Good luck to you building yet another 'Indian' version of history, but I sincerely hope it is more soundly based than some of the stuff below.
Which military historians said that? I would like to know so as to avoid their work. Clearly they are idiots. Unless India built and crewed a few squadrons of battleships to keep the High Seas Fleet bottled up in Kiel nothing Indian (or Australian or NZ or Canadian) soldiers did saved the UK from 'becoming a German colony'. I am surprised an educated person could read that and not collapse in laughter. It basically requires a person to be completely unaware of the existence of the huge French & Russian armies and the entire Royal Navy
As for your 'shocking' discovery...Britain's pre-war professional army wasn't very large. A side effect of being a naval power and also of having a lot of manpower wandering the colonies. The old professional army was basically wiped out by October 1915 - I think Loos was the last of it. Of course, in the meantime Britain recruited a whole new army at home. That process began at the very start of the war, so as those old units were wiped out new units were already forming to take their place or new recruits were available to fill the spots.
By the time manpower from the Empire arrived at the front the risk of a German victory had passed and did not return.
For perspective, Australia, new Zealand and Canada (combined population 14 million) provided almost 1.2 million troops for the war effort with combined wounded of over 350,000 and combined dead (additional to that figure) of over 140,000 dead.
South Africa, parts of which had been at war with Britain barely a decade earlier and whose leaders had fought the British, provided over 200,000 soldiers. They fought despite the war leading to an armed Boer uprising. Ireland contributed a similar number of men despite the bulk of the nation being unwilling members of the UK and having their own armed uprising in 1916. Some 50,000 of those men died during the war.
I have never once heard anyone from any of those nations claim to have 'saved' Britain from German occupation. Maybe someone not worth reading has. Plenty of people in Australia talk up and exaggerate the contribution of the ANZACs and they are the subject of much national pride, but there are limits. I am sure those other nations do the same. So, by all means talk up India's contribution to WW1, but keep it in perspective.
Care to elaborate? Given what is above I am loathe to even attempt to work out what you are claiming here.
Sounds good, if only someone had thought of it before...like in 1915
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattri,_Brighton
....or 1917
https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/21353
....or subsequently
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Gates,_London
https://www.news18.com/news/world/uk...d-1935265.html
There are also monuments in France & Belgium. Is there a particular number you had in mind that would equal sufficient recognition, or will that do?
Not really seeing much of a narrative there, but good luck to you. I hope it isn't just the same mixture of exaggeration, lack of perspective and victimhood narratives that so many national grand narratives consist of.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
As for your 'shocking' discovery...Britain's pre-war professional army wasn't very large. A side effect of being a naval power and also of having a lot of manpower wandering the colonies. The old professional army was basically wiped out by October 1915 - I think Loos was the last of it. Of course, in the meantime Britain recruited a whole new army at home. That process began at the very start of the war, so as those old units were wiped out new units were already forming to take their place or new recruits were available to fill the spots.
By the time manpower from the Empire arrived at the front the risk of a German victory had passed and did not return.
For perspective, Australia, new Zealand and Canada (combined population 14 million) provided almost 1.2 million troops for the war effort with combined wounded of over 350,000 and combined dead (additional to that figure) of over 140,000 dead.
South Africa, parts of which had been at war with Britain barely a decade earlier and whose leaders had fought the British, provided over 200,000 soldiers. They fought despite the war leading to an armed Boer uprising. Ireland contributed a similar number of men despite the bulk of the nation being unwilling members of the UK and having their own armed uprising in 1916. Some 50,000 of those men died during the war.
I have never once heard anyone from any of those nations claim to have 'saved' Britain from German occupation. Maybe someone not worth reading has. Plenty of people in Australia talk up and exaggerate the contribution of the ANZACs and they are the subject of much national pride, but there are limits. I am sure those other nations do the same. So, by all means talk up India's contribution to WW1, but keep it in perspective.
Same stats with WW2.
So build a war memorial in England commemorating their sacrifice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattri,_Brighton
....or 1917
https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/21353
....or subsequently
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Gates,_London
https://www.news18.com/news/world/uk...d-1935265.html
There are also monuments in France & Belgium. Is there a particular number you had in mind that would equal sufficient recognition, or will that do?
- the people doing the killing in Jallianwallabagh were Indian sepoys. He likens people against India building a grand narrative as Sepoys 2.0. He wants Indians to stop blaming Brits for and for Brits to acknowledge what went on there. So move forward in a win win way as collaborators working together.
- he's tired of reports on caste oppression coming from the west, overdone support for christian evangelism the way it is done in India in a perjorative way.
- Brits missed the boat on yoga. Americans picked it up in the 60s and globalised it. Brits had 200 years in India but missed it : D
- Americans made use of Indian manpower in their tech companies. Result is Indians wanted to go to the US instead of the UK. Americans benefited.
What's interesting is you get the impression that the UK post Brexit and India are in a similar mental & psychological space. Brits wanted out of the EU because their grand narrative was getting messed with. UK invests heavily in maintaining its narrative, democracy, royalty, literature etc which translates into tourism and general self-esteem. Indians are looking for a grand narrative. Brits can be good partners.
- he's tired of reports on caste oppression coming from the west, overdone support for christian evangelism the way it is done in India in a perjorative way.
- Brits missed the boat on yoga. Americans picked it up in the 60s and globalised it. Brits had 200 years in India but missed it : D
- Americans made use of Indian manpower in their tech companies. Result is Indians wanted to go to the US instead of the UK. Americans benefited.
What's interesting is you get the impression that the UK post Brexit and India are in a similar mental & psychological space. Brits wanted out of the EU because their grand narrative was getting messed with. UK invests heavily in maintaining its narrative, democracy, royalty, literature etc which translates into tourism and general self-esteem. Indians are looking for a grand narrative. Brits can be good partners.
Comment