Why a conflict?

G.D.C. Weerasinghe

Ceylon - now called Sri Lanka, was granted Independence in 1948. Please note that the word 'granted' is used because we never made a determined fight for Independence. Our so-called leaders tendered petitions to the British Imperialists seeking minor concessions for the upper classes.

This may not have had significant impact on the deliberations of the Imperialists when making their decisions.

The question therefore is, why did the British grant Independence to Sri Lanka in 1948? Not only did the British grant Independence to Sri Lanka but in fact, dismantled the entire British Empire. This was an Empire built over the course of centuries on the vision of the British leaders. They used their sagacity, cunning and ruthless actions to build an Empire claimed as one on which "the sun never sets."

What compelled the British Imperialists to dismantle the British Empire, so painstakingly built by them?

To fully understand this, we have to consider the conditions that prevailed prior to the Second World War. The leading powers before the Second World were the British, the French, the Portuguese, the Americans, the Dutch and the Belgians who ruled over large Empires.

The Second World War was fought by two parties. It started in September 1939 with Britain and France aligning against Germany. France however, dropped out in 1940 when she was defeated.

In the same year, Italy joined the Germans. Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. The Japanese in December 1941 attacked Hawaii, which was a state of the United States of America. Germany declared war shortly afterwards on Britain and other Allied Powers.

The group of powers consisting of Britain, Russia, the United States and small powers that supported them were called the Allied Powers. The group of powers called the 'Axis Powers" consisted of the Germans and the minor powers in Europe such as Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy as well as Japan.

This was a battle unprecedented in the history of the World. It was estimated that the War caused over 50 million causalities. The question is, who was it that made the greatest contribution to the Allied victory in the Second World War which impacted on post-war world events?

Deciding factor

The Western propaganda-media attempted to portray that the deciding factor which led to the victory of the Allied Powers was the sole contribution made by the Western powers. This is far from the truth.

"Russia at War" written by English journalist Alexander Werth who was in Russia from 1941 to 1945 is a veritable treasure trove of information which gives a record of the battles that were fought in the Soviet Union during the Second World War. The front line on which the Soviet Union was positioned to fight was 3000 km long.

Over 70 per cent of the German, Italian and Satellite force were deployed on the Russia front. The intensity of the Eastern Front can be gauged from the fact that if any German, fighting on the Western Front was not up to mark, he was threatened to be sent to the Eastern Front.

The Soviet Union suffered great losses at the commencement of the war. In the major battles fought at Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad and Kursk, the Russians won decisive victories.

The Russian announcement quoted in Werth's book describes how 330,000 has been encircled in the Stalingrad pocket, 140,000 men had died from fighting, hunger and disease. 24 Generals including a Field Marshal had been captured besides 2,500 other officials. 91,000 were taken as prisoners. According to a communique issued by the Soviet Government, 22 divisions had been destroyed or those served on them were taken prisoners.

Allies vs Axis Werth's comment (page 495) is as follows: - ' No one doubted that this was the turning point in the World War II'

Similarly, the Russians won against the Axis Forces in Leningrad, Moscows and Kursk in 1943. The biggest tank battle in history was the battle in Kursk which the Russians won decisively. By the end of 1943, Russia had won all the battles and the course of the war was determined by these victories.

The view churned out by the Western propaganda-machine was the D-day landing by the Allies in France, was the greatest feat performed by the Allied Forces. This no doubt made a contribution to the outcome of the war. However, the fate of the Axis Forces was decided by the great victories achieved by the Russians in 1943.

This is well documented in Alexander Werth's book, and if anybody wants to be further illuminated on how the war was conducted in Russia from 1941 to 1945, he only has to read this book.

The "Second World War" - a complete work of history authored by one of the most distinguished historians Martin Gilbert - a Fellow of the Merton College, Oxford sets out the toll of the casualties of the respective powers on page 746 of the book. According to him, the death toll of Soviet citizens was in excess of 20 million. These may have been official records issued by the Soviet Union just after the war.

A brutal policy followed by the Germans resulted in the killing of millions of Russian civilians. The graph published in the "Economist' of May 7th-13th, 2005 carried the death-toll of selected countries in the Second World War. The Economist estimates the death toll of the Russians at 27 million.

The number of British casualties from the Army, Navy and the Air Force was 264,433, 60,595 of these were civilians. The United States had suffered 363,561 Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps deaths.

An examination of casualty-numbers suffered by the Allied Powers reveals the extent of the contribution made by these countries towards the Second World War victory. The Soviet Union suffered the loss of 27 million casualties' while the British and American casualties ran only into a few lakhs.

