Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stalin killed Netaji, Subramanian Swamy says

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Triple C
    replied
    That's a pretty admirable attempt at objectivity. But I feel it should be added that, if you disregard nationalist bias, ultimately we are talking about men who sought the ticket out of imperialist dominance of GB by throwing themselves at the feet of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan which are rightly viewed by US and UK historians as racialist imperialists par excellence and so the clarity of their vision and effectiveness as leaders are called into doubt, and having good intentions is not something that historians accept as a reason to heap praises on somebody.

    Leave a comment:


  • YoungIndia
    replied
    The disconnect we have seen between indian posters and others i feel arise from a few factors

    1. In India, Bose is regarded as one of the founding father and we are well informed with his evolution into an ally of
    the axis powers. Bose was impatient with the congress leadership and matters eventually reached an head that the congress
    and he disowned each other in a bitter split. however Gandhi praised his efforts after he died.He is also mostly treated favourably in the
    textbooks.

    In india Bose and bhagat singh are respected for patriotism,initiative and inspiration even though some regard their methods as dubious.
    So its like methods questionable but intent and vision appreciated. Atleast for some like me anyway

    2. Allying with the axis powers and lack of success has made INA a vicious target. I noticed these when I started reading books from british historians from the british council
    library.However it would be a disservice to the vision and ideals of bose to solely view through such a prism.

    In India,there is a strong culture of anti imperialism.i deeply resent any justifcation of british rule or portuguese rule .Even I am no right winger , i feel a rage how can anyone be insensitive to justify slavery.This may explain attempts to disown or be indifferent the british indian army which fought for a colonial government and was loyal to the crown for "too long" according to some indian nationalists.Infact Nehru's hostile attitude to the army owed a huge deal to this. Its not easy answer - whether to honour those who were loyal to the empire.

    3. not everyone in india shares the hatred for axis powers especially those with an aversion to western powers. There are no dearth of hitler fans in educated urban india who say the western powers manipulated history as victors.

    Anti west attitudes can easily translate into pro Germany and pro japan attitudes.

    i regard this as misguided.i am more aware of the scale of barbarity by Nazis especially and to a lesser extent japan.but many others are not.

    Leave a comment:


  • YoungIndia
    replied
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    You said prevented a civil war. Partition was a civil war.

    .
    Partition was a decision taken by Nehru and patel to "cut the diseased part off".

    Nehru challenged the muslim league to show their strength.

    The muslim league showed their ability to make trouble by direct action day in Calcutta and theaftermath which erupted into riots all over.
    also muslim league was making inroads even into Punjab and nwfp.

    so partition was agreed

    1. to prevent a civil war

    2. increasing loss of control over administration with quarrels between congress and ML, the british being hapless rulers ready to run away

    3. in recognition of Islamic political traditions that gives importance to religious laws and a muslim ruler(incompatible with a one man one vote democracy).ofcourse they naively believed Pakistan would come back after a decade or so.

    4 to give priority to a strong central state by integrating all states into the union(which was not a given at that time)

    Leave a comment:


  • YoungIndia
    replied
    Originally posted by lemontree View Post
    Bose's efforts were no military success, but his efforts are acknowledged as they led to the ultimate aim of freedom from British colonial rule.

    .
    That would be an exaggeration.Even if you cite the mutiny at the INA trial, it cannot be divorced from the process of growth of indian nationalism in
    india in general since 1857.

    Britain left because they took stock that indian nationalism has grown strong enough and its allies in the indian adminstratration(ICS) and armed forces are increasingly unreliable.

    different strands of nationalist movements-the predominant one led by congress,militancy (in bengal,Punjab,INA)- demonstrated and also contributed to further growth of indian nationalism that eventually dislodged british rule.

    To use one incident to say one day the armed forces became nationalist and were ready to throw the british into the sea is fiction.In any case, even some british commanders like auchinleck and slim were in favour of indian independence

    Rationally speaking bose's venture was quixotic and his choices questionable.

    By the martial races theory certain regions like Punjab dominated the armed forces. The percentage
    of Punjabi muslims was very high.

