a Sibelius concert. You are of course right about the Sov military which I suppose in the grand scheme of things…

    Paul,
    Cynic and others might have forgotten Bill Slim (and Orde Wingate’s Chindits) but I for one haven’t. Interesting piece of naval history (a subject upon which I probably should know more) but with me it’s planes, always planes…

    Anyway, you don’t quite say it but if the Japanese had captured Calcutta they would have done what they did to Nanjing.

    Anyways they got “telt” (Geordie) by a Little Boy and a Fat Man.

  • ‘Cynic’ is a monomaniac who bends specious thinking to the ‘proof’ of any rubbish he deigns to believe at any particular time.
    Tiresome.

  • Paul Marks

    I did write a comment about planes Nick M. – but my system fell apart (“that is because you are crap with computers Paul, it is YOU not the system that falls apart” – yes I know, I know).

    Anyway I will have another go.

    If we are thinking about the Singapore itself (the key to the east) then the Spitfires that had been earmaked for it would have been handy.

    However, the British government decided to give them to Stalin instead.

    Without modern air cover it is hard to see how Singapore could have been held even if the area had been fortified correctly. Which, of course, the general area had not been – for example the Japanese had little trouble taking the reservoir area.

    All down Malaya the lack of modern aircover (and air ATTACK) had been a problem. One weakness of the high speed Japanese system of movement is that they were always low on supplies – take out what little they have and they are in trouble (at least if their foes stand firm and do not just give the enemy their own supplies – if you must pull back destroy everything first).

    Still the above is all with 65 years hidesight – and the commanding general at the time does not seem to be have been interested in warfare anyway.

    The Japanese commander was shocked and disgusted by the conduct fo the British commander (the Japanese general was not a fight to the last man Japanese – but he expected more resistance, especially as he knew he was outnumbered and low on supplies).

    What all the Japanese cruelty to ordinary soldiers overlooked was that one man made the choice to give up (going off to a meeting with the Japanese general and burbling on about the need for five thousand military police in Singapore and so on – till the Japanese commander just shouted at him till he returned to planet Earth).

    Of course with Singapore lost the east was lost – all the way to India.

    And the road south was open (to Australia).

    Had the battle of the Coral Sea gone the other way the east coast of Australia (all the major cities at the time) would have been open to invasion.

    That was the first of the Carrier battles of course – ships and planes. And where the Japanese thought they had sunk the U.S.S. Yorktown (or at least so damaged it that it would be out of the war).

    Or course the Yorktown was back in battle only a few days later (unlike the George Herbert Walker Bush – which is still not ready almost ten months after it was launched) – along with the Hornet and the Enterprise…..

    But that is another story.

  • Midwesterner

    A Finnish bird, eh? Well, that’s different then.

    I actually am quite a fan of Finland (and Sibelius) (and Finnish birds, both of the female and the ski-jumping variety) but when these illusions are perpetually presented of tiny nations like Finland and Switzerland being able to with stand an invasion by a world power …

    Had the word ‘stopped’ been replaced with ‘delayed’ and the understanding that it was only truly stopped first by Operation Barbarossa and secondly by the Cold War, I would have let it stand. But then the case wouldn’t have served Cynic’s purpose.

  • The Wobbly Guy

    I dunno. Cynic has a point. How much did the Asian front affect the war, in terms of Japanese resources, manpower, and reserves? Would the lack of Allied involvement in Burma have led to a longer, or shorter war? Cynic’s point is that it would not have mattered, but my view is that countless Indians would have died on Japanese bayonets if nobody had opposed them. Shouldn’t that count for something?

    That said, 60,000 men of the Imperial Army committed and lost in Asia also means 60,000 less to toss at the Allies in the Pacific. So I guess there has to be some effect. If there was no second ‘active’ front in Asia, Japan could have embarked on a campaign of pure destruction, tearing up South and South-east Asia with relatively small numbers of troops so badly that the region would take decades to recover, even if they did not commit troops to occupation.

    The presence of a real military facing the Japanese on their ‘western front’ also meant that they could not carry out atrocities like Nanking so easily, if at all. If you think the Japanese looked down on Chinese then(one reason that led to Nanking), I suspect they viewed dark-coloured Indians as even more inferior. Calcutta would very likely be put to the sword.

