I think we might owe you guys some $$S's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm
world war 2
Sort:
Feb 21, 2008
0
#63
I think this forum topic has become some sort of political debate. Is it really okay for this kind of topics be discussed?
Feb 21, 2008
0
#64
nerdie wrote:
I think this forum topic has become some sort of political debate. Is it really okay for this kind of topics be discussed?
That's the problem with relatively recent history, it will always have an impact on today. History is generally bound up with politics so is the ban on politics also a ban on discussing history? I guess that provided the discussion doesn't become a real political debate (or slanging match) then history is OK. If anything involving politics in any form is banned then we would not be able to talk about some of the Soviet era world champions!
Ned63 wrote: calvinhobbesliker wrote: ajachi wrote: Okay, if all you Yanks and Brits are done, here's how we were affected. When the war began, we were promised independence by the Brits after the war. Lord Linlithgow went and declared that we were belligerents on the side of the Allies, even without consulting us. Most Indians were against Fascism, but our independence was more important to us. Indian soldiers in the British Indian Army were shipped off to fight someone else's war. Of course, we had people like Subhash Chandra Bose, who realised the maxim that an enemy's enemy is a friend, and escaped to Germany to get help from Hitler, where he got the cold shoulder. He then went to Japan, who were more helpful, and aided the Indian National Army in the Arakkan Campaign, which would have succeeded, but for Truman's bomb. the Yanks were, of course, against us, and the promise of independence was soon forgotten by the Brits, but we fought on and got our freedom nonetheless.
i am indian also, and i know that the British gave up india only because they were weakened by the war. unfortunately, my dad says that he hates england. He thinks that they were mean to india, and i told him that the allies saved india from being invaded by japs, and he asked whether japs would've been nicer than the british
Calvin,
It is worth noting that Subhash Chandra Bose tried hooking up with Hitler and then, after being turned down, he hooked up with the Japanese and fought against the British!
I am not India bashing here, just stating a fact. Personally, I love India and have been several times - both for vacation and work.
I'm sorry your Dad hates England. Fortunatly, not everyone is like your dad and, despite any historical grievances, large parts of the world have moved on and made progress.
i take no offense if you offend india. i like the USA better anyway
I was under the impression that Gandhi was in favour of India continuing with the war and that an agreement had been reached for independance after the war. Sure there were reactionaries in Britain that wanted to renage on it and in particular Churchill but most people would agree that 1947 seems prity close to its end. Nehru and Gandhi I'm sure realised that Japan would have been a far worse task master than Britain ever was and would peaked over the Himalayas to see what was happening in China to confirm that.
As for Bose well every country needs its romantic heros but why Bose? He achieved nothing. Far beter to think of the tens of thousands of brave Indian solidiers that faught with Britain and the other allies to overcome fasism. As for hating the British well history is history, I guess for a long time people in Europe hated the Romans and now clamer to find a connection with them. There is good and bad in every system but I guess India as it is now is because of the british connection and history will prove it so. India and other countries will realise this in the cenuries to come as we will all be glad that the USA has kept the world in some sort of order since 1945
well from what i here finland didnt do too much mayb delt with the russians somewere
btw finland joined the axis side bc they figured they would be more likely to survive the war not bc of political views
Let's have some biscuits instead of all this chat!...where's the tea!
Sharukin wrote: calvinhobbesliker wrote: what's wrong with an american perspective?
Absolutely nothing provided that perspective actually reflects the truth of the matter.
It is often thought by Americans that they "saved" the rest of the world and won the war single handedly. That may well be true in the Pacific where the USA did indeed shoulder the largest part of the burden. However, it has to be remembered that Japan was responding to what it perceived to be US aggression. Right or wrong, the Japanese considered the USA to be responsible for the attack on Pearl harbour while the USA considered that the sanctions it had imposed were intended to help China.