    Most of them cared two hoots for indian nationalism. To build INA with such a large
    percentage of unreliable men is never going to end pretty.

    little wonder Japanese commander mutaguchi was not enamoured of the effectiveness of the INA .

    Bose's methods were morally dubious without a doubt but politics makes for strange bedfellows.

    he accepted Japan's help for pure expediency and not as a stooge but its difficult to see what he could have achieved eventually.

    he is respected for his idealism and taking initiatives for indian independence,quixotic and morally questionable his venture mightbe.

    The INA trial was a warning shot for any remaining ambition of british imperial rule without a doubt.but let's not make it bigger than what it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • lemontree
    replied
    What my countrymen are trying to say is that Bose is an icon who is worshipped in India.

    We don't claim that he was a great military leader, but his attempts to seek a military solution are respected.
    We don't claim that he was trying to win a war, but he was only seeking to free his motherland.
    He failed as a military leader, but he was part of the same team that sought Indian independence.

    Bose had first gone to Soviet Union and when he got no help from Stalin, he went to Germany. He did not even get an acknowledgement from Hitler when he tried to seek his assistance in 1941, in fact he was ignored. Just one battalion was created from Indian students and POWs, IR 950 (known as the Indian Legion). Did they do anything operational?....apart from some sabotage ops in Baluchistan,...nothing much.

    Bose's efforts were no military success, but his efforts are acknowledged as they led to the ultimate aim of freedom from British colonial rule.

    Will Indians feel bad if we got to know that he was murdered?....damn right Yes.
    Why?..because most Indians respected the British for their sense of justice and fair play. When they left India, they were sent off with respect and decorum and not with hate.
    But if we are told that the British held a grudge against Bose, then many would hold one against them too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    You said prevented a civil war. Partition was a civil war.
    The Domonions of Pakistan and India. Sorry. NOT A CIVIL WAR.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    No the princes and principalities lost the rule and force in very short order. The GoI had nearly complete control over India by 1949 with few exceptions such as the Portuguese Goa territories.
    1949. Two years in which India recognized the rule of law of the British Indian Empire.

    In case, you missed it, Hitesh, those experiments, legally speaking, and I find this surprising with you being a lawyer, were NOT WAR CRIMES. India was NOT an occupied population with India accepting EVERYTHING from the British Indian Empire on 17 August, 1947.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    No graves were hidden and the events were not erased from the history books. We just don't celebrate it the same way you did and demand of us to do.
    Really? The BIA is NOT mentioned in your schools and the graves are now in Burma. Yeah, hidden.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    INA were also good guys too
    They were the smoke screen for a monster that you and them were too blind to see.

    As much as we detet Hitler and Stalin, we had to respect their abilities to mobolize two entire populations. Bose? Not even a wannabe.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    and the soldiers of BIA sided with very bad guys too.
    And yet, you are blind to the history. This is the most surprising thing of all, Hitesh. You came from a military family with uncles in the US military. Through all our years together, this is the first time I've seen you ignored military brilliance. Never mind that you hate the guy.

    But you cannot bring yourself to admit that Albert Slim was the best General in WWII and that the BIA went from a defeated army to a war winning army in a matter of 10 months.

    And Bose? What did he actually do? I mean seriously. What did he do? The INA was not his creation. It was Mohan Singh's and he actually devised the best strategy to win Indian independence.

    Never mind the Japanese occupied islands, which speaks for themselves, what was Bose doing when the Japanese lost the invasion of India. I mean, why was he holding court with the IIL instead of saving his army?

    And yet, you cannot bring yourself to examine Albert Slim. Just 10 months before, the BIA was kicked out of Burma. He took that same army and reversed the outcome of the war. Yeah, he was British but you can't turn around and respect what he did.

    Instead, you want to tell me that Bose was this brilliant freedom fighter. Was he? He couldn't inspire a defeated army to join the winning Japanese.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 21 Jan 15,, 05:13.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blademaster
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    War. Not Civil War.
    You said prevented a civil war. Partition was a civil war.

