I pose a hypothetical of what would of happened, if the UK had granted India independence in 1935 rather than in 1947? What ramifications would it have on World War two and Britains’ strategic situation?
Probably not much. AFAIK India had very little impact on WWII as it was. An independent India would have probably sought to be neutral and succeeded. Then WWII would proceed as it currently did.
Not much.
Quite frankly India didn’t matter much to the war. Japan had some half-baked designs on India, but it wasn’t the major thrust of their campaigns. A 1937 independence would have seen India remain under British aegis. Relations between India and England have always remained fairly cordial, so anyone making a move against India would still have provoked whatever Commonwealth defence could be spared.
But quite frankly the defence of India was as sad as the Japanese attempts to invade. England was forced to desert Australia to Japanese designs through lack of options, and Australia was a nation of English speaking, western European British citizens that was making considerable contribution to the war in terms of food, raw materials, strategic bases and so forth. England simply didn’t have the will or the capacity to mount any serious defence of India. So the situation WRT a Japanese invasion would have remained unchanged: a half hearted effort by both sides.
So the only real consideration is whether an independent India might have sided with the Axis. That’s very unlikely for a number of reasons.
As noted, India had good relations with England and wanted to retain good relations with the west.
Indian politics have a strong socialist influence, and they have since day one. Socialists aren’t noted for entering into alliances with fascists.
Indians wanted independence in order to establish their own working democracy free of foreign influence. It’s implausible they would decide to throw in their lot with a foreign dictatorship hell bent on conquest. IOW, why would India struggle for independence from Britain just to become a vassal state of Japan or Germany? This is compounded because…
The Axis powers were racist psychopaths who slaughtered the “inferior” inhabitants of the lands they controlled. Indians are not exactly Aryans (yeah, yeah, I know) and the Japanese were prepared to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Chinese, Malaysians and Koreans because they were racially inferior. Neither were likely to entertain a peaceful alliance with India. The only way I could see that happening is if they duped the Indians into an alliance and then used troops stationed int he country to take control. It’s unlikely India would be stupid enough to fall for that, or that the troops could be wasted to achieve such a feat.
So India gains independence, almost certainly declares neutrality and Japan makes a half-arsed try at invasion. Same outcome regardless.
India had a pretty major impact in the war against Japan. Operations in Burma involved entire corps of Indian troops fighting, stopping, and finally advancing against the Japanese army alongside British units.
Even in Europe, the British relied on several divisions of the Indian army in Italy, and on smaller formations in North Africa before that.
I was under the impression that the 2 million Indian volunteer units were integral in British operations in the Middle East (El Alamein, Tobruk) and in Italy.
I was under the impression that if the British gave India independence earlier, it would free up British resources for a more robust response against the Axis powers elsewhere, considering there wouldn’t be a major garrison of troops to defend India, plus it wouldn’t bankcrupt England as much considering the major drain on resources having India had become.
The Indian Army played a significant rolein WW2 in both Burma and North Africa. An independent India would not have sided with the Axis but they would probably have remained neutral. At most they would have defended North East India against a possible Japanese attack but it’s highly unlikely they would have contributed troops to fight in North Africa and Allied progress would have been slower perhaps much slower.
It’s also likely that an Indian government would have averted the Bengal famine which killed millions partly because of sheer negligence on the part of the British government. Major famines were chronic in British India but have never occurred after independence.
on a sidenote I think the Green revolution had a part to play in that.
Well the green revolution happened in the 60’s and 70’s. India had severe droughts in the years before that but the democratic government made averting a general famine a top priority and largely succeeded.
In what circumstances could India have become ‘independent’? A violent rebellion? The limited self-government and Dominion status which the British were proposing and arguing about in the '30s? The former would have been seen as a disaster for British Imperial policy, a bigger one than the end which eventually came for British rule. An Indian Dominion which stood aside from the war would have been seen as disloyal and ungrateful, an Irish Free State writ large. British-Indian relations would have been poisoned for decades afterwards, if the British Empire had survived. India would have been in little condition to resist Japanese demands for bases, any more than French Indo-China, and the fall of Australia seems inevitable.
I don’t think so, besides, after the war the India split into republics anyway and were not seeking ‘dominion’ status but full blown independence.
This hypothetical would have a situation which followed in 1947, just 12 years earlier, no violent rebellion, just a withdrawal of British forces and the creation of Pakistan and India and normal diplomatic relations.
If India is given independence earlier why would the Japanese press for bases? In all they would most certainly remain neutral.
I for one don’t see the fall of Australia as something which would automatically happen, in fact, due to the British being able to free up resources from granting India independence, it is able to be more effective in defending Australia and New Zealand from the Japanese.
How would that make them more effective? Two and a half million people fought in the Indian Army in World War II. How would not having those troops make the British army more effective?
Why are we assuming they wouldn’t volunteer anyway? Canada and Australia volunteered numerous troops, and they got independence long before 1935.
Because the garrison in India which numbered around 250,000 troops wouldn’t be needed there and could be used in other theaters, not to mention the saving of resources which could be used to defeat the Axis.
The Briitish would have lost the tax revenue that they obtained from their rule of India. It’s unlikely that the Indian government would have allowed their citizens to volunteer in mass for the British Army and how would the British have paid for them anyway? They would have also lost the benefit of India as a staging point for military operations through Burma.
How many of that 250,000 garrison were British citizens? Most of them were probably Indians who would have become part of the new Indian army.Canada and Australia declared war on the Axis. We’re assuming in this thread that India is going to try to stay neutral.
Eh? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
What do you mean by “Indian Independence”. Dose it mean that the entire sub-continent (including Burma at the time) becomes a Republic? That would never happen.
Dominion status like the rest? It depends on what kind of transfer of power is effected. If they try a unitary state like say New Zealand or a strong central state then you have big problems as many of the Western provinces (present day Pakistan) have zero interest in that. You will have a civil war in about a month. So in this case India is in no position to do anything.
If you have a weak confederation; then probably the Central Government supports the war with the provinces going along; to various extents; the war is more popular in the West and the east and rather less so in Central India.
You don’t know anything at all then. 2.5 million men (paid for by Indian revenue) food (causing the Bengal famine) raw materials as well as small arms, light weapons and even frigates.
National-Socialists dont count. They cant jump either.
I’m sorry - even if we allow that we should be able to count the Soviets as socialist, right?
Not unless you’re American and cant/wont differentiate between Socialists and Communists.