PDA

View Full Version : What If Subhash Chandra Bose had marched upto Delhi?



devgupt
22 Nov 07,, 14:16
Since there are a few alternate history threads on this board, I would like to start one not discussed before. What would have happened if the Axis powers won World War 2 and Subhash Chandra Bose would have marched upto Delhi. What would have been the character of Netaji 's Government?
His India would have been very different from today's India- Partition wouldnt have occured in this timeline. But more importantly what would be the foreign policy and domestic policy of the Government.How strong would have been the influence of these countries on India?
I dont think Netaji was supportive of Hitler or Japanese butchery - he asked them for help because he wanted India's freedom above everything else.
I think he would have resisted their influence on India- much like Tito resisted Soviet influence in Yugoslavia. In fact I feel he would have done the same thing as Nehru -start NAM . In his timeline perhaps a cold war would have been brewing between Germany and Japan , and Netaji taking a middle ground.

I would love to debate this

Officer of Engineers
22 Nov 07,, 14:47
There are enough reports that the INA matched and sometimes exceeded IJA brutality. You would've have a civil war, a very bloody civil war.

Adux
22 Nov 07,, 16:18
There are enough reports that the INA matched and sometimes exceeded IJA brutality. You would've have a civil war, a very bloody civil war.

British Historians, Sir.

Officer of Engineers
22 Nov 07,, 17:07
British Historians, Sir.Quotes from the British Indian Army veterans,

Blademaster
22 Nov 07,, 17:45
I really don't buy that because most of the INA soldiers were from the British Indian Army. I am guessing those veterans were prisoners and refused to defect to the INA and continue to fight for the British masters. INA soldiers felt those soldiers were being traitors of the highest order and deserve no mercy. It would be a different story if the British was on the losing side and the civilian population was agitating for freedom. Remember that most of the British Indian Army soldiers have families to consider.

Ray
22 Nov 07,, 19:35
Colonel,

I think you have got it wrong!

Officer of Engineers
22 Nov 07,, 20:05
Colonel,

I think you have got it wrong!Sir,

That info was came directly from a former Major in the BIA who's now a member of the Blue Group. His email correspondence was listed as "Ye Ole Crab."

In any case, Sir, I do not think I've had it wrong when it came to bloody nature of that war. The Burma Campaign ... as with all of the Pacific was marked by no mercy asked nor given. I sincerely doubt either side would've let up just because they're Indians.

Blademaster
23 Nov 07,, 08:14
That was against the Japanese, not against the INA. By the way, INA was very much intact after WWII. That tells you something about Indian soldiers viewing INA soldiers. There were a lot of British Indian soldiers sympathetic to the INA soldiers.

Ray
23 Nov 07,, 08:38
Colonel,

One does not take the British to be the Gospel. They looked at India with colonial master eye! And those who sympathised with Indians were condescending like the do gooder nuns who are full of love and compassion but the aim is single minded! ;)

devgupt
23 Nov 07,, 09:54
There are enough reports that the INA matched and sometimes exceeded IJA brutality. You would've have a civil war, a very bloody civil war.

Just before World War2 Subhash Chandra Bose was elected the president of Indian National Congress even when Gandhiji campaigned against him. He was the most popular political leader in India.
Netaji or Subhash Chandra Bose would have been De Gaul of India. The reception de Gaul got after liberation of Paris would have been dwarfed by the reception Netaji would have got had he succeeded in reaching Delhi

Deltacamelately
23 Nov 07,, 11:48
There are enough reports that the INA matched and sometimes exceeded IJA brutality. You would've have a civil war, a very bloody civil war.
Keeping the brutality part aside...I seriously doubt if there would have been a bloody civil war. Sir, if you look at the posts...you will get an idea that most of the Indians till date view Netaji as a great leader, uncorruptable politician, liberator etc ..etc. That's the general perception shared across all the Indian States. A civil war couldn't start in a scenario where the entire civil populace is supportive of the character concerned...However if you hint a power struggle between the RIA and the INA...I could partially agree.

Officer of Engineers
23 Nov 07,, 16:01
Several things here, Gentlemen,

Civil Wars by its very nature are extremely bloody. The fact was you've had a civil war. The INA was defeated and that flame was snuffed out before it engulfed your country. Having seen civil wars, again, I doubt your country, any country could escape the brutality of its very nature.

2nd, no country, and I mean no country escaped the brutality of the IJA. If the INA was successful, it would've been only through with the combined efforts of the IJA. Even if the INA did not do IJA brutality, they would've been tainted with it.

devgupt
27 Nov 07,, 05:46
Several things here, Gentlemen,

Civil Wars by its very nature are extremely bloody. The fact was you've had a civil war. The INA was defeated and that flame was snuffed out before it engulfed your country. Having seen civil wars, again, I doubt your country, any country could escape the brutality of its very nature.

2nd, no country, and I mean no country escaped the brutality of the IJA. If the INA was successful, it would've been only through with the combined efforts of the IJA. Even if the INA did not do IJA brutality, they would've been tainted with it.

Was there civil war in France when De Gaul returned in 1944?
In fact his return might have ensured a united India and no war on terror to worry about!;)

Officer of Engineers
27 Nov 07,, 05:55
Was there civil war in France when De Gaul returned in 1944?In actual fact there was. The French Resistance was the biggest fiction of the war. The Battle for Paris was alot of blood letting of those who sided or sympathized with the Nazis.

Also, you forgot about French Algiers.


In fact his return might have ensured a united India and no war on terror to worry about!;)

Well, there's the other thing. Subhash Chandra Bose was no military genius and he was hampered by the IJA to no end. If he was to enter Dehli, it would be following a Japanese Army.