    My point is that India did not throw out everything lock stock and barrel and imposed Martial Law 15 August, 1947. Until India changed the laws, the old laws still had force, up to and including the Princes and their Principalities.
    No the princes and principalities lost the rule and force in very short order. The GoI had nearly complete control over India by 1949 with few exceptions such as the Portuguese Goa territories.

    Kim Jong Ill is a hero in North Korea but that doesn't mean I believe that he was the first nuclear physicist who invented the anti-matter bomb.

    In fact, the North Koreans are the only other peoples I know who erased an entire army from their history books up to and including hiding the graves of that army.
    No graves were hidden and the events were not erased from the history books. We just don't celebrate it the same way you did and demand of us to do.


    But that does not make anything the BIA did during WWII wrong. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. The BIA were the good guys and like it or not, Bose and the INA sided with the bad guys. Very bad guys.
    INA were also good guys too and the soldiers of BIA sided with very bad guys too.

    Leave a comment:


  • bolo121
    replied
    The BIA were the good guys and like it or not, Bose and the INA sided with the bad guys. Very bad guys.
    A very enjoyable debate, it reminded me of why i joined wab in the first place.
    But this is a hot potato comment which 99% of us Indians will never agree to.
    From the time we are in grade school we are taught that Netaji was a hero who fought the evil british raj.
    The japanese were barely a footnote and I can recall no mention of the chinese at all.
    His myth is ingrained as part of the freedom struggle.

    I only learnt otherwise well into my adult years when I began reading history for myself and came across Slim's excellent memoir.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    No it didn't. War broke out. Partition happened. Nearly a million people died.
    War. Not Civil War.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Then what's your point? You just admitted that India changed the laws, not inherited them and still practiced them.
    My point is that India did not throw out everything lock stock and barrel and imposed Martial Law 15 August, 1947. Until India changed the laws, the old laws still had force, up to and including the Princes and their Principalities.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Well Bose did inspire independence in the Bengal region. Speak ill of Bose in that region and you can expect to find yourself in a hospital shortly. Bose is a hero in Bangladesh.
    Kim Jong Ill is a hero in North Korea but that doesn't mean I believe that he was the first nuclear physicist who invented the anti-matter bomb.

    In fact, the North Koreans are the only other peoples I know who erased an entire army from their history books up to and including hiding the graves of that army.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Because at that time, Russia was not a threat. Was not geared up to face against Russia.
    Again, the population in Siberia doubled with the Russian onslaught and the First Anglo-Afghan War was a pre-emptive strike to prevent the Russians from coming in.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    So indianization only occurred during WW2 when British were desperate for manpower, not out of their volition and free will.
    Oh for Pete sakes, you're mistaking me for saying the British are saints. They ain't. At times, they were more efficient than the Gestapo and the KGB.

    But that does not make anything the BIA did during WWII wrong. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. The BIA were the good guys and like it or not, Bose and the INA sided with the bad guys. Very bad guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blademaster
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And prevented a civil war.
    No it didn't. War broke out. Partition happened. Nearly a million people died.

    How is that any different from what I stated? This was not Vichy France that they just grabbed old Third Republic Laws and re-instated them. The old rules were stayed in place until India changed them.
    Then what's your point? You just admitted that India changed the laws, not inherited them and still practiced them.

    Well, the obvious question is how did this happen? (I'm being sarcastic) Didn't Bose and the INA inspire Indian independence? Didn't the Muslim League and therefore, Muslim soldiers, followed Bose's dream?
    Well Bose did inspire independence in the Bengal region. Speak ill of Bose in that region and you can expect to find yourself in a hospital shortly. Bose is a hero in Bangladesh.

    Still doesn't change the fact that the EIC was ill equipped to handle Russia.
    Because at that time, Russia was not a threat. Was not geared up to face against Russia.

    In 4 years? What did you expect? Only exceptional people make Field Grades so fast. And 4 years is way too short to teach new Generals Operational Art.
    So indianization only occurred during WW2 when British were desperate for manpower, not out of their volition and free will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    As I said before, the British passed a law knowing that India was going to be free whether there was a law or not granting independence. They just gave themselves a facesaving way out and Gandhi obliged them even though other members of Congress were saying that we don't need British permission. The Indian Naval Mutiny proved that.

