China would have taken it back long ago by now. It was not defensible anyway.
We’re not counting France or the Soviet Union as “siding with the British”, then?
I think you need to distinguish between British colonies which were systematically settled to the displacement of the indigenous people, and those which were merely occupied. The former tend to align with the UK and, in the past at any rate, to support it militarily; the latter, not at all. And the latter group is much more numerous and (thanks to India) much more populous.
Oh, there’s an enduring cultural influence, certainly. But as a political and military entity, the Empire has declined to basically nothing.
we’re not counting them as descendants of the British Empire. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
India sided with the Allies. Again, I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
England’s influence and power in WW-II was pivotal in holding Germany off before a heavily weighted coalition of it’s former colonies could intercede. And the NATO alliance that followed was also weighted heavily by former colonies.
The whole point of my post was to say that the British Empire exists today in the form of a coalition of ex-colonies.
And for the record, Russia originally sided with Germany. they secretly helped with tanks and were going to divide Poland up between them. They were partners of convenience with the Allies AFTER Germany invaded them in 1941.
India sided with the allies”…excuse me India had no choice in the matter, it was a fucking colony*, War was declared by the Viceroy (a man by the name of Vicount Linlithgow, such an Indian name :rolleyes: ) without consulting any local, and it led to a big internal security problem and political deadlock.
*I’ll ignore India’s constitutional status in 1939, which was very much in flux.
Not if Churchill had his way. Real reason he was on the backbenches in the late 30’s, was his opposition to the Government of India Act 1935, as opposed to his fight against German rearmament, which although a minority stance, had some significant support.
Never gets mentioned for some reason.:rolleyes:
I disagree they had no choice in the matter. It would have been a perfect time to side with German. They were on the other side of the world and planning on separating from England.
My point is that what happened in 1939 isn’t really a good way to measure the enduring effects of the Empire. India, as has already been pointed out, had no choice in the matter; it was governed colonially, and could make no autonomous decision on the point. Similarly for all the other colonies.
The Dominions had sufficient independence to make their own decisions about this, but for the most part they were societies dominated by a white settler population, in which the indigenous population had limited or no political power. (It’s not a coincidence that this characteristic was shared by the colonies that first graduated to dominion status.) The only Dominion of which was not true - Ireland - is also the only Dominion which did not fight alongside the British. Again, not a coincidence.
The great bulk of the empire consisted of colonies which were not dominated numerically or, after independence, politically by white settlers. They were never likely, once given any say in the matter, to align with the UK politically or militarily, and for the most part they haven’t. The UK did hope, at the time of Indian independence, that it would continue to be able to call on India’s military capacity, and the modern Commonwealth in which republics can participate was more or less invented as the vehicle through which this might be done. But’s a hope that evaporated pretty quickly. And nobody nowadays thinks that, e.g., Canada or Australia would feel an obligation to fight alongside the UK in a war in which their own interests were not at stake. The historical period in which former colonies would align with the UK was a short one, only prevailed while “former colonies” meant white settler-dominated societies, and is now over.
The issue here is, who are “they”? The “they” that had the legal and practical power to decide for India was the established colonial/settler regime as defined by the Government of India Acts passed at Westminster. The “they” that could be deemed representative of all Indians had only limited status and power in that system, and primarily in provincial and local government: they had no route to having much influence on that decision, protest as they might.
Some nationalists did try to get support from Germany for an armed uprising, but geography was hardly in their favour, and Nazi racial attitudes would have been an obstacle. They had some more success with the Japanese once they entered the war, but the primary nationalist drive was towards Gandhi’s civil disobedience campaigns. Gandhi himself did try writing to Hitler to encourage him towards non-violence, with the predictable non-result.
One of the leaders of Indian Independence was rather keen on kicking out the British with the help of the Axis powers.
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose
A friend of Mussolini, Hitler and Japan. He liked uniforms and parades.
He is still regarded as a great patriotic hero in Indian nationalist circles.
He disappeared under mysterious circumstances that are the subject of many conspiracy theories,
The leaders of Indian Independence were a rather mixed bunch who did share a common vision of how India should look after the British. That led to some difficult times.
I get your point but the “they” was the person “volunteered” for duty. It’s dangerous to give thousands of people you rule over using the same guns a uniform and a key to the armory. Imagine if a handful of commanders decided their future goals were better served by the Germans.
In the Indian theatre the UK’s enemy was not Germany but Japan. There was an Indian force formed to fight against the UK with the Japanese - the Indian National Army. It didn’t have a signficant military influence on the course of the war, but it did cause concern to the British about the reliablity and loyalty of their own British Indian Army.
There was little chance of “a handful of commanders” deciding to throw their lot in with the Axis; Indians were only granted junior commissions in the British Indian Army (and only a tiny minority even of those). The officer class was overwhelmingly British, and British officers filled all command positions. Concern was not about defection of units under their commanders but about low morale, passive resistance and/or unreliablity among enlisted men, etc.
Churchill mentions in The Second World War the Indian Army fighting the Japanese, but I find no mention of the National Indian Army.
Hardly surprising. It wouldn’t fit his romantic view of the Empire.
I thought you would have far more nasty things to say of Churchill. He was particularly opposed to the tradition of burning the wife alive at a funeral.
I’m reading Truman’s 1945 Year of Decision, and Truman seems to be a trusting babe in arms concerning Stalin, expecting him to play fair, while Churchill urges him to confront Stalin about Russia occupying Poland, and Yugoslavia occupying part of Italy.
There is much to be said about him, given his lengthy career, some notable misjudgements and attitudes reflecting his Victorian upbringing - and in this context, I wouldn’t assume his history of the Second World War was a dispassionate and comprehensive overview; but I was simply addressing one specific point.
He always seems to be the guy in the right.
I’m also reading Truman’s 1945. Truman wants to get along with Stalin, while Churchill warns him about Stalin’s efforts to keep Poland, and Tito’s trying to grab part of Italy.
As I’ve said before when people bring up the issue of Potsdam, we have to remember that the war was still being fought when it occurred. Nobody knew that Japan was about to surrender. If the atomic bombs hadn’t forced a surrender, there would have been an invasion. And getting Soviet participation was seen as the important issue at Potsdam. Truman was willing to make symbolic concessions over Poland in exchange for holding Stalin to his agreement to declare war on Japan.
For what it is worth, Churchill new about “tubes alloy” whereas Truman did not know about the Manhattan Project.
For certain values of “always”. We have to disregard his policy on India, his policy on Ireland, his involvement in the Gallipoli campaign, his stance on women’s suffrage, his decision to return the UK to the gold standard in 1924, his opposition to decolonisation after the war, and much more besides.