Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The British government meanwhile sent Indian troops to fight in West Asia and northern Africa against the Axis. India also geared up to produce essential goods such as food and uniforms. Pre-Independence India provided the largest volunteer force (2.5 million) of any nation during World War II.
The 4th, 5th and 8th Indian Divisions took part in the North African theatre against Rommel's Afrika Korps. Furthermore, the 4th and 5th Indian Divisions took part in the East African campaign against the Italians in Somaliland, Eritrea and Abyssinia.
In the Battle of Bir Hacheim, Indian gunners played an important role by using guns in the anti tank role and destroying tanks of Rommel's panzer divisions. Maj PPK Kumaramangalam was the battery commander of 41 Field Regiment which was deployed in the anti tank role. He was awarded the DSO for his act of bravery. Later he became the Chief of Army Staff of independent India in 1967.
The Indian Army under the Brits also took part in WW1, even marching thru Paris at the end of the war.
Two and half million Indian troops are said to have served in the British army in WWII. At least six thousand died in Italy and many were wounded in fierce fighting, such as at Cassino. Would it be fair to say that compared to other theaters of WWII, there seems to be scant coverage of their service?
...a significant number of Indians also served in the Werhmacht's Legion Freies Indien, and maybe that's why "there seems to be scant coverage of their service."
Please try to remember when discussing historical events in history, especially the world wars, that the reality of facts is less than clear.
This has been my biggest beef with my ancestors back in the day. If they had refused to manpower the Brit war machine, Hitler would have literally shredded the redcoats and India would have had its revenge on the empire in a totally indirect way.
Well, as the saying goes...... if they were that smart they would not have been under foreign rule for a 1000 years
This has been my biggest beef with my ancestors back in the day. If they had refused to manpower the Brit war machine, Hitler would have literally shredded the redcoats and India would have had its revenge on the empire in a totally indirect way.
Well, as the saying goes...... if they were that smart they would not have been under foreign rule for a 1000 years
Well, maybe so. But don't forget that the Japanese pushed west out of Burma and almost reached the eastern edge of India before being pushed back again by the Anglo-Indian forces. Had the Japanese occupied even a part of India, you recent ancestors would have learned that British Imperial rule was relatively benign. Note that my statement is not a defense of British Imperial rule. Some Indians under the leadership of Bose, as I'm sure you know better than I, had decided that the enemy of their enemy must be their friend, and that assumption can be pretty dangerous.
Well, maybe so. But don't forget that the Japanese pushed west out of Burma and almost reached the eastern edge of India before being pushed back again by the Anglo-Indian forces. Had the Japanese occupied even a part of India, you recent ancestors would have learned that British Imperial rule was relatively benign. Note that my statement is not a defense of British Imperial rule. Some Indians under the leadership of Bose, as I'm sure you know better than I, had decided that the enemy of their enemy must be their friend, and that assumption can be pretty dangerous.
British rule over India begins in 1757, when the British East India Company defeat the French at the Battle of Plassey. So, your statement ("you(r) recent ancestors would have learned that British Imperial rule was relatively benign") doesn't quite jibe with the historical truth because Indians were second class citizens in their own land for nearly two hundred years.
After the First World War groups of Indian nationalist wanted the Brits out of India "by any means necessary," whether by the ballot or the bullet. When the Second World War occurs certain groups of Indian nationalist volunteer their service and fight along side the German Wehrmacht (Legion Freies Indien),
while others fought along with the Japanese Imperial Army (Indian National Army) .
When the Second World War occurs certain groups of Indian nationalist volunteer their service and fight along side the German Wehrmacht (Legion Freies Indien),
Interesting. Am I safe in assuming they were "Aryan" Indians from the north and northwest; what the Brits called the "fighting races" of India?
British rule over India begins in 1757, when the British East India Company defeat the French at the Battle of Plassey. So, your statement ("you(r) recent ancestors would have learned that British Imperial rule was relatively benign") doesn't quite jibe with the historical truth because Indians were second class citizens in their own land for nearly two hundred years.
After the First World War groups of Indian nationalist wanted the Brits out of India "by any means necessary," whether by the ballot or the bullet. When the Second World War occurs certain groups of Indian nationalist volunteer their service and fight along side the German Wehrmacht (Legion Freies Indien), while others fought along with the Japanese Imperial Army (Indian National Army) .
Your reading comprehension needs a little work. Perhaps you could start by looking up the word "relatively". Compared to what occupation by Nazi Germany or by Imperial Japan would have been, the colonization (occupation, if you will) by Great Britain was without a doubt relatively benign. Indians having been second class citizens in their own land for nearly two hundred years has no bearing on what I was saying.
Your reading comprehension needs a little work. Perhaps you could start by looking up the word "relatively". Compared to what occupation by Nazi Germany or by Imperial Japan would have been, the colonization (occupation, if you will) by Great Britain was without a doubt relatively benign. Indians having been second class citizens in their own land for nearly two hundred years has no bearing on what I was saying.
You say Great Britain was relatively benign! Have you ever heard of the Amritsar Massacre or the Qissa Khwani Bazaar Massacre? What about Great Britain's near destruction of Indian textile industry, and their insistence that Indian farmers grow cash crops to benefit the homeland which helped to produce indigenous famines in the late 1800s. Sorry, but there's nothing benign about that type of governance.
Dadabhai Naroji, who was a nationalist referred to British imperialism in a speech as the "Knife of Sugar." He said: The natives call the British system . . . “the knife of sugar. That is to say there is no oppression, it is all smooth and sweet, but it is the knife nevertheless....Europeans [the British] occupy almost all the higher places in every department of government. . . . .Natives, no matter how fit, are deliberately kept out of the social institutions started by Europeans....All they [the British] do is live off of India while they are here. When they go, they carry all they have gained."
Nazi Germany had zero plans to occupy India if things had turnout differently. Hitler wanted his Lebensraum based in Central Europe, not South Asia. The Japanese however, had control of several islands off the coast of India, and may have very well demanded more territory after the war ended. Again the goals of the Indian nationalist and the volunteers of the Indian National Army and the Legion Freies Indien were similar; get the Brits out of India.
The picture below is a painting of the Amritsar Massacre, 1919.
There was no Vickers gun used in the Amritsar massacre as the painting purports. Just Lee-Enfields, which were deadly enough of course. Dyer brought an armored car along which did have Vickers gun but it was unable to enter the compound
I think that it's safe to say that as conquerors go the Brits were certainly less brutal than the Germans and Japanese. Not that they weren't brutal when it suited their needs you understand. Or when their blood was up, Cawnpore Well and all that.
There was no Vickers gun used in the Amritsar massacre as the painting purports. Just Lee-Enfields, which were deadly enough of course. Dyer brought an armored car along which did have Vickers gun but it was unable to enter the compound
I think that it's safe to say that as conquerors go the Brits were certainly less brutal than the Germans and Japanese. Not that they weren't brutal when it suited their needs you understand. Or when their blood was up, Cawnpore Well and all that.
Very true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, scant coverage indeed. However,...