  • The Last Toryboy

    India was actually pretty important to the war against Japan, at least without the benefit of hindsight.

    Supplies were being flown in to China from Indian airbases, Joseph Stillwell and the Flying Tigers et al were supporting the Chinese war effort as best they could. If not for India they wouldn’t have got there.

    China was absorbing the brunt of Japan’s war effort, tying up the vast majority of the Imperial Japanese Army. If not propped up, like the USSR was propped up, maybe that would have changed.

    With the benefit of hindsight it seems to me that the US Navy, especially their submarines, would have probably defeated Japan in the bitter end…

  • mpulztracker

    As far as Nehru is concerned, relatively large number of present generation Indians are waking up to the idea of Nehru being a not so great bugger.
    The sudden economic explosion of the past decade has made young Indians realize the near asphyxiation of the Indian economy for 40 yrs. Nehru certainly tops the list of suspects.
    I’m Indian and I’m only reflecting the mood in my country today.
    I find Gandhi and Nehru to be a bigger deal here in the UK than in India. India has moved on. Capitalism is the new hero.

  • Toryboy is right. The Chinese were hanging on by their toenails and in 1944 were soundly defeated by the Japanese. The frustrating US effort to support them had to have India as a base.

    Also the first B-29 air strikes against Japan were made from Chinese airbases supported from India.

    Another point about India is that it kept the Germans and the Japanese from joining up. Cutting the Persian Gulf supply route to Russia would probably have cost them the battle fo Stalingrad. Of course the Japanese could have done more to help German win or at least do better, in its war against Russia if they had just cut the shipping route between California and Vladivostok.

  • Midwesterner

    Roger Thornhill,

    Well, based on what mpulztracker just said, I believe you may be right. We can hope as it appears we will need help from somewhere. Certainly our economies are headed in a different direction from India’s.

  • Counting Cats

    cut the shipping route between California and Vladivostok.

    Russia and Japan were not at war until after Fat Man and Little Boy spoke their piece.

  • Counting Cats (Love your name)

    True, and Russia had rapped Japan’s knuckles pretty hard at Nomonhan in 1939. But Japan could have blockaded Vladivostok in 1941 -42 with submarine laid mines and claimed that it was the Germans or some similar fantasy.

    The point is that Japan’s leadership was pretty God-awful throughout the whole period.

  • Nick M

    Mid,
    I wasn’t suggesting that Finland effectively defied the Sov monolith (though they did inflict appalling casualties on the Sovs – not of course that Uncle Joe gave a flying one). I was just saying that this bird was intensely nationalistic.

    She had worked one summer in a St Petersberg hotel and got a case of salmonella so bad she had to be casevaced back to Helsinki. She really didn’t like Russians. The only thing she hated more than Russians was Tampere which is (I was gratified to hear recently) officially the most boring city in Europe. It’s the sort of ordered, democratic socialist paradise that probably caused nocturnal emissions in a youthful David Milliband.

    CC,
    Which is one of the major reasons Enola Gay flew. Please don’t tell my wife but we went to Washington DC to a large extent to see the Smithsonian Air & Space where Enola Gay is preserved. I now have to manufacture a convincing reason to go to Dayton, OH (USAF museum where fittingly they have the Wright Flyer and oh la la! The only surviving Valkyrie!)

    Which brings me onto… Paul, what is the problem with the USA having a seperate airforce? Somehow I suspect the sagacity of the founding father’s didn’t extend to the concept of aircraft as a major weapon of war?

  • Nick M

    Paul,
    that is because you are crap with computers Paul, it is YOU not the system that falls apart

    Well, I fix ’em and they screw-up on me as well. I usually manage a diagnosis and repair but sometimes… Well, on two occasions I have had to conclude nothing more specific than “It’s just buggered and landfill is calling!” It’s really embarrassing to deliver that as a professional opinion to someone who phoned me because their “computer was buggered”. I charge ’em call-out and then just agree with them. Of course I’m normally more useful but sometimes…

    Anyway, millions of lines of compiled C++ and whatever else courses through the silicon veins of your machine every minute and you think all those ones and zeroes are in the exact right place? Are they hell! I’ve seen computers do some dramatically weird things. Hell, I’ve owned computers that have done weird things. They are magic out of China afterall and the product cycle is vicious. I’ve got more raw processing power under my desk than an F-22 Raptor pilot has in his cockpit. What astonishes me is that this stuff usually works…

    When it comes to the age-old game of “playing silly buggers” the computer is only bested by the cat. I should know because I have six(ish?) of one and one of the other.