More controversial (and annoying for Europeans) is the view that the USA came to Europe and saved us from the Germans. This may come as a bit of a shock to you but Germany went to war with the USA, the USA did not come to Europe to save us as protector of freedom or some such nonsense. In fact there is good reason to believe that if Hitler had not been stupid enough to declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbour the USA would not have become involved in Europe at all. The USA rendered invaluable aid to us Europeans and we are very grateful but we had already been fighting for over two years before your troops arrived.
The other part that is often hard for Americans to understand is that in the end the contribution of Britain, the USA and many other nations was largely irrelevant in Europe compared to the Soviet contribution. If Russia (the USSR only really started fighting back effectively when Stalin sidelined communist ideals and turned the war into a fight to save Mother Russia) had fought on her own then Germany would have been defeated but it would have taken longer. In effect, we in Britain delayed Hitler's attack on the USSR and the allies (Britain, USA etc.) then shortened the war in Europe, we did not win it. The honour of victory in Europe must go to the Russian people.
So two victors in WWII. The USA in the Pacific and the USSR in Europe.
if hitler had not been stupid enough to invade the soviet union, they sill would have had peace with germany
calvinhobbesliker wrote: Ned63 wrote: calvinhobbesliker wrote: ajachi wrote: Okay, if all you Yanks and Brits are done, here's how we were affected. When the war began, we were promised independence by the Brits after the war. Lord Linlithgow went and declared that we were belligerents on the side of the Allies, even without consulting us. Most Indians were against Fascism, but our independence was more important to us. Indian soldiers in the British Indian Army were shipped off to fight someone else's war. Of course, we had people like Subhash Chandra Bose, who realised the maxim that an enemy's enemy is a friend, and escaped to Germany to get help from Hitler, where he got the cold shoulder. He then went to Japan, who were more helpful, and aided the Indian National Army in the Arakkan Campaign, which would have succeeded, but for Truman's bomb. the Yanks were, of course, against us, and the promise of independence was soon forgotten by the Brits, but we fought on and got our freedom nonetheless.
i am indian also, and i know that the British gave up india only because they were weakened by the war. unfortunately, my dad says that he hates england. He thinks that they were mean to india, and i told him that the allies saved india from being invaded by japs, and he asked whether japs would've been nicer than the british
Calvin,
It is worth noting that Subhash Chandra Bose tried hooking up with Hitler and then, after being turned down, he hooked up with the Japanese and fought against the British!
I am not India bashing here, just stating a fact. Personally, I love India and have been several times - both for vacation and work.
I'm sorry your Dad hates England. Fortunatly, not everyone is like your dad and, despite any historical grievances, large parts of the world have moved on and made progress.
i take no offense if you offend india. i like the USA better anyway
I love it how everyone insults India, and then, oh-so-gently goes all politically correct and says how much they actually loves the country. And how expat Indians love the US. Don't worry I'm not offended (not that my being offended would have made any difference).
Your eloquently stated fact is, by all means, correct. Subhash Bose himself said that to liberate India, he was willing to join the devil. And Hitler was still a step short of old man Lucifer. But that is not an indictment of the country. I'd like to see any other country react to 200 years of colonisation any differently.
Somebody - and I think it was you, Ned - said that us getting independence was a promise kept. The Brits tried to welch out of it, but the naval mutiny and the success of the Quit India Movement made sure. Anyways, they left us with their time-tested formula of partition, which left a million dead and two countries which would fight four wars.
Calvin, you say that the Allies saved India from the Japs. Do you realise that the Japs were actually helping the Indian National Army in their struggle to liberate India? Bose's army was the first to liberate any part of India, and the Japanese couldn't have colonised India as they had another war to fight. And anyway, we wouldn't have let them.
All in all, World War II was just another situation that the British tried to use to their advantage in a desperate bid to keep India. Only this time, they failed.
Feb 22, 2008
0
#71
I am beginning to think that a ban on discussing all history (not just recent history) as well as politics and religion would be a good thing. It is just about impossible to find a part of history which does not relate to the politics (and therefore cause arguments) of some part of the world. I list here a few examples:
The current row over Kosovo has its roots in the fourteenth century, possibly even earlier. So we shouldn't discuss Medieval (possibly even Roman) history of the Balkans.