    The only reason why INC waited and let them passed a law was because of the obstinacy of JInnah and the Muslim League. If it wasn't for Jinnah, independence would have been achieved in 1945 or 1946 or even before that.
    And prevented a civil war.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Sure... in the princedoms and kingdoms. Congress had to send in troops to enforce the law of the land which was the Indian version, not British. After all, there was great land reform and powers were taken away from princes and rulers. See the State of Hyderbad and how it was taken by force. As for British ruled territories, they had to kick out the tax collectors and revamp the IAS. Before the IAS was based on inheritance based on the anglicized bloodlines and zamindari bloodlines. India made it as a meritocracy and did away with inheritances and right by birth.
    How is that any different from what I stated? This was not Vichy France that they just grabbed old Third Republic Laws and re-instated them. The old rules were stayed in place until India changed them.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Of course they acknowledged Mountbatten. He was the one that allowed the creation of Pakistan against Gandhi and Nehru's wishes.
    Well, the obvious question is how did this happen? (I'm being sarcastic) Didn't Bose and the INA inspire Indian independence? Didn't the Muslim League and therefore, Muslim soldiers, followed Bose's dream?

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Then Russia was not a player in South Asia. Britain was the dominant power in South Asia.
    Still doesn't change the fact that the EIC was ill equipped to handle Russia.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    yes a large majority of them only arosed to Lts and Captains. Rarely did they go up to Majors or Lt Cols.
    In 4 years? What did you expect? Only exceptional people make Field Grades so fast. And 4 years is way too short to teach new Generals Operational Art.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blademaster
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I'm speaking strictly within the confines of WWII and its results.

    I said that they inherited everything. I didn't say they accepted everything. India took the entire British Indian Empire lock, stock, and barrel and then proceeded to discard and change things as she saw fit. Until new legislation and new policies were enacted, the old ones remained in force.

    And? This was done legally. They made a legislation that said that the old legislation no longer applies. This still require acknowledging the old legislation had the power of law until they said it no longer did.

    That does not mean that the old laws were not recognized before the consitution was written.

    AND THAT required legal work. Not just grabbing the old law book and throwing it into the fire.

    What the hell is this?

    Indian Independence Act 1947 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    As I said before, the British passed a law knowing that India was going to be free whether there was a law or not granting independence. They just gave themselves a facesaving way out and Gandhi obliged them even though other members of Congress were saying that we don't need British permission. The Indian Naval Mutiny proved that.

    The only reason why INC waited and let them passed a law was because of the obstinacy of JInnah and the Muslim League. If it wasn't for Jinnah, independence would have been achieved in 1945 or 1946 or even before that.

    You mean to tell me the second the Brits left, Indian bureaucrats had zero power to collect revenue? Cops don't have laws to enforce? That it was a free for all?
    Sure... in the princedoms and kingdoms. Congress had to send in troops to enforce the law of the land which was the Indian version, not British. After all, there was great land reform and powers were taken away from princes and rulers. See the State of Hyderbad and how it was taken by force. As for British ruled territories, they had to kick out the tax collectors and revamp the IAS. Before the IAS was based on inheritance based on the anglicized bloodlines and zamindari bloodlines. India made it as a meritocracy and did away with inheritances and right by birth.

    But if facts are facts that Bose won independence for Pakistan as well, shouldn't they also acknowledge his contribution? After all, they acknolweged Mountbatten.
    Of course they acknowledged Mountbatten. He was the one that allowed the creation of Pakistan against Gandhi and Nehru's wishes.

    The Great Game was always about Central Asia.
    Then Russia was not a player in South Asia. Britain was the dominant power in South Asia.

