The narrative that soldiers from (French, British etc.) colonies fought for freedom/democracy or against Fascism is nothing short of glorifying the colonialism. Those soldiers were used to preserve the colonial empires. At that point the empires were threatened by the Axis Powers and colonial soldiers had to fight against them. Just as they (Indian) were used to fight in Afghanistan, Iran, Oman and Kenya; against ethnic groups unwilling to accept British occupation or dominance.
Fighting the Axis Power didnât win them any bargain power with regards to their independence. Most of you will find it utterly unsavory, but the Axis Power did the colonies a huge favor as it drained the British & French so hard that they didnât have the resources to fight and preserve the colonies.
I donât think there was conscription of colonial soldiers was there?
2 Likes
Sorry but I totally disagree - The Nazis had to be stopped - nothing else mattered - whether people were under colonial rule or not - everything else was and is secondary to stopping those bastards.Nobody in their right mind supports colonialism today but at that time colonialism was a force in the world like it or not. Commanding colonial forces to fight the Nazis was the right and justified thing to do. Thank everything good in the world that those people stepped up and fought alongside the Allied forces.
4 Likes
It definitely did for some, less for others. Equally, in the case of India, the fact that there were some 2 million Indian soldiers was a serious element in British thinking about finally yielding independence. The bargaining power just wasnât in the form of some honourable debt, which perhaps it should have been.
2 Likes
The entire point is that European troops from European countries, fought for democracy. To claim that troops from Hindukush fought for democracy in Europe is preposterous, idiotic, insensitive and categorically wrong. Troops from Hindukush were professional, had it as a job, but in no way in any universe is it correct to say that they were motivated by some abstract notion to save Europen democracies. Is is simply categorically false except in maybe an extremely few novel cases and this isnât really up for debate.
I know she is talking to British people and that she means well, but she must still consider history.
As for Iftikar, incidentally he is from the Hindukush, so he is allowed to have a say.
None of the Indian guys I have studied with would look at that message without shaking their heads.
Again, European troops from European countries, many of them were motivated by a sense of fighting Fascism on behalf of democracies. Imperial auxiliary troops from Hindukush certainly had no such motivation and this shouldnât be controversial at all.
And thatâs all I am going to say. If you canât see that her message is stupid and ahistorical then you canât see it.
As for what it is worth, I donât care about colonialism or glorifying etc., just about history and motivation.
I donât think that is true. There is plenty of documented cases where people from the colonies signed up to fight under the belief that it was for more than simply the continuation of colonialism.
I think few who talk up the involvement of the colonies seek to glorify colonialism - usually it is the opposite. Supporters of the British Empire always talk about the role played by the British, not of the colonies in these conflicts.
4 Likes
Whether or not they were fighting with the personal motivation to defend democratic governments from fascism is actually irrelevant. That is what they were fighting for. FFS, one of my grandfathers was in Europe from 1940 to 1946, but his narrative as to why he joined up was for a job that was not going to bore him out of his mind. The Indian soldiers likely had similar motivations, the fact they did not muster out to a democracy they had defended takes absolutely nothing away from their sacrifice or the debt owed by the Western democracies for it. It simply makes the colonial fact incrementally more disgraceful.
Note - Iftikhar is actually from the opposite side of the subcontinent from the Hindukush. It is kind of like saying you live in Moscow.
2 Likes
âThree British beachesââŚthough I think my favourite erasure might be the headline âBritish forces hold Japs on Kokodaâ that the AP bureau in London ran. An Australian Thermopylae, and they were not even given that recognition.
1 Like
Wherever heâs from nobodyâs denying him or anyone a voice, nor would they try to (I hope). I donât personally think that Abbott was pretending that fighting for democracy was the only motivation or even that it formed part of the thinking for every soldier, wherever they were from. Itâs a tweet. It needs to be considered in the context of 280 characters and the point she was trying to make; the preciousness of democracy and recognising ALL the people who have given their lives to defend it, whether that was the justification of each and every individual or not.
4 Likes
I am not talking about their sacrifice, it is similarly great and the debt is of course great, not talking about that at all; I was talking about motivation, why they went to war. That they incidentally fought to save European democracies isnât the point.
Point taken about Hindukush and me making that subcontinent a lot larger than it really is.
Yeah, maybe I am making this into a far bigger thing than I should, criticism taken onboard. I just found the wording completely idiotic and ahistorical. But you are right in that it is a tweet.
If weâre trying to hone in on the principal motivation for the majority of colonial soldiers joining the allied war effort then itâs going to be money. Doesnât quite have the same sense of righteous zeal about it though.
2 Likes
Right, but you are criticising Abbott for recognizing a moral debt. That does not rest on their motivations for doing so. Many colonial soldiers laid down their lives, often in some of the worst circumstances of World War 2, fighting in defence of British democracy. Whether or not they were professionals, or motivated by money, etc., does not change that basic fact. You were talking about motivation, which is not really relevant.
4 Likes
That was exactly what I was honing in on. I found it to be bluster and much too simplistic as well as ahistorical. If one wants to look at the systemic stuff, then one could have a conversation as to why soldiering for colonial troops was a job with opportunities, why such opportunities did not exist elsewhere in the colonies and so on, but to invoke abstract notions as the defense of European democracies is pretty stupid and euro-centric.
Anyway, probably not very important and I probably started a conversation that isnât a big deal.
I thought motivation was what was relevant, because motivation was how I read it. I honestly think motivation is how many reads it as.
As for criticising Abbot for recognicing a moral debt, no, I am not, wasnât on my mind.
1 Like
Anyway, regret posting it. Wasnât a big deal. I saw it thought, wow, what a-historical messaging. If she wanted to thank them for saving European democracies, she should have worded it much better I thought, because in her post it looks like she is giving them a motive they most probably didnât have, except in a very few novel cases.
But no big deal, I think Indians would just chuckle at it, so it is not as if she is insulting someone for real. I shouldnât have posted it, it is meta discussion really and no big deal. Still looks odd and wrong to me, but then again, many things are odd to me and not all of it deserves a long debate.
1 Like
@Kopstar Conscripts or not, the soldiers didnât have a choice. They had to fight wherever they were sent to. Isnât it same today! Once you are in the army, you donât get to pick your battle.
@BigJon Why!!! Because the Axis Powers were threatening the Allied Powers, in their own backyard!!! Do you have any idea what legacies the British, French, Belgian etc. left in their colonies! What the Fascists were to the Europeans, the Europeans were same to their respective colonies.
@Arminius Not really. The British didnât have the resources to fight and save their colonies. The French tried (in Indochina and Africa) and wasted more lives and resources. Fighting for the Allied Powers didnât help bring independence to the colonies.
1 Like
My point was that, afaik, civilians in the colonies werenât forced to join the army in the first place (unlike in Britain).
2 Likes
You are right. British Imperial Army was a professional organization much like todayâs armed forces.
I think that varies tremendously across all of the colonies. In Africa, I would simply say âyes, it didnâtâ. In India, it did, but not directly - there was just a gradual realization in British government that India was now manifestly far too big to govern, it was simply beyond their capacity. In the Caribbean, there was a direct connection.
As always, the colonies with a greater white population came off better.
3 Likes