    As I’m not an elderly woman living alone (there is one at the end of the street who fits it to a T) you know which way round that goes. Anyway, (when it goes wrong) I vastly prefer the smell of long-chain monomers burning to cat piss on the carpet. And as I spend a lot of time on other people’s carpets jiggling their Virgin Cable connections I know… Not that Virgin Cable isn’t a good service but… But it is a bugger to set-up if you follow the instructions. Fixing computers is vastly more Zen than motorcycle maintainance.

    BTW, I put this to the SD community at large, was the fact that a widely selling book on Buddism called “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintainance” so named as a bit of a piss-take on the best known author (at least in the UK) on Zen, D.T. Suzuki?

    I am not (and never have been) a Buddhist. I am merely a curious character, like the cat. The verdict will almost certainly be “missadventure” on both of us.

    But hopefully, not too soon.

  • Paul Marks

    A very aptly timed post Nick.

    I just wrote a comment explaining how “the common defence and general welfare” (Section Eight, Article One of the Constitution of the United States – basically a repeat of the words in the preamble) is the PURPOSE of the powers given to the Congress in Section Eight, Article One of the Constitution of the United States, not (contrary to court rulings) a “general welfare power” in-its-self or (in the case you mention) a “common defence power” either (lots of stuff written – which I am not going to type all again).

    And how I would support an Amendment to set up a seperate airforce organization (not a “weapon of war” Nick – there is nothing unconstutional about the army using balloons in the 1780’s or jet aircraft today) and how it would pass a two thirds vote in the Senate and House and three quaters of the States on the nod.

    And then I want on to give the standard examples.

    Prohibtion was very silly, but because of the 18th Amendment (repealed by the 21st Amendment) it was constitutional – but the vast majority of the things the Federal government does today are not (and, no, “regulate interetstate commerce” does not cover them).

    And, almost needless to say, that relying on “political debate” or elections to limit government was absurd – not just in the United States, anywhere.

    Lots of stuff to back up what you most likely already know.

    However, I got “internet explorer can not display…..” and my comment was lost for ever.

    I am not typing the thing out again.

    So this will have to do – if it gets through.

  • David B. Wildgoose

    Completely Off-Topic, but “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” has nothing to do with Buddhism. It really is a quality read though – a comment that will make sense to those who have read it.

  • kaj

    It’s true the Finns lost territory and industrial capacity after ww2, and also had an internal refugee problem of staggering proportions. It’s true they had to pay the USSR large reparations. However, they managed to maintain territorial integrity, develop a welfare state, and preserve democracy.

    Not least, they kept their self-respect.

    It’s also true they had to yield to a number of USSR demands concerning foreign policy, none of which matter today, after the fall of the USSR.

    As an example of why national defence is an necessity, there is probably no one better than Finland.

  • The Last Toryboy

    Finland didn’t do too badly. The Soviet war aims were complete annexation, despite the propaganda being spilled at the time.

    The Soviets were humiliated in front of the entire world as well, they may have broken the Mannerheim Line eventually by sheer weight of numbers but everybody knew just how incompetent the Soviet authorities were after that war. The Communist Party was looking for the door in a face saving way in Finland as early as January 1940 in fact.

    If Finland truly lost the Winter War, they’d have gone the way of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

  • Nick-Valkerie?
    Oh boy! Now I’ve got to go as well.
    A Mach 3 Wave Rider with engines so powerful they sucked in an F104.

  • Midwesterner

    In the absence of WWII, the Winter War would have been resumed by the Soviets but with genuine military officers and a vengeance for lost face and to make a point the second time around.