The current situation regarding Israel has its roots in a text which supposedly originates with god himself and may have been written 3500 years ago! If we discuss the ancient history of that region, including Egypt, Assyria, Babylon etc then we inevitably discuss matters which have a bearing on the political and religious strife in that region today.
Because it is causing some argument in this thread I will use India as my last example. The British perpetuated the rule of the crumbling Mogul Empire, they were not a new phenomenon in India, but if it hadn't been the British it would likely have been the French. In effect, India has been struggling against outisde rule with varying degrees of success since before the time of Alexander the Great! Hopefully the current state of independence will continue but I shouldn't say that, it is politics.
I don't think we can actually discuss anything of any worth in these forums without touching on some form of politics or religion. I have even seen the Najdorf described as a religion!
psihrishi wrote:
... Even the Kohinoor Diamond At London belongs to us!!
Good luck in getting your diamond back!!
HA HA 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II#India if you look at this link and click INDIA on the menu, it says that indians fought for the british, the japanese, and the nazi. apperently, this was a very divided country
if you don't have arguements, then what's the point of a discussion?
psihrishi wrote:
Well Said Ajachi!! Thast How a True Indian Speaks!! Thats what the World Needs To Know.. Somebody even spoke that What India is today is because of the Brits.. What a non-sense? Infact, It should be taken into account that, The Brits took a lot of wealth from India itself, just in the name of East India Company, just fooling the then innocent people of India. Heavy land taxes, on our own land. Shamefull act!! Even the Kohinoor Diamond At London belongs to us!!
India has always been a peaceful nation. Look at our position Now.. We are the only peaceful Nuclear Power! All other Nuclear powers are involved in some activities, which is not meant for them..
I asked earlier, that this forum will evoke nationalism and create a mess!! But who Listens!! And why should I now!!
i'm sure many americans know how you feel as america was similarly ruled by england before the outnumbered continental army beat the british redcoat army in the american revolution
psihrishi wrote: Thast a good Idea .. Miss Anabelle!! Will you like to have some coffee with me, with those biscuits?
ENJOY!
It is really sad how these supposidly confident new nations blame all and sundry for their situation be it good or bad. India as a nation didn't exist until it was united under british rule. As for the American revolution, it took place during what could be claimed the real first world war. When Britain a global war against lets see ummm the french, spanish and dutchand those bags woods ungreatful colonials in new england. America was thought of as somewhat of backwater at the time and it was fealt far more important to defend the caribean than new england. If it hadn't been for the french then you would be still singing god save the queen over there.
Feb 22, 2008
0
#79
ThomasK wrote:
It is really sad how these supposidly confident new nations blame all and sundry for their situation be it good or bad. India as a nation didn't exist until it was united under british rule. As for the American revolution, it took place during what could be claimed the real first world war. When Britain a global war against lets see ummm the french, spanish and dutchand those bags woods ungreatful colonials in new england. America was thought of as somewhat of backwater at the time and it was fealt far more important to defend the caribean than new england. If it hadn't been for the french then you would be still singing god save the queen over there.
What you say may be true about America but it is not the case that India was united by the British. Britain never ruled the entirety of India and many states retained various degrees of independence until India came into existence as a nation state in 1947. It could be argued that India is actually still less united than under the rule of Aurangzeb or Ashoka since there are actually five separate nations within the Indian subcontinent today.
Sure it took time for the British to take over India by playing off once indian prince against another; the old stratagy of divide and rule. Sure there were quasi- independant states within British India, but who called the shots? and what was the consequence for anyone of them if they stood up against British rule? It was united by force and deplomacy a combination that the British were past masters at. It is interesting to note that too, that prior to British involvment most of India was ruled by the descendants of Genghis Khan and was in terminal decline with the death of Aurangzeb in the early 18th century.
'Yanks'....over-paided...over-sexed....and over here !
I think that was the expression during WW2 in England !
True,
my Grandma loved it!!