Ray
27 Nov 07,, 09:53
Several things here, Gentlemen,

Civil Wars by its very nature are extremely bloody. The fact was you've had a civil war. The INA was defeated and that flame was snuffed out before it engulfed your country. Having seen civil wars, again, I doubt your country, any country could escape the brutality of its very nature.

2nd, no country, and I mean no country escaped the brutality of the IJA. If the INA was successful, it would've been only through with the combined efforts of the IJA. Even if the INA did not do IJA brutality, they would've been tainted with it.

Colonel,

You will be deluding yourself if you did not know of the Imperial countries atrocities.

It was common in those times.

One well publicised and recognised atrocity that would have today Amnesty hopping was the Jallianwall massacre.

The West won and so Germans and Japanese are in the doghouse of contrived history.

Officer of Engineers
27 Nov 07,, 10:26
Colonel,

You will be deluding yourself if you did not know of the Imperial countries atrocities.Sir,

Sir, as I've stated before, no WWII General would not be guilty of some war crime. The point here is that could the INA escape the brutal reputation of the IJA and obviously, they did not.

Jay
09 Dec 07,, 05:57
Keeping the brutality part aside...I seriously doubt if there would have been a bloody civil war. Sir, if you look at the posts...you will get an idea that most of the Indians till date view Netaji as a great leader, uncorruptable politician, liberator etc ..etc. That's the general perception shared across all the Indian States. A civil war couldn't start in a scenario where the entire civil populace is supportive of the character concerned...However if you hint a power struggle between the RIA and the INA...I could partially agree.
Take this as an argumentative post, but we have never seen Nethaji's other side, right? I mean what if he won the land battle and then becomes a total authoritative leader, more like Mao ?? With INA intact, it would've led to a civil war.

Not that Nehru was democratic, he was the worst authoritative leader we've ever seen, except then people adored his Utopian world for some reason.

Tronic
09 Dec 07,, 06:27
Take this as an argumentative post, but we have never seen Nethaji's other side, right? I mean what if he won the land battle and then becomes a total authoritative leader, more like Mao ?? With INA intact, it would've led to a civil war.

It may have led to war several years, if not decades, down the road. Netaji had huge support from Indians, and he probably would have ruled as a dictator, but one which would have had the population's support. Now, how long people would love him, it would really depend on his governing side. Mostly, love for "people's" dictators is quite short lived. And yes, if such circumstances were to happen, then IMO there would be state oppression and possibly civil war.

Officer of Engineers
09 Dec 07,, 07:03
Tronic,

How long could the Indian population suffer under even indirect Japanese rule? That's the one thing EVERYONE is ignoring. The INA could not come into being without Japanese help and Japanese help was far worst than British rule ever was.

Tronic
09 Dec 07,, 16:07
Tronic,

How long could the Indian population suffer under even indirect Japanese rule? That's the one thing EVERYONE is ignoring. The INA could not come into being without Japanese help and Japanese help was far worst than British rule ever was.

Sir, I guess everyone takes it that if Bose fought the British, then he would also fight the Japanese once India fell under his control. But, I do see your point, Japan probably would've been far more ruthless, and they might themselves have wiped out the INA after gaining control of India.

Blademaster
09 Dec 07,, 19:11
Actually the Japanese will be wiped out. If 75% of their manpower is tied down in China, there is no way in hell that the Japanese could even impose their control. Moreover, the INA will not like it nor the former British Indian army soldiers.

OOE, I understand things would be more bloodier but I just don't see how the Japanese could come in and control. They simply do not have the manpower. Just resources. Do you honestly think that the INA would submit to Japanese control which is another form of colonialism? I have a hard time believing that.

Adux
09 Dec 07,, 20:52
Actually the Japanese will be wiped out. If 75% of their manpower is tied down in China, there is no way in hell that the Japanese could even impose their control. Moreover, the INA will not like it nor the former British Indian army soldiers.

OOE, I understand things would be more bloodier but I just don't see how the Japanese could come in and control. They simply do not have the manpower. Just resources. Do you honestly think that the INA would submit to Japanese control which is another form of colonialism? I have a hard time believing that.


5000 Brits controlled the whole of India, we would have folded in front of the IJA if they played thier cards right like the brits in India.

Officer of Engineers
09 Dec 07,, 20:52
Do you honestly think that the INA would submit to Japanese control which is another form of colonialism? I have a hard time believing that.How else is the INA going to march to Dehli? Let's face it, the INA was not exactly the spearpoint of any campaign and the Japanese never had any intentions of arming them to be a fully independent standing force.

As much as you cannot see the INA submitting to the IJA, I cannot see how the INA can march except to follow the IJA.

Blademaster
10 Dec 07,, 01:22
5000 Brits controlled the whole of India, we would have folded in front of the IJA if they played thier cards right like the brits in India.

No it is not in their nature to play cards like the British did in India. Hence I strongly believe the outcome would be vastly different.

Blademaster
10 Dec 07,, 01:23
How else is the INA going to march to Dehli? Let's face it, the INA was not exactly the spearpoint of any campaign and the Japanese never had any intentions of arming them to be a fully independent standing force.

As much as you cannot see the INA submitting to the IJA, I cannot see how the INA can march except to follow the IJA.

Perhaps history has not allowed us enough evidence to see whether which one of us is right.

Officer of Engineers
10 Dec 07,, 03:30
Question, was there any commanders of any worth who went over to the INA?

Blademaster
10 Dec 07,, 04:27
True, but at least war will give us commanders. I mean take a look at Vietnam. They didn't have any commanders of worth but they came up with General Giap (I know your reservations about him).

Jay
10 Dec 07,, 17:42
Question, was there any commanders of any worth who went over to the INA?