    WWII in general, and Operation Barbarossa in particular is what saved Finland long enough for the Cold War to cast its shadow.

    This is so simple as to be silly. If the Soviet Union could dictate the size of the Finnish army during the Finn’s Lapland War with the Nazis … ?

    Finnish defense in the Winter War was spectacular for such a small nation. And it bought time. But it did not defeat the Soviet Army. It delayed it until other factors could work. And that is a very good, an excellent reason for a good military. But it in no way supports the claims that Cynic was using it for.

  • The Last Toryboy

    I don’t disagree with anything you say above, Midwesterner.

    The Winter War was a part of WW2. It was provoked by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler. “In the absence of WW2”, thats like talking about the Battle of Midway ‘in the absence of WW2’, ie simply not possible.

    And it is true that, in total isolation, like some sort of national cage match or something Finland versus the USSR is a foregone conclusion. But thats equally unrealistic and false.

    The Finnish army did as well as it possibly could have done, and without a doubt stymied Soviet intentions. It is true they couldn’t have done it all on their lonesome, but thats irrelevant because they didn’t need to. Finland was just in a generally rather odd position, it wasn’t really a true Axis nation, it was merely a minor power sandwiched between great powers wishing to preserve it’s independence. In the end it succeeded, so the Finns ultimately managed to navigate extremely treacherous waters and get out at the end without being gobbled up. Of all the European belligerents in WW2, only 3 capital cities were not occupied at some point during the war – London, Helsinki and Moscow. I think that alone says something regarding Finnish success.

    As for Cynic, I dunno what he’s on about, to be honest. I don’t think Finland being a colony or not a colony is relevant? Colonies fought and did pretty well in WW2, non colonies did likewise. I’m not sure what point he’s trying to score here. If in some fantasy world Finland was a British or French colony the Russians would never have attacked them, so if anything bringing up the Winter War undermines his colonialism = bad argument?

    On the other hand I admire Finland for playing a pretty poor hand exceptionally well in World War 2, so I’m always up for defending their WW2 scoreboard. 😉

  • Cynic

    Prior to 1917, Finland was part of the Russian Empire. My point was that they were a relatively weak nation that had managed to escape from an Empire, and managed to avoid being annexed again by Russia, largely without the help of other Empires. Yes, they lost some land. BUT the Russians had intended to annex the whole lot. They failed, and they lost a hell of a lot of men (can anybody confirm how many fatalities the Russians suffered?- I’ve read as low as 100,000 and as high as 250,000.)

    Yes, the Russians did have the men to have gone all the way to Helsinki if they had wanted to sustain a few hundred thousand more casualties. But, from what I have read, if that had been the case, the Finns had no intention of surrendering and would have resorted to guerrilla warfare. Finland does seem to be a place ideal for guerrilla warfare, especially when the guerrillas were acclimatised to the freezing climate, were expert skiers, and were brilliant marksmen. It does not seem ideal for an occupying army, especially one as inept and dependent on armoured warfare as the Red Army of 1940. They would have caused a lot more hell for Stalin.

  • Midwesterner

    Cynic,

    My point was that they were a relatively weak nation that had managed to escape from an Empire, and managed to avoid being annexed again by Russia, largely without the help of other Empires.

    I suppose that depends on how you define “escape”. The Finns did not escape the Russian empire. I suggest you check your timeline. They declared their independence after the February 1917 revolution and after the October 1917 revolution.

    The Bolsheviks couldn’t even control Russia at that time, the Russian civil war continued for another 5 years. The Bolsheviks had no hope of gaining control of Finland and recognized Finland half way through the Russian civil war. Probably to keep them out of the war.

    Finland was business deferred to later. Both in 1920 and in 1940. Incidentally, Finland received the most help from Stalin, who had purged most of the army and replaced it with politically loyal ‘troops’.

    The case of Finland in the Winter War proves absolutely nothing about a small nation’s ability to retain its independence from a hostile empire without at least standing in the shadow of an opposing world power. It provides nothing to suggest India would have been better off without Britain and the British part of their history.

    had the British cleared off from India in 1783 as well, perhaps India would have been able to defend itself in the 1940s without British overlords.