    Within the confines of WWII. I will grant you that it was British desperation since there wasn't enough Officers to go around but a hell of a lot of good Indian Officers were trained and battle hardened with the British.
    yes a large majority of them only arosed to Lts and Captains. Rarely did they go up to Majors or Lt Cols.
    Last edited by Blademaster; 20 Jan 15,, 00:50.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    No they are not. They are selective and deliberately twisted to support your assertions. There were many violent struggles.
    I'm speaking strictly within the confines of WWII and its results.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    As for laws, no India didn't adopt everything.
    I said that they inherited everything. I didn't say they accepted everything. India took the entire British Indian Empire lock, stock, and barrel and then proceeded to discard and change things as she saw fit. Until new legislation and new policies were enacted, the old ones remained in force.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    For one thing, they tossed out the mandate charter governing India.
    And? This was done legally. They made a legislation that said that the old legislation no longer applies. This still require acknowledging the old legislation had the power of law until they said it no longer did.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    They refused to declare the British monarchy as the head of state even though Pakistan did for a while. They created a new constitution that was the overriding authority.
    That does not mean that the old laws were not recognized before the consitution was written.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    If any law that was created before the Constitution and was not compatible, it was rendered null and void and ceased to have any effect.
    AND THAT required legal work. Not just grabbing the old law book and throwing it into the fire.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    And no India did not gain independence through British law. There was no British law recognizing Indian independence. India was going to be independent. British just passed a law to feel good and high mighty about themselves even though they knew that they had no choice. In fact, British law did not allow for Indian independence before.
    What the hell is this?

    Indian Independence Act 1947 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Yes India's independence was defined by force through the threat of a massive and bloody revolution by the WW2 BIA. And no India did not inherit everything from Britain. For one thing, half of India was not under direct British control but made of small kingdoms and princedoms. They had their own laws.
    You mean to tell me the second the Brits left, Indian bureaucrats had zero power to collect revenue? Cops don't have laws to enforce? That it was a free for all?

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Your reading influenced by your bias, prejudices, and way of thinking. As for Pakistan not sharing the same view of Bose, I am not surprised. Why should they? They were the ones who were advocating for more muslim control and Bose didn't share that thinking at all.
    But if facts are facts that Bose won independence for Pakistan as well, shouldn't they also acknowledge his contribution? After all, they acknolweged Mountbatten.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Russia never seriously moving down into South Asia until after 1850s especially after the Crimea War.
    The Great Game was always about Central Asia.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Only after great agitation and it wasn't exactly a stellar success. Look at wiki: Indianisation (British India) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Within the confines of WWII. I will grant you that it was British desperation since there wasn't enough Officers to go around but a hell of a lot of good Indian Officers were trained and battle hardened with the British.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 20 Jan 15,, 00:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blademaster
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Sorry, the historic facts are against you.
    No they are not. They are selective and deliberately twisted to support your assertions. There were many violent struggles. As for laws, no India didn't adopt everything. For one thing, they tossed out the mandate charter governing India. They refused to declare the British monarchy as the head of state even though Pakistan did for a while. They created a new constitution that was the overriding authority. If any law that was created before the Constitution and was not compatible, it was rendered null and void and ceased to have any effect. And no India did not gain independence through British law. There was no British law recognizing Indian independence. India was going to be independent. British just passed a law to feel good and high mighty about themselves even though they knew that they had no choice. In fact, British law did not allow for Indian independence before.

    Yes India's independence was defined by force through the threat of a massive and bloody revolution by the WW2 BIA. And no India did not inherit everything from Britain. For one thing, half of India was not under direct British control but made of small kingdoms and princedoms. They had their own laws.

    They're not my attempts. They're the reading of the facts. Here is another fact for you. Not all British India shared the same view of Bose. Pakistan certainly don't.
    Your reading influenced by your bias, prejudices, and way of thinking. As for Pakistan not sharing the same view of Bose, I am not surprised. Why should they? They were the ones who were advocating for more muslim control and Bose didn't share that thinking at all.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Siberia was already under Russian control as with Northern Central Asia and the population in Siberia doubled with Russian onslaught by 1709. How is that not a chalenge?
    Russia never seriously moving down into South Asia until after 1850s especially after the Crimea War.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Yes at any other time, the British would have not allowed 2.3 million to sign up. It was only out of desperation and necessity that they allow a standing army of 2.3 million Indians.
    Oh, it was far, far, far mroe than that. The British also decided to Indianized the Army, meaning, they decided to train Indian officers up to brigade commanders, giving the Indians a decent officer corps.
    Only after great agitation and it wasn't exactly a stellar success. Look at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiani...itish_India%29