Seems like INA had 4 commanders per wiki.
Battle of Imphal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imphal_Campaign)

Officer of Engineers
10 Dec 07,, 19:29
And they went up against Slim? Whom in my mind was the best General of WWII. Man, talking about taking on a titan ...

Cactus
10 Dec 07,, 20:07
Since there are a few alternate history threads on this board, I would like to start one not discussed before. What would have happened if the Axis powers won World War 2 and Subhash Chandra Bose would have marched upto Delhi. What would have been the character of Netaji 's Government?

What if Old King Porus had a fleet of B-52s at Battle of Jehlum? :P

Cactus
10 Dec 07,, 20:26
Question, was there any commanders of any worth who went over to the INA?

Consider that the highest ranked officer in the British Indian Army, Cariappa*, was just a Brigadier in 1945... I don't think there were many Indian senior commanders of note to begin with. IIRC the highest ranking officer who "went over" was an LTC. As you have earlier pointed out, they were neither trusted nor held in great respect by the IJA HQ. In 1939 there were only 300 odd Indian officers, by 1945 it was close to 11,000... but as service dates show the vast majority were company grade, with a small sprinkling of field grades. Not many chances to prove leadership beyond tactical level.

Blademaster
10 Dec 07,, 20:29
But war will allow them to become commanders quickly and battle will test their mettle.

Blademaster
10 Dec 07,, 20:36
And they went up against Slim? Whom in my mind was the best General of WWII. Man, talking about taking on a titan ...

Remember he only had his army mostly consisting of Indian soldiers and the rest were British, Burmese, and others. He would have a tough time getting men.

You have to remember INA was popular in India at that time and would have been more popular if Netaji remained alive. It was really touch and go.

Adux
10 Dec 07,, 21:39
Remember he only had his army mostly consisting of Indian soldiers and the rest were British, Burmese, and others. He would have a tough time getting men.

You have to remember INA was popular in India at that time and would have been more popular if Netaji remained alive. It was really touch and go.

Popular, but popular enough to bring in a mass uprising of British India forces, NO.

Blademaster
10 Dec 07,, 22:12
If the Congress party had sided with Netaji instead of with Gandhi, half of the British Indian Army would have revolted. It had happened before. The 1857 War for Independence.

Officer of Engineers
10 Dec 07,, 22:58
I can seriously say those who served under Slim would stay under the man. He was an inspirational leader with a keen sense of strategic foresight. What's more, he brings out the best in his men and get them to work together like no other general in WWII. I don't know how good a political leader he was but I have no doubt in my mind that he would militarily clean the clock with Netaij and Bose, especially when the latter two are hamstrung by the Japanese.

Blademaster
10 Dec 07,, 23:01
True he would clean militarily the clock but politically I am not so sure. In this case, military is just a means to an end. Politics can be another means to an end which would be Netaji Bose's ace card.

Tronic
11 Dec 07,, 04:57
clean the clock with Netaij and Bose, especially when the latter two are hamstrung by the Japanese.

Not to knitpick, but Netaji and Bose are the same person sir.

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 07,, 05:26
My mistake. I've mistaken him with Rash Behari Bose.

devgupt
11 Dec 07,, 13:00
5000 Brits controlled the whole of India, we would have folded in front of the IJA if they played thier cards right like the brits in India.

It must be remembered that in case of Axis victory , the whole of South east Asia and China would have fallen to Japanese. the task of administrating such a big empire (which would have included 2 most populous countries of the world) would be enormous . Morever there is no historical animosity between Indians and Japanese unlike that which exists between Japan and China. Morever India is the birthplace of Buddhism. No muslim country would ransack Saudi Arabia right? There is a strong reason to assume that India would keep itself away from Japan's embrace. Morever Marshall Tito kept himself free from Soviet control. There exists historical precedent to assume that strong leaders can keep themselves free from tyrannical masters

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 07,, 15:27
There exists historical precedent to assume that strong leaders can keep themselves free from tyrannical mastersThe Koreans, Filipinos, Burmese, Indonesians, and even your own people will disagree with you.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 17:33
Military expertise, power, men and the works were on the Brit side, Churchill needed Montgomery, who did Netaji have?

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 19:20
As I told you before, war itself will produce commanders. History has proven that countless times.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 20:04
As I told you before, war itself will produce commanders. History has proven that countless times.

Hitesh,

Brits would have won that fight. They had better war-commanders; by the time war taught our boys something, it would be all over.

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 20:19
I don't believe it would be that easy. You are giving Indians way too far less credit. Don't be such a narcissist.

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 07,, 20:22
The INA had commanders. They were just wearing Japanese insignias. Hitesh, you're assuming the Japanese were going to let the INA have free reign.

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 20:26
What I am saying is that the Japanese has no choice but to give the INA free reign in order to achieve their strategic objectives. They need India as an ally and INA won't stand around and let Japanese order them around. There's a myth that INA was following Japanese orders. That is not the case at all. Yes they did work with Japanese soldiers and officers but INA retained their own command structure and Bose was the head of the INA. If Japanese wanted something, they had to go through Bose.

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 07,, 20:27
But they did choose. They chosed not to support Bose and treated him as a puppet

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 20:28
I do realized that a large portion of INA soldiers were captured POWs. BUt remember that a large portion of British INdian Army defected to the INA of their own free will.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 20:32
I don't believe it would be that easy. You are giving Indians way too far less credit. Don't be such a narcissist.