    If India was really unable to defend itself, the British are to blame for denying India self-determination

    You asked for countries that were not colonies of anybody at the time.

    Finland, no longer under Russian domination, successfully stopped the Soviets from overrunning their country.

    Finland itself was a former imperial colony of the Russian empire and prior to that had been a colony of Sweden since the 13th century. How would their colonial history not hurt them while India’s colonial history would? Something about the British, maybe? Perhaps you are showing something in your values there. Anything British = bad?

    What Finland does prove is a case I’ve made in other threads about other nations. Weaker nations need to be able to defend themselves long enough for the super powers to do whatever it is they are going to do. In Finland’s case, Operation Barbarossa.

  • not the Alex above

    Cynic is right about one thing in regards to India, British imports of weaved goods decimated much of India’s textile cottage industry but that was inevitable anyway( i think Gandi even visited Blackburn once to moan about it)

    Although this is not quite relevant( i can’t find any ww2 references) – in 1914 Britain’s Indian army was bigger than that in Europe. Don’t forget that Indian troops didn’t only defend India in WW2, crucial battles like El Alamein had many colonial soldiers involved

  • Nick M

    Weaker nations need to be able to defend themselves long enough for the super powers to do whatever it is they are going to do.

    Yes, and they also have to make invasion and occupation inordinately costly. That would appear to be the model Sweden and Switzerland have adopted. If a big power were to really push it they might end up with a load of trees and a cuckoo-clock factory but was it really worth it?

    Which brings up a seperate issue. If the real wealth of a nation is in hi-tech and financial services rather than heavy industry and natural resources is it ever worth invading?

  • Nick M: That would appear to be the model Sweden and Switzerland have adopted. If a big power were to really push it they might end up with a load of trees and a cuckoo-clock factory but was it really worth it?

    But that does not help them when they are being attacked by the 21st Century’s New Model Army – Islamic partisans using the mass of Muslims as camouflage and cover. Of course, if this particular enemy got hold of a cuckoo clock, they would burn it as fuel and declare the carving of a bird ‘idolatrous’.

  • Nick M

    Roger,
    I think you’re assuming (and fairly enough I have to say) that the West positively encourages Islamic barbarism. It doesn’t have to be that way and the lads from Pakistan at the corner-shop once invited my wife (we weren’t married yet) upstairs for an after hours drinking party (they had a spare crate of Stella). Now that’s hardly halal and possibly why they upped-stakes from Karachi in the first place…

    She turned them down firmly but politely BTW.

    These folk would assimilate much more quickly if they weren’t encouraged to remain “culturally authentic”. Jeez-Louise – if I was encouraged to remain “culturally authentic” I’d be raping and pillaging York with a bloody battle axe and a horny hat.

    I am largely (probably) Viking and we were totally fucking mad bastards. Yeah, I know, you’re gonna say the Vikings achieved what they did largely by trade and inter-marriage but they reserved the right to resort to fire, and indeed, the sword if needed.

  • Midwesterner

    Yes, and they also have to make invasion and occupation inordinately costly.

    But there is the catch. They can only make it too costly for a civilized nation with a strong degree of accountability to its own citizens. But when they are attacked by a nation or empire that, like Stalin and Mao, is willing to kill millions of its own just because it feels like it, what can be “too costly”? The best they can do is buy time and hope another big power can either directly or indirectly provide them with cover.

  • Paul Marks

    Cynic has given me the mental image of Mannerheim being in charge of India and Nehru being in charge of Finland (this must be the sort of mental image that people who use drugs get).

    Still, I fully accept that this is NOT what Cynic meant.

    On the Finland example.

    Russia was defeated by Germany in World War One (not by Finland). Imperial Russia collapsed (the Feburary-March Revolution and then the October-November Revolution then the Civil War). So Finland did not “free itself” from it.

    It is quite true that the Reds wanted to take over Finland – but, with some (but not a lot of) German aid, Mannerheim managed to defeat them (just as they were defeated in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia).

    Further east (where there was no German aid) such nations as Georgia did not do so well. Actually a lot of the German aid against the Reds was private (libertarians might not like the sort of Germans who made up the Free Corps – although the Hamburg men were a bit libertarian).