This illustrates the enormous sacrifice made by the Soviet Union towards the victory of the Allied Forces in the Second World War, but the world at large is unaware of the Russian contribution as a result of the incessant propaganda carried out by the Western media with regard to their victory of the Second World War.

The Western media continues to control the information fed to the world at large. We receive our information from CNN, BBC, Reuters and Associated Press which are all Western based and Western-oriented news agencies.

Any news, whether on India, China, East Asia or South America, originate from these Western media agencies. When the Western media speak of the 'world opinion' whom do they refer to? It refers only to the opinion of the Western Powers. It does not reflect the opinion of the world's two most populous countries - China and India.

Emergence of the USSR

The outcome of the Second World War paved the way for the emergence of the USSR as a World Super Power. Its contribution to the victory of the Allied Powers entitled the USSR to this status.

The emergence of the Soviet Union as a World power had in turn a tremendous impact on the traditional Imperial Powers. The fact that the Soviet Union was a Communist state, effused a great appeal towards the colonial people's struggle for Independence.

And the Soviet Union's Super Power status altered the entire balance of power in the world. The traditional Imperial powers such as Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium and the neo-colonial power - the United States resorted to protecting their interest.

The British with their foresight and cunning realised that it is no longer possible to hold on to colonial-control of the Empire and that the control exercised, will have to be one of neo-colonial nature. Towards this purpose, it was necessary for the British to neutralize India and China. If the Imperialists neutralized the two most populous countries - India and China, they would still be in a position to retain world-control.

In this context, the most implacable Imperialist and the most virulent was Winston Churchill. He, in 1942, after the fall of France and at a time when the British Empire was at its lowest ebb, said this about the British Empire when he spoke on "Liquidation of the Empire." "We mean to hold our own. I have not become the King's Chief Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire." (Speech at Mansion House, London on November 10, 1942).

And, at a press conference held on May 25, 1943 in the US, Churchill had this to say. "I do not feel I should ask the Government to ask any more from Russia. The Russians have held the weight of 190 German divisions and twenty-eight division of satellite Axis Nations. They have done what no one else could do-torn apart the guts of the German war machine. They have been grand allies in heroic fashion."

This acknowledgement by Winston Churchill - an unabated anti-communist, discloses the magnificent and enormous contribution made by the Russians towards the victory in the Second World War.

The reason attributed for the statement was the severe difficulty the British faced in fighting the fanatical Japanese in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Front. Hence, they wanted the Russians to join the war against Japan.

A statement by Churchill was thus necessary on the Soviet role against the Axis Forces that "what the Russians had done, no one else could do - torn apart the guts of the German war-machine."

Now, it has to be understood as to what type of man Winston Churchill was. He referred to Mahatma Gandhi in the following terms "One time Inner Temple lawyer, now fakir stepping half naked up the Vice-regal Palace steps to negotiate and parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor." This comment of Churchill, will give us a rough idea of his attitude towards colonial people.

Nevertheless, Churchill, who in 1942 said that he had not been appointed to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire, voted in the House of Commons in 1946 to grant Independence to India and thereafter to the other colonies.

What caused this change of heart in this unremitting imperialist? It was not an act of altruism or generosity by the British but a recognition of the reality that the Soviet Union had emerged as a Super Power after the Second World War. It was an initiative to protect the interest of these powers and to prevent their colonies from turning communist.

The struggle for Independence in the colonies was carried out by various nationalist forces prior to and during the Second World War. The Imperialists realised that if the nationalists failed to gain Independence, the communists will take on the challenge of these national liberation-struggles. This had to be prevented.

How could this be done while protecting the interests of the Imperialists? To accomplish this, it was necessary to neutralise the two most populous countries in the world - India and China.

Consequences of the First World War

In order to understand the behavioural patterns of the Imperialist powers in the post Second World War, it is of relevance to study their behaviour in the aftermath of the First World War.

Before the First World War, in addition to the well-known empires, there were also the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. At the commencement of the First World War, there were the British, the French, the Italians, the Japanese and the Russians who had allied themselves. From 1917, Americans too were part of this alliance.

The opposing side of the conflict consisted of the Germans, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire encompassed Lebanon, Syria, Palestine. Trans-Jordan which is now called Jordan, Iraq, Iran, part of Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Most of these countries were inhabited by Arabs, Kurds and Iranians with a sprinkling of Jews in Palestine. The Western Imperialist powers wanted the support of the Arab, and the Kurds who were being suppressed by the Turks. It is interesting to see how these Imperialists manipulated these people to their advantage.

To be continued