Or are you being overly optimistic, I rather have India win all the time. I am not going to accept that defected Indian LT.Commander's would better than battle-hardened Brit Generals.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 20:35
What I am saying is that the Japanese has no choice but to give the INA free reign in order to achieve their strategic objectives. They need India as an ally and INA won't stand around and let Japanese order them around. There's a myth that INA was following Japanese orders. That is not the case at all. Yes they did work with Japanese soldiers and officers but INA retained their own command structure and Bose was the head of the INA. If Japanese wanted something, they had to go through Bose.

Retained their command structure in what level?
Indians planned actions with Japanese Generals?

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 20:39
There were no Indian generals in WWII and yet after independence, there were plenty of Indian generals and they have proved their mettle in later battles. So that contradicts your assertions regarding Indian Lt. Colonels' ability to lead. :rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 07,, 20:41
It took 1962 to wake the InA up and the Chinese did you a favour by not pushing their momentum. Slim would not be so charitable.

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 20:49
If Slim was to be assasinated, would things turn out to be different? By the way, the reason why PLA did not press their momentum was because they had exhausted their logistic chains and were sitting ducks if they continue to remain there.

By the way, do remember that the British officers were far more ruthless in 1857 and yet they nearly lost India to a disorganized bunch of groups led by senior NCOs and inept Indian leaders. We would only require 4 more regiments breaking away and it would be the end of the British presence. In the 1940s, INA was not like the disorganized bunch of soldiers. It had competent officers and leaders.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 20:54
Slim assassinated?
What kind of variables are we looking at over here?
And I dont consider fighting Brit Army of 'those days' as the same as Pakistan and that too with 70,000 men. Kiyani who led a Division only had 10 years of military experience and very very low on resources. INA did a splendid job with what they had, but they didnt have it in them to fight off set-peice battle's.

And those Great Indian Generals, became great through time; not in ten years.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 20:58
It took 1962 to wake the InA up and the Chinese did you a favour by not pushing their momentum. Slim would not be so charitable.

Sir,

PLA couldnt push forward anymore!! I dont want to be a person who offers excuses, a defeat is a defeat but we hadnt put our resources and strength including the IAF into battle, for political stupidity of Kesva Menon and Nehru.

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 07,, 21:04
If Slim was to be assasinated, would things turn out to be different?Never thought of that. 1st thought was that the Japanese would have penetrated deeper and might have just held onto Burma until war's end. How much would that changed the strategic picture, I don't know. Remember the Japanese lost the war through the Pacific and in Northern China. Would that have given the INA a proper staging ground and rallying point, I don't know.


By the way, the reason why PLA did not press their momentum was because they had exhausted their logistic chains and were sitting ducks if they continue to remain there.I told you that, remember, but you've missed my point here. Battle momentum is vital if you are to achieve victory. The Chinese did not planned nor desired to push their momentum beyond their immediate objectives. But that does not mean that they were without options. Do recall in the Korean War that they even try to block 8th Army's retreat with a single company at the end of 8th Army's retreat ... and they suffered big time for their efforts ... but look at what their efforts bought them - a propaganda victory that overshadowed the military disaster they've just endured.

With respects to Slim in this case, the point was that Slim would not let a chance to destroy his enemy slip away.


By the way, do remember that the British officers were far more ruthless in 1857 and yet they nearly lost India to a disorganized bunch of groups led by senior NCOs and inept Indian leaders. We would only require 4 more regiments breaking away and it would be the end of the British presence. In the 1940s, INA was not like the disorganized bunch of soldiers. It had competent officers and leaders.

Again, they were hamstrung by the Japanese. All the campaigns were devised by the IJA, not the INA, and the IJA took the main thrusts while leaving the subordinate, though important, actions to the INA. They were the force protection for the campaign, not the main thrust.

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 21:05
Slim assassinated?
What kind of variables are we looking at over here?
And I dont consider fighting Brit Army in 'those days' as the same as Pakistan and that too with 70,000 thousand men. Kiyani who led a Division only had 10 years of military experience and very very low on resources. INA did a splendid job with what they had, but they didnt have it in them to fight off set-peice battle's.



Remember, the majority of the British Indian Army is 90% Indian. Now if we were to take snipers and shoot the majority of British officers, Slim if still alive would be running the army with such a paranoi and fear of the army turning against him that it would render the army practically useless like paralysis.



And those Great Indian Generals, became great through time; not in ten years.

Through peacetime yes. However war shortens the need of time required during peacetime to be great.

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 07,, 21:10
Remember, the majority of the British Indian Army is 90% Indian. Now if we were to take snipers and shoot the majority of British officers, Slim if still alive would be running the army with such a paranoi and fear of the army turning against him that it would render the army practically useless like paralysis.Would not happen that way. Remember what kind of man Slim was. He was a soldier's soldier. He got the best out of people, most notably his Indian soldiers. From everything I've read, he instilled pride, confidence, and loyalty.

Cactus
11 Dec 07,, 21:12
If Slim was to be assasinated, would things turn out to be different? By the way, the reason why PLA did not press their momentum was because they had exhausted their logistic chains and were sitting ducks if they continue to remain there.

Assasinate Bill Slim? Easy job, George Faser once notes that in Burma Slim was guarded by two lowly privates - he being one of them. Problem is, who would have thought to assign the job? Slim's genius was barely apparent during the war years; is hardly recognized even today outside interested circles! Retrospection is always 20/20.

The Chinese army's reasons for not pressing forward with further invasion of Indian territory has nothing to do with the fact that it proved fortuitous for Indian Army HQ. If anything it shows how markedly deficient Indian army higher leadership was in operational art compared to their counterparts in China.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 21:12
Remember, the majority of the British Indian Army is 90% Indian. Now if we were to take snipers and shoot the majority of British officers, Slim if still alive would be running the army with such a paranoi and fear of the army turning against him that it would render the army practically useless like paralysis.