    As for World War II.

    Mannerheim, although an old man by this time, did well against the Reds in 1940 – but in the end he was defeated.

    Stalin did not take over all of Finland because the Germans did not approve.

    In 1944 the Reds beat the Finns (with less difficulty than in 1940), but this time the Western allies (Britian and the United States) did not approve of a total take over of Finland by Soviet Russia.

    The only way that he Finns could have defeated the Reds would have been to totally commit in 1941 (when the Germans attacked Soviet Russia).

    If the Finns had helped take St Petersburg (which the Reds called “Leningrad”) the Reds might have come closer to losing the war.

    However, Mannerheim did not go beyond the borders of what he thought was rightly Finland.

    This was a mistake he had made in the Civil War as well (when he had failed to help the other White commanders – although he wanted to).

    Perhaps it is unfair to call this a “mistake” – as the political situation in Finland made any other policy difficult.

    By the way I am careful to say “Reds” not “Russians” above as many of the Reds were not Russian (indeed some of them were Finnish) indeed the leaders of the Reds were not Russian (“Lenin” was of mixed ancestry and “Stalin” and others were not Russian at all).

    Nor did the Red leaders tend to like Russians. “Lenin” (for example) hated Russians (nothing to do with his Marxism – he just hated them because he hated them). And although they got many Russians to fight on their side at times (by a mixture of lies and terror) the Reds murdered more Russians than even Hitler did.

    Still I have got Nehru in my mind again.

    I suppose a Prime Minister Nehru of an independent India would, in the advent of a Japanese attack in the early 1940’s, have first asked for a meeting.

    With his background Nehru would have expected cups of tea and cucumber sandwiches (with the crusts cut off, of course) – he would have been most surprised when they cut his penis off and made him eat it.

  • Nick M

    Mid, you caught me out with the fatal flaw in my plan. Yes, Angela Merkel or Nick Sarkozy would look at the cost/benefit and decide that invading Switzerland was a bum deal… But the likes of Joe Stalin didn’t think like that. There are always nutcases who throw the whole game open (and not in a good way).

    I often lie awake at night pondering poor decisions I have made. What gets me back to sleep is that I never decided to launch Operation Barbarossa. I have made many idiotic decisions in my life but at least I never decided to invade Russia. It is a comfort at 4am.

  • Midwesterner

    This is waaaay off topic, but it’s Paul’s thread and he would be most likely to have the answer (although you might also, Nick). Has anybody ever written side by side comparisons of Napoleon’s and Hitler’s trips eastward? it seems to me that they shared a lot in common on so many levels.

  • I have just finished watching Gandhi (a film I try and catch whenever it comes on to remind myself)

    One occasion early on struck home:

    On August 22, 1906, the Transvaal government in South Africa under the British Empire gave notice of a new legislation requiring all Indians, Arabs and Turks to register with the government. Fingerprints and identification marks on the person’s body were to be recorded in order to obtain a certificate of registration. Those who failed to register could be fined, sent to prison or deported. Even children had to be brought to the Registrar from their fingerprint impressions. At the time, there were less than 100,000 Indians in South Africa. But in Transvaal, there was an Indian lawyer working with a Muslim company, and his name was Mohandas K. Gandhi.

    On September 11, 1906, Gandhi called a mass meeting of some 3,000 Transvaal Indians to find ways to resist the Registration Act. He felt the Act was the embodiment of “hatred of Indians” which if accepted would “spell absolute ruin for the Indians in South Africa”, and therefore resisting it is a “question of life and death.”

    101 years on, we see the hatred of all citizens in the UK…by its own government.

  • Nick M

    Mid,
    I don’t know but it sounds like the sort of thing someone must’ve done. There are definite similarities beyond the obvious one that both ended-up as unmitigated disasters.

    An example is that in both operations the uniforms were totally inadequate for the winter conditions. The German’s went in with summer uniforms (expecting a quick victory) and while folk in England were collecting Al pans to recycle into Spitfires the Germans had to hastily organize “Winter Relief” for the troops – upper-class Berlin Hausfraus were donating mink coats for the lads at the front. It might’ve looked odd but when it gets down to -40C you don’t really care. In Napolean’s case cheap buttons failed in the cold and while in a stage farce having your pants fall down is (allegedly) amusing and at an ambassador’s reception it’s rather embarrassing in the Russian winter it’s positively fatal.

