There has been a temptation in recent years to overplay the Eastern Front and downplay the western one, simply because of the scale of casualties involved.

In addition, there has been a lack of appreciation for British power at the time, the view - critical for political reasons at the time - that poor little Britain was alone against mighty Germany is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Yes, Germany's army was extremely powerful, as you'd expect from a major military power located in the centre of a landmass. But Britain, as a maritime nation, simply didn't require a powerful standing army. But the Royal Navy controlled the oceans, limiting Germany's sphere of influence to the continent in exactly the same way as it had to Napoleon more than a century earlier.

In addition, the myth of the "Few" at the Battle of Britain is just wrong. At no point did the RAF fight on anything worse than even terms, and the rate of production soon meant that the British began to dramatically outnumber the Luftwaffe.

It was never possible for Germany to invade Britain, it just couldn't be done when faced with an opponent over whom they were never going to win air supremacy, and against whom they were naval weaklings.

Getting into a war with Britain was just as disastrous a decision as fighting the Soviet Union, and the ultimate and inevitable entry of the United States was always going to condemn them to defeat.

However, the comment that Britain provided the US with an "aircraft carrier" is a common misappreciation of the power of Britain at the time. Only in the very final months of the war was Britain anything other than an equal partner. Take the D Day landings, yes, US troops formed the largest contingent, but first they had to get there. Twelve hundred warships covered the landings, and of those nearly 1,000 were Royal Navy. Think on that and what it means - it was the British who enabled the landings to be made, not the Americans. It was then the Americans who enabled the push across Europe.

Casualty figures on the Eastern Front are impressive and horrific, but such vastness shouldn't blind anyone to the strategic reality of how the war was won. The Russians were only able to prosecute that war because of the convoys of materiel provided by British and Americans on the Murmansk run - something the Soviet Union never remotely appeared grateful for, and which Russia has only recently acknowledged. But it is true that Britain and America were the ones who created the circumstances for war on the Eastern Front to be waged, and prevented Soviet defeat.

And the Soviets were fighting a war on one front, remember. Britain and the US were fighting on several, against both Germany and Japan, as well as a global naval conflict.

It is not the first time that people too often look at land campaigns to the exclusion of the strategic reality. Napoleon even made the same disastrous mistake in the early 19th century, by concentrating on land matters when it was the Royal Navy's blockade that ultimately condemned him to defeat.

Quoting Banco (Reply 100): by concentrating on land matters when it was the Royal Navy's blockade that ultimately condemned him to defeat.

Good post Banko and excellent points for sure. No way do I want to take away from Britain's efforts and some do take it that way. Your correct that Britain was fighting a land war in the Pacific and the recourse's and logistics needed their were immense.

I guess I look at the war in Europe this simplified way .... Britain provided the Navy , the US provided the Air Force and the Russians provided the boots. I realize that Britain's Air Force was powerful and deadly but their Naval power was important.

This is a broad general statement but as a overall allied effort does it not seem that it kind of worked out that way ?

Another point .... Do you think Britain and its allies could have defeated Germany if Hitler had not invaded Russia.. I just imagine a invasion of Europe by the allies with Germany having 150 more divisions to counter with.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 90): Well I am going shopping today for the book by Anthony Beevor.. "Stalingrad" The book is simply awsome for detail and critical statagy effects. I read it when it first came out , need to read it again. Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor a must read if you are into the subject.

Indeed, thats the best book about the battle. Objective, well written, comprehensive without being picky. Only the picture part is a bit poor.
I read it earlier this year, in about two weeks. Says a lot about such a thick book.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 90): With some estimate nearly 5 million Germans , KIA,MIA , Captured or