BM,

If at all we had a trait of that sorts, the brits wouldnt have ruled us for that long. When did it happen other than 1857. We were a set of people who were tailor made for divide and rule policy. Brits knew how to play their cards. You had more people going against Bose, like Gandhi, Nehru etc. They had more people-power than Bose.

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 21:15
Never thought of that. 1st thought was that the Japanese would have penetrated deeper and might have just held onto Burma until war's end. How much would that changed the strategic picture, I don't know. Remember the Japanese lost the war through the Pacific and in Northern China. Would that have given the INA a proper staging ground and rallying point, I don't know.


What I am arguing is that given the IJA's heavy committments in the Pacific and Northern China, IJA's ability to brownbeat INA into submission were highly limited and in exchange for a western front being friendly to Japanese interests, they were gonna have to let INA run the show in India.



I told you that, remember, but you've missed my point here. Battle momentum is vital if you are to achieve victory. The Chinese did not planned nor desired to push their momentum beyond their immediate objectives. But that does not mean that they were without options. Do recall in the Korean War that they even try to block 8th Army's retreat with a single company at the end of 8th Army's retreat ... and they suffered big time for their efforts ... but look at what their efforts bought them - a propaganda victory that overshadowed the military disaster they've just endured.

With respects to Slim in this case, the point was that Slim would not let a chance to destroy his enemy slip away.


Gotcha. That will only happen if he had the ability to do so. If INA was to launch a propoganda drive and assassinate only British officers and some British Indian Army showing some sympathy and condoning the actions of INA, I think that Slim and his senior British officers would be more paranoid and internally hamstring their capability by imposing a lot of limits on Indian soldiers. That would create a cause and effect cycle that the British would have no hope getting out. That's what I meant by politically, Netaji had an ace up his sleeves. That's what the British officers were so scared of. They rated Netaji as the number one threat to their success in the Burma theater and Southeast Asia theater because Netaji threatened the viability of the British Indian Army. They viewed Netaji as a greater threat than the Japanese forces because the Japanese forces were not capable of defeating the British Indian Army when as a whole but Netaji did.



Again, they were hamstrung by the Japanese. All the campaigns were devised by the IJA, not the INA, and the IJA took the main thrusts while leaving the subordinate, though important, actions to the INA. They were the force protection for the campaign, not the main thrust.

Gotcha. I would have to think on this one.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 21:17
The Chinese army's reasons for not pressing forward with further invasion of Indian territory has nothing to do with the fact that it proved fortuitous for Indian Army HQ. If anything it shows how markedly deficient Indian army higher leadership was in operational art compared to their counterparts in China.

Indian Army had to fight with their both hands tied, while Chinese counterparts had almost a free-hand. kesava menon(sadly a malayalee) and Nehru went over-board with hindi-chini bhai bhai restricted IA actions and IAF help.

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 21:21
Would not happen that way. Remember what kind of man Slim was. He was a soldier's soldier. He got the best out of people, most notably his Indian soldiers. From everything I've read, he instilled pride, confidence, and loyalty.

True but if Netaji started the ball rolling, Slim would not be able to do much about it because the other British officers would take it out on the Indian soldiers and Indian soldiers would respond and it would spiral out of control easily.

I realize that there is a lot of ifs and maybes but at least it is plausible.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 21:23
True but if Netaji started the ball rolling, Slim would not be able to do much about it because the other British officers would take it out on the Indian soldiers and Indian soldiers would respond and it would spiral out of control easily.

I rather doubt this?


I realize that there is a lot of ifs and maybes but at least it is plausible.
:rolleyes:

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 21:26
I rather doubt this?


:rolleyes:

Ever heard of alternative history or "what ifs" scenarios?

Cactus
11 Dec 07,, 21:41
Remember, the majority of the British Indian Army is 90% Indian. Now if we were to take snipers and shoot the majority of British officers, Slim if still alive would be running the army with such a paranoi and fear of the army turning against him that it would render the army practically useless like paralysis.

Blademaster,

In combat-arms the British Indian Army was only between 50-75% Indian. In peace-time infantry every 2 battalions of an Indians is brigaded with 1 battalion of British (ideal 66%); in peace-time Indians were not enrolled in light, medium or field artillery, only mountain regiments, so in 1945 BIA had just 15 med and field regiments; let us not even go near the mess that was the Indian cavalry/armoured forces. RIAF and RIN were even more plugged into British controlled life-support. Elementary BIA history.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 21:44
Ever heard of alternative history or "what ifs" scenarios?

Yes, but lets keep our variable under the relam of possibility and have some kind of historic precedence or atleast character to back it up.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 21:51
Blademaster,

In combat-arms the British Indian Army was only between 50-75% Indian. In peace-time infantry every 2 battalions of an Indians is brigaded with 1 battalion of British (ideal 66%); in peace-time Indians were not enrolled in light, medium or field artillery, only mountain regiments, so in 1945 BIA had just 15 med and field regiments; let us not even go near the mess that was the Indian cavalry/armoured forces. RIAF and RIN were even more plugged into British controlled life-support. Elementary BIA history.

Was nationalism propogated by Gandhi and all have a support base in the British Indian Army?

British Indian Army and Indian Army of today I believe is very classic, orthodox in nature. March were the politicans orders.

Heck, we even had JN Dixit refusing to assassinate Prabhakaran because that is like shooting in the back according Indian Army. Something Israeli's would disagree and call a stupid move. Can such an Army mutiny against masters whoever they may be?

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 22:01
Yes, but lets keep our variable under the relam of possibility and have some kind of historic precedence or atleast character to back it up.

What do you think I have been doing? I have backed it up with historical precedence such as 1857 and the political picture back in the 1940s.