    I shall look into it Mid.

  • The Last Toryboy

    Hitler had Napoleon’s catastrophe very much on his mind when pondering Barbarossa.

    Napoleon’s invasion was a narrow, rapierlike thrust aimed at the capital. When Nappy got to the capital the Russians shrugged, burned it, and let him freeze there while they had the rest of the country.

    Hitler chose a broad thrust across the entire Eastern Front thinking that he wouldn’t make the mistake Napoleon did. Guderian argued in his memoirs that this was a poor strategy, that Moscow in 1941 was far more important a target than Moscow in 1812 – being an important rail centre as well crucial to Russian logistics.

    Mind you Guderian I’m sure had his own axe to grind on that subject… hardly an impartial observer.

  • Paul Marks

    The Last Toryboy is correct – in trying to avoid making Napoleon’s mistake, Hitler did not understand that the situation had changed.

    I believe that Napoleon mistake of 1812 would have actually been the correct policy in 1941.

    Sovet Russia was centralized police state – without Moscow it might well have fallen apart.

    Russia in 1812 was a lot of distant estates (plus the Free Peasants of the North, the Cossacks of the Don and other places, and the various ……). Moscow was of very little economic or military importance in 1812, it was of vital importance in 1941 (“but Stalin was prepared to run away, he was actually on a train and …..” – yes, but that was because Stalin was a coward, not because Moscow was not important).

    There was a reserve capital, but it would not have worked out too well (in my judgement) and yes there were “factories beyond the Urals”, but most (although not all) of these factories turned out to be so far beyond the Urals that they were actually in the United States. Thousands of allied sailors died bringing stuff to the Soviets (plus the stuff they got from the south and so on) – but this could not be organized at once.

    “But Hitler should not have attacked at all”.

    If the Germans had not attacked they would have been destroyed by Operation Thunderstorm. Stalin was happy to have Germany fight Britain and France – it would serve as his “Icebreaker” (as “V.S.” puts it) and then he would betray Germany at a time of his chosing (the thing was that the Germans knew that and decided to strike first).

    There were not vast numbers of Soviet man, tanks and aircraft near the border with both Germany and oil source Romania (all in ATTACK NOT DEFENCE positions) for no reason. As it was the Germans caught the enemy by surprise and in the open and destroyed millions of them.

    Another difference with 1812 – in 1812 there were not millions of Russians under arms (the popualtion of Russia was a small fraction of what is was in 1941).

    In fact Napoleon “Grand Army” (mostly French – but with numbers from other nations, just as the Axis force in the 1940’s had troops from various nations) greatly outnumbered the Russians (a wildy different story from the early 1940’s).

    “But Hitler should have prepared for a winter war”.

    Oddly enough it was well he did not.

    One of the things that convinced Stalin that there would be attack was that the G.R.U. (Soviet military intelligence) reported that oils the Germans used in their tanks and trucks would be totally unsuitable for Russia.

    Had Hitler ordered winter oils production the G.R.U. would have reported that (ditto winter, i.e. Russia campaign, clothing production).

    The only chance of victory for a nation the size of Germany against a vast empire like Soviet Russia (that streached all the way to China, Japan and Alaska) was surprise and speed.

    Germany had little access to raw materials (indeed Germany depended on Soviet Russia for a lot of stuff), and was already trying to hold down Western Europe and was engaged in warfare with Britain.

    Not “little Britain” but a Britain supported by an Empire that covered a third of the world (Canada alone provided a navy that was more powerful than the German navy) and was backed by the aid of the United States (a nation VASTLY more powerful than Germany).

    To win against everything that was against them the Germans would have had to be the supermen of their own propaganda – oddly enough they almost managed it.

    It would have better for the Germans if their allies had been up to much.

    The Japanese did not help – if they had the million man Siberian army could not have got to Moscow.

    The Finns would not fight outside of Finland.