    "Indianisation was considered a failure by the Indians, due to the refusal of the British Government to increase the extremely slow rate of induction and the reluctance of the British to accept Indian officers on an equal footing, both professionally and socially.[2] The scheme was suspended at the outbreak of the Second World War, at which point only a handful of military units had been Indianised. The process was never reintroduced, as there was a wartime influx of Emergency Commissioned Officers, posted into all units. In 1947, India became independent, and Indian officers immediately became eligible to fill senior appointments, with accelerated promotion."
    So only real and true indianisation occurred after WW2 and it was only made possible when the Indian Army downsized to allow the small number of Indian officers to better control the army and create a highly trained and educated officer cadre. It was only after the 1962 war that there was a great drive for Indian officers and men. At that time the IA was a little more than 250k. The 14 year period allowed the IA to adequately set up and develop a competent officer cadre.
    Last edited by Blademaster; 20 Jan 15,, 00:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    There was no Russian threat until the early 1800s when EIC already had India well under control with its vast resources. Yes, EIC was equipped to take on the Russians. After all, they just took down the mighty Tipu Sultan and rendered the Mughals ineffective.
    Siberia was already under Russian control as with Northern Central Asia and the population in Siberia doubled with Russian onslaught by 1709. How is that not a chalenge?

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Yes at any other time, the British would have not allowed 2.3 million to sign up. It was only out of desperation and necessity that they allow a standing army of 2.3 million Indians.
    Oh, it was far, far, far mroe than that. The British also decided to Indianized the Army, meaning, they decided to train Indian officers up to brigade commanders, giving the Indians a decent officer corps.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    At any other time, it would have meant an instant loss of control because it meant that the army could be used to control India and India would be unified as a whole and once that army decided to change its loyalty, the British would be out of luck.
    Yes, and everybody saw it, including the Brits, hence, the Cripps debacle.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Gandhi and Congress saw that and were the first one to capitalize on that and used Bose. Bose, unwittingly or wittingly, played as the bad guy. Gandhi and Congress built their leadership on those men. How else did you think those men quickly change their loyalty once the war ended? How quickly the Indian Naval Mutiny ended once Congress said no?
    Does not explain how 2.3 million men signed up. There was no "Sign up and India will be free" campaign.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    But the INA did scare the British for a time.
    I say concernned. Not scared. There were no KGB style machine gun nests ready to mow down disloyal troops retreating from battle. The worst effort the Brits came up with was propaganda.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    The 1948 war beg to differ.
    No, it was exactly that. War was forced

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    May be the source material but at least he made it long lasting.
    Bose was dead. He didn't do anything of the sort.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    It takes two to tango not one.
    You have just erased the history of 2.3 million men from the minds of the Indian populace and you twisted the truth about a man who sided with Japanese monsters. I am not asking why this was done. I'm asking you who did it? The why should be self-evident.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    You underestimate his effect when he was alive.
    Zero. 2.5 million men did not change loyalties and the Japanese continued to tortured, murdered, and eat Indians,.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Britain couldn't say anything to Deng Pi when he threatened to march all the way to Hong Kong and take it.
    It is Deng Xia Peng, not Deng Pi. Hong Kong was not defensiable but that does not change the fact that the UK was willing and able to fight and drive the USSR from Europe. The best that China could hoped for was to tied down the Soviet Army until NATO won.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    They meekly agreed to set a time for a handover. Contrast with the time when Britain marched all the way to Beijing and demanded Hong Kong with the aid of its Indian troops. What does that tell you?
    It tells me that Britain chosed her battles. The RN then and now could have sunk the entire Chinese Navy.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    You may get the title but it doesn't mean you get the goods. If you were not British enough, you could find yourself easily out on the street. A paper is not enough. You had to be one of their own and that means converting to British ways and culture.
    Again, that is family policy. I decide where my money and my title goes; not the crown.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Sometimes the local crime lord wins sometimes it doesn't win. But the end result was that the British got their way.
    The Brits did not always get their way. Afghanistan and uncontrolled Indian opium trade into Tibet and China.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Britain just went from a world superpower to a supporting player in the space of 6 years. That's huge. Same thing with France. With India declaring independence, other occupied territories started declaring their independence and the tide was unstoppable. Pretty soon Britain and France lost their vast overseas land holdings and their source of raw materials and cheap manpower.
    Pre-WWII Britain and France was and is no match for postwar USSR and the US. The technology and sheer military power owned by these two dwarfs the entire pre-WWII world. How is that surprising?

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Ok then your reference to the Gandhi family didn't make sense in the first place.
    Maybe it's an outsider looking in but why is BIA history erased from your history books and INA history twisted to support a myth? Who had the power to do so?

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Bose was not gonna let Japanese rule India either. Japan was a means to an end.
    Oh come on, Hitesh! You mean to tell me that a man who is incapable of ruling two small islands from the Japanese, got played around by the Japanese (if we take that he was deliberately mislead during his tour of the two islands) was going to stop the Japanese from accidenting him off? If nothing else, don't you think even just observing the GC for Indian POWs not wanting to join the INA would have done wonders.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    No Bose was not that willing to do as you suggested.
    History proved otherwise.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    As for the Japanese atrocities, let me bring up the Bengal famine. The British killed a lot more Indians than the Japanese ever could hope for and don't tell me that this was a mismanagement policy issue. That is bullshit. They very well knew what was going on and did it anyway. Again it goes to my original point in the very beginning which you have so obliquely ignored.
    No, you are ignoring the historic facts. The Bengal Famine has been well studied by Indian historians. There were three contributing factors. Two of which the British had no control over. The British took the surplus stock the year before the famine (that is their fault and no one can deny that). They lost Burma and their rice fields (no one predicted such Japanese military superiority) and the Monsoon that wiped out that year's harvest. Yes, you are absolutely right that had the Brits not taken the surplus stock the year before, there would not have been a famine but you cannot blame the monsoon and the lost of Burma on the British.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    BIA chose the lesser evil out of two evils. Bose thought that the Japanese was the lesser of two evils considering that the British has killed and tortured far more Indians than Japanese ever did. Bose didn't see that at the end of the war India could be free of British. But WW2 BIA did after Gandhi and Congress promised them that there would be an independent India very soon.
    Cripps was the writing on the wall. Bose didn't see it.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Why did Gandhi and Congress allow the British Crown to kill off 6 million Bengalis with its grossly negligent management policies?
    Explain to me how Gandhi and Congress saw the loss of Burma and the monsoon?

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    It is the splitting of hairs that you engage in that leads me to question your sincerity of your arguments. I am sorry but the Indians were not British subjects. They were occupied by the British and therefore an occupied population. If you want to make that argument, I can make the dubious and flimsy equivalent argument that those subjects were German subjects because Germany annexed those territories and any subjects found therein automatically became citizens of Germany, i.e., not an occupied population and therefore not war crimes and crimes against humanity.
    India inherited everything from the British Indian Empire. Her borders. Her subjects. Her laws. Her Parliament. Her treaties. They were NOT an occupied people. Otherwise, India would and should have erased EVERYTHING from British India. This was NOT Vichy France where everything the Vichy government did was tossed out the window. You might had an arguement had India did a violent revolt but she didn't. She gained her independence through law. British law. And hence, those laws were recognized as the legal basis for her independence. Otherwise, her independence would not have been legal unless clearly defined by force which it wasn't.

    Sorry, the historic facts are against you.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Your attempts of alleviating and differentiating British actions and atrocities from war crimes is not going to persuade me anything further.
    They're not my attempts. They're the reading of the facts. Here is another fact for you. Not all British India shared the same view of Bose. Pakistan certainly don't.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 19 Jan 15,, 23:26.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X