You know what? Instead of attacking my theories, why don't you provide an alternative theory and I will attack your theory along the same line you have been attacking me?

:rolleyes:

Blademaster
11 Dec 07,, 22:05
Blademaster,

In combat-arms the British Indian Army was only between 50-75% Indian. In peace-time infantry every 2 battalions of an Indians is brigaded with 1 battalion of British (ideal 66%); in peace-time Indians were not enrolled in light, medium or field artillery, only mountain regiments, so in 1945 BIA had just 15 med and field regiments; let us not even go near the mess that was the Indian cavalry/armoured forces. RIAF and RIN were even more plugged into British controlled life-support. Elementary BIA history.

Right, that was in peacetime. But now Britain is in WWII and she needed all the manpower she could get. If Indian soldiers could not be called on to defend Britain, British soldiers in the British Indian Army would have to leave India and join the British Army to protect their homeland. Now if INA was to be increased by twicefold, the BIA would find itself in a difficult position.

Cactus
11 Dec 07,, 22:15
Was nationalism propogated by Gandhi and all have a support base in the British Indian Army?

Yes, there was reserved respect for Gandhi's self-discipline among the young Indian officer corps, as well as worshipfulness among the ORs recruited from more open communities. However, there were larger followings of Nehru and Jinnah among the officer corps. The moderates, like Nehru, were convinced that British sun had set but Allies under Americans would prevail... so fighting for the Allies would win them the freedom. The radical Moslem fundamentalists hoped to prepare for the ineitable fight for dominance that would characterize the post-Independence period.

British Indian Army and Indian Army of today I believe is very classic, orthodox in nature. March were the politicans orders.

Not really. Indian Army, like many Indians, often falls back to ritualism rather than true orthodoxy; the orthodox core is a very small and probably irrelavent one. Indian Army, like many Indians, is also capable of remarkable insight and unorthodoxy on occassions.

Heck, we even had JN Dixit refusing to assassinate Prabhakaran because that is like shooting in the back according Indian Army. Something Israeli's would disagree and call a stupid move. Can such an Army mutiny against masters whoever they may be?

Yes, it is quite possible for an officer in modern military to decline such an order on basis of command responsibility (I believe you misquoted, JN Dixit was the ambassador... the order was relayed to a Div GOC who supposedly refused). If the exact circumstances checks out as reported (and there is some debate about it), is not mutiny. Egotistical leaders who construe it such way are traitors to the long-term health of the organization.

Adux
11 Dec 07,, 22:17
[QUOTE]What do you think I have been doing? I have backed it up with historical precedence such as 1857 and the political picture back in the 1940s.

1857 was against East India Company. British Army culture was far different. You can talk about the Royal Indian Navy Revolt in Bombay 1946 though


You know what? Instead of attacking my theories, why don't you provide an alternative theory and I will attack your theory along the same line you have been attacking me?

:rolleyes:

I rather love the way history as played out for us, we will have to bring in a lot of variabes in favour Bose and take out a lot of advantages off the brits , if we had to envisage a British Defeat. It was not a even playing field, Bose had a rather small manovering space, Heck he couldnt pick set piece battles. Its rather unrealistic IMHO

Officer of Engineers
12 Dec 07,, 06:49
True but if Netaji started the ball rolling, Slim would not be able to do much about it because the other British officers would take it out on the Indian soldiers and Indian soldiers would respond and it would spiral out of control easily.

I realize that there is a lot of ifs and maybes but at least it is plausible.Hitesh,

You do know that there are times I really, really don't like you. I have a bottle of scotch waiting for you just so I can tell you how much I hate your guts ... and you better keep up. You've forced me to think this out ... while I was shoveling snow I might add.

However,

Bose was not a player in this game. He was a pawn. You could have quadrupled his Indian volunteers and it would not have made one single iota of difference. The Japanese would not and could not armed him to the level necessary for him to win. The Japanese were stretched beyond belief against the Americans and Chinese. They would not armed a puppet (in their view) in a minor theater.

If you are going to play the force of personality card with Bose, then you will have to play the same card with Slim. As I stated, Slim was a soldier's soldier and no matter how you might want to play up Bose, he ain't no soldier, He could recruit but he would be in no way capable of keeping soldiers as Slim could. I would submit that in a battle between Bose and Slim, it would be Bose who would see desertions.

It was not just the British the INA faced but the Chinese and Americans as well. The Chinese threw in 65,000 troops alone in Burma in addition to their other commitments. That is 15,000 more than than accepted final INA strengt5h. Now, mind you they were attacking the Japanese but in your scenario, the Japanese were to let the INA free reign in which case, they also had free reign to defend themselves ... which meant Chinese and American forces.

Militarily speaking, this was a lost cause.

Blademaster
12 Dec 07,, 07:08
OOE,

:biggrin: My deed is done for the day! :biggrin:

Anyway, I thank you for taking the time to think about it. I can certainly see where you are going and I am forced to agree with your conclusions. I have certainly thought about it and realized that even the majority of the population was very supportive of Bose, the fact is that there were other significant portions of the population that sided along with the British as Adux pointed out (I was forced to consider that angle which I hadn't consider before- there were some princely states that wanted to remain with the British to preserve their powers and wealth) and there was no really strong unity.

But supposed if the WWII ended and the British refused to leave India, how would INA play in that role? IIRC, they only surrendered once the Japanese forces signed the article of surrender.