    And as for the Italians – well there is no need to be rude. Actually the Italians were not cowards they were just not interested in the war – this is indicated (for example) by the “neatly packed suitcases” that British commanders sneared at when dealing with Italians who gave up in North Africa. A coward does not stop to neatly pack his suit case before surrendering. Nor were Italians shy of having a fight with anyone who insulted them (as individuals) – but dying for Mussolini’s Empire was of no interest to them.

    However, for all the tactical amazingness at the local level the strategic sense of Hitler let the Germans down.

    Not just the judgement not to go for Moscow at once (he only gave the order when it was too late).

    There was also “Leningrad” – when the Germans first got there they could have walked in (it was virtually undefended) but Hitler just ordered a siege. It was never a proper siege (as the Soviets could supply the place over Lake Lagoda) but vast numbers still died (as the Soviets were not very interested in supplying food to civilians).

    And there was also “Stalingrad” – again when the Germans first got there it was virtually undefended, but Hitler ordered the army south.

    Then he ordered German forces back again – after the Soviets had had time to put a lot of forces into the city.

    To adapt words used (by Alan Clark about the British in the First World War) the Germans truely were lions led by a donkey.

  • Paul Marks

    Apart from some incidents (most importantly the air “Battle of Britain” where it was the British who were outnumbered) perhaps the best way to understand World War II is to think of a British or American war film – but put into reverse.

    A relatively small number of Germans up against insane odds (again and again – and again), both in numbers and resources that their enemies were able to deploy against them.

    Accept that the smaller force, the Germans, eventually lose – but it was close.

    Even in the Normandy campaign with almost total air superiority, the German forces repeatedly humbled British forces – although, in the case of the Americans, if Patton was in command things were different (it really was a Patton thing – other American commanders were no better than British ones, if anything they were worse, see Italy as well as France).

    The avarage German soldier operated like what the British would call a “commando” (taking a word from the Boers – although with a c rather than a k). He thought and planned for himself – whereas a British soldier (other than in special units) was trained to depend on orders.

    I know this is almost the opposite of the Hollywood view of the war – but it happens to be the truth.

    For example, in France in 1944 the allies kept thinking they were comming into battle with “new” German units – there were virtually no new Germans, they were German troops who had been in units cut to bits by allied air power and ground forces already, who had FORMED THEMSELVES INTO UNITS AND DEVELOPED COMBAT PLANS.

    This was alien to the British way of thinking.

  • Nick M

    Paul,
    Do you have a reference for “Operation Thunderstorm” because I haven’t heard of it. I have searched and all I’m getting is a Singaporese operation from the mid 70s and a CAPCOM arcade game and somehow I don’t think you meant either.

    In general where Hitler went wrong was picking a fight simultaneously with the Soviet Union, the United States and the British Empire. Japan was a pointless strategic alliance and the Italians couldn’t give a toss. Finland and Romania? Epic powers both.

    On the subject of tactically brilliant but strategically misguided operations I believe Pearl Harbor deserves an honourable mention. The only member of the Japanese high command who was against it was also the only one to have lived in the USA. He said something like, “We’ll be able to run wild in the Pacific for a year but then the industrial might of Detroit will doom us…” He was over-ruled.

    TLTB,
    No, I wouldn’t rate Guderian as being impartial either!

  • Paul Marks

    It was not just Guderian – it was the majority view in the German military. Hitler over ruled people (as so often – although he was sometimes correct, as when he sided with the minority view about where to France attack in 1940).

    On Admiral Yamamoto – he was in charge of the Pearl operation.

    In spite of “we will wake a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve”.

    And “we will run wild for a year or so, but then….”

    Actually many senior Japanese officers (Navy and Army) had lived in the United States (and thought the judgement to go to war was madness) – this did not prevent them fighting to the death.

    As for the Soviet plans to invade Germany and so on (Operation Thunderstorm).

    See “Icebreaker” by “Victor Survorov”.

    Excuse my poor spelling. However, it is a false name anyway – the author (or this and other good books) is an ex Soviet G.R.U. man.

    I have noticed establishment historians putting his ideas (on various matters) in their books in recent years – without once saying where they are getting the ideas from.