Jay
12 Dec 07,, 07:43
Heck, we even had JN Dixit refusing to assassinate Prabhakaran because that is like shooting in the back according Indian Army. Something Israeli's would disagree and call a stupid move. Can such an Army mutiny against masters whoever they may be?
JN Dixit ordered Maj Gen Harkirat Singh to kill Prabhakaran when he was supposed to meet him for flag meet. The CO refused becoz, then LTTE was surrendering weapons as expected and there is no reason to kill Prabhakaran which will be detrimental to the desired outcome.
rediff.com: The IPKF in Sri Lanka, 10 years on (http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/mar/31lanka.htm)

Blademaster
12 Dec 07,, 07:48
Jay, what are your thoughts regarding Bose and the what if scenario? I'd be interested in your theories and opinions.

Adux
12 Dec 07,, 09:43
How about this for a 'what if'

If Indians didnt have the supersition that one should not travel the waters to other countries(or something like that) which effectively destroyed the whole Naval culture in Indian states. Would we have become a great empire, would we have learned from other cultures and technology? Could South America seen a maratha Empire.

Blademaster
12 Dec 07,, 14:55
How about this for a 'what if'

If Indians didnt have the supersition that one should not travel the waters to other countries(or something like that) which effectively destroyed the whole Naval culture in Indian states. Would we have become a great empire, would we have learned from other cultures and technology? Could South America seen a maratha Empire.

Where the heck did you get that? I don't recall any such superstitions. We have always a maritime tradition even in the 1500s and later on. We just did not focus on naval military R&D and building because we never felt a need. Before the British came, there was never a naval invasion. It was a analogy of Guam tropical birds meeting snakes for the first time and getting wiped out at the beginning.

Jay
12 Dec 07,, 15:55
If Indians didnt have the supersition that one should not travel the waters to other countries(or something like that) which effectively destroyed the whole Naval culture in Indian states.
Mis conception. We had a finest navy in the South - Chola's. Theirs was one of the best at that time, and they traveled all he way to Malaysia/Indonesia.

Adux
12 Dec 07,, 15:59
Where the heck did you get that? I don't recall any such superstitions. We have always a maritime tradition even in the 1500s and later on. We just did not focus on naval military R&D and building because we never felt a need. Before the British came, there was never a naval invasion. It was a analogy of Guam tropical birds meeting snakes for the first time and getting wiped out at the beginning.




At issue is the junior's 1987 tour of America and Canada in violation of Madhva shastric rules forbidding head swamis (or their juniors) to "cross the seas." After his return to India, the junior swami refused to undergo the purification rites requested by the Madhva establishment.


Hinduism Today | Feb 1988 (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1988/02/1988-02-05.shtml)

Just on the first page of Google search, Though this is about a particular sect, this was a very widespread belief-Hinduism considered crossing the seas as bad luck or so, which severly damaged Indian Maritime traditions.

Jay
12 Dec 07,, 16:00
Jay, what are your thoughts regarding Bose and the what if scenario? I'd be interested in your theories and opinions.

Hitesh,
As far as I read about INA, it is not an effective fighting force and to win an invasion against Britain by them looks far fetched. Bose was an enigma among a section of the population, but I'm not sure how many would have willingly fought against the British if it comes to invasion.

I'm also not sure about the political ramifications if Bose was to succeed the invasion and have Japan/Germany on our door front.

Adux
12 Dec 07,, 16:01
Mis conception. We had a finest navy in the South - Chola's. Theirs was one of the best at that time, and they traveled all he way to Malaysia/Indonesia.

Yes we did, I am saying traditions were lost after 'crossing the seas' is a bad luck, It is our maritime traditions which brought hinduism to Indonesia and Thailand etc. I am talking about the reasons of decline.

Blademaster
12 Dec 07,, 16:20
I think there has to be something more than superstitions that was directly responsible for the decline of the Navy. I think it was this feeling of "why do we need a navy" due to the lack of naval invasion of India in her entire history before the British came.

Officer of Engineers
12 Dec 07,, 18:34
The Indians and Chinese sailed out to the world ... and found African mud huts. The Europeans sailed out ... and found India and China ... need I say more?

Adux
12 Dec 07,, 18:53
Sir,

The word Navy and Navigation comes from Sanskrit. seclusion from outside world had cost us dear in terms of technology and culture

Blademaster
12 Dec 07,, 18:54
There was Imperial Rome, Constinanople and the Byzantine Empire, the Moors.

Officer of Engineers
12 Dec 07,, 18:56
I'm speaking of Zheng He's voyages and what he found. From the Chinese perspective, that kind of investment in the most powerful navy the world had ever seen at that point was not worth it.

Adux
12 Dec 07,, 19:02
I'm speaking of Zheng He's voyages and what he found. From the Chinese perspective, that kind of investment in the most powerful navy the world had ever seen at that point was not worth it.

Exactly, there are no state sponspored or supported missions. This cost the Asians dear, and industrial revloution. Imagine if India had trade missions to lets say England. How would have that changed the course of the Sub-continent. How much technological advancement could India have gained.

Blademaster
12 Dec 07,, 19:09
England was behind India and China in terms of technology during the 1400s. So was Western Europe. India and China were way ahead in technology during the 1200s to 1400s. It changed when the New World was discovered.

Adux
12 Dec 07,, 19:25
England was behind India and China in terms of technology during the 1400s. So was Western Europe. India and China were way ahead in technology during the 1200s to 1400s. It changed when the New World was discovered.

Yes.

Exactly what I am saying, if at all we went found the route to England, Spain. Than Vasco Da Gama doing it. We would have heard, known about the new world, we lost touch with the developments therefore making ourseleves obselete by the time brits got here.

Officer of Engineers
12 Dec 07,, 23:07
The discovery of the New World was sparked by the need to get to China and India. China and India did not have a need to leave home.

Adux
13 Dec 07,, 06:51
The discovery of the New World was sparked by the need to get to China and India. China and India did not have a need to leave home.

Sir,

We were fat, happy at being the richest, best there is, until we realised that someone already left us behind in the dust.

Officer of Engineers
13 Dec 07,, 16:12
The only possible expansion I could see for either India or China is Aztec gold. I can't see them coming 1000s of miles for fish and lumber. It's just not worth it to them, not when they have an abundance of those in their immediate areas of control.

Blademaster
13 Dec 07,, 17:33
Well we have learned our lessons. We can't afford to be complacent anymore.

Officer of Engineers
13 Dec 07,, 17:59
The Spanish were once a world superpower based on Aztec gold. What happened?

Blademaster
13 Dec 07,, 18:57
The Spanish got complacent and let the British surge ahead in naval, cannon, and gunnery technology.

Officer of Engineers
13 Dec 07,, 20:25
The British had a need to keep the supply lines open and thus their technological developments. The Spanish exhausted Aztec gold and found nothing more worth taken, having given up the raw resource route.

Adux
13 Dec 07,, 21:29
Sir,

It is our money, gold, labour, blood,resources which fueled the British Empire, India was not called the Crown Jewel for nothing. Heck, Most of the best diamonds on the Crown Jewels are Indian.So Yes, Resource is very important even if that is pure gold, spanish didnt make good use of it, while the brits did.

Jay
14 Dec 07,, 00:37
Its not the gold where Britain made money, its more of cotton and other material trade that pushed East India Company, to have the dubious distinction of ruling the sub-continent.

Jay
14 Dec 07,, 00:44
Hinduism Today | Feb 1988 (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1988/02/1988-02-05.shtml)

Just on the first page of Google search, Though this is about a particular sect, this was a very widespread belief-Hinduism considered crossing the seas as bad luck or so, which severly damaged Indian Maritime traditions.

IIRC, that belief is for Brahmins, coz down south Chera, Chola and Pandya had a vibrant merchant tradition. Infact there are seperate castes in the South who are seafaring and known for their financial entrepreneurship.

Officer of Engineers
14 Dec 07,, 07:09
India also had the dubious distinction for the source of the Opium Wars against China. You can blame the British for this one but it is not a proud Indian historic moment for sure.

Jay
14 Dec 07,, 08:52
Col, its not India per se, its the East India Trading Company, and one way or other, the Brits would love to get some treasures out of China, as they were already in India.

Adux
14 Dec 07,, 12:58
India also had the dubious distinction for the source of the Opium Wars against China. You can blame the British for this one but it is not a proud Indian historic moment for sure.

Sir,

We were slave labour for the british, its not as if we were the suppliers and they the middlemen.

Adux
14 Dec 07,, 13:01
IIRC, that belief is for Brahmins, coz down south Chera, Chola and Pandya had a vibrant merchant tradition. Infact there are seperate castes in the South who are seafaring and known for their financial entrepreneurship.


They are all pre-13th century. Its from here we started loosing in my opinion

Blademaster
14 Dec 07,, 15:00
Sir,

We were slave labour for the british, its not as if we were the suppliers and they the middlemen.

I agree with your sentiments but the reality is that we Indians help the British take over India. They could not have done it without our help. And the British wanted to go to China and deal opium and we were the middlemen. Yes we were the middlemen. Read up the zamindars and their history dealing with their British masters. Hell there are some regiments in India today proudly displaying their war loot during the Opium Wars.

Jay
15 Dec 07,, 10:05
They are all pre-13th century. Its from here we started loosing in my opinion
Hmm, I think its only case in point after the arrival of East India company. Coz as late as 15th century, the Vijayanagar Empire had a pretty good navy with the help of seafaring Portuguese.
Also there are quite a few exceptions in the North,
Naval Warfare in ancient India (http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/cha.htm)

Deltacamelately
15 Dec 07,, 10:19
Mission Moon...we take off at 1200 hrs...shuttle past Venus...head for Jupiter...halt at the Uranus for a while, suddenly realising that Mars was enroute...back to Mars...whizzz pass the Saturn and finally prepare to head towards the destination.....Moon.

jetjat2000
20 Feb 08,, 03:24
If Netaji would have marched into Delhi as the Famous battle Cry "DELHI CHALO" Well he would have all the Rao Bahadurs and kings would have been eliminated because they all had somehow mistreated women it was a passion for some kings to rape virgins.So Indian Royalty Die because it is your KARMA.:biggrin:

kuku
14 Mar 08,, 17:31
I used to have discussions with my grand father about what would have happened if Neta ji had lived on to see a free India and participated in the politics.

Any books, documentaries, movies etc. that people would recommend about the INA and the campaign in Burma?

bolo121
15 Mar 08,, 11:23
For Burma in ww2 you could read Field Marshal Slim's Defeat into Victory, a superb account of the campaign.
I always thought Netaji while patriotic was also a bit stupid. We already had british empire sitting on our heads, his actions had he succeded would have allowed the Japanese (who make the British look like boy scouts) to get their hands on India.

AdityaMookerjee
01 Jul 12,, 17:16
You must understand, that marching to New Delhi, would have meant fighting the Indian Army. Also, the British controlled the economy of India. Subhash Chandra Bose would certainly have tried to get to New Delhi. The question is, why did he not? Were the I N A tried and found guilty of mutiny by the British? What if the plane of Subhash Chandra Bose had crashed in the heartland of India? The British would not have thought about leaving India, for a while. It was impossible, perhaps, that the whole army would mutiny. This would have been disastrous. The Congress Party had got an assurance that India would be given independence, before Churchill became Prime Minister, if India fought for the Allies, perhaps. It is believed, that he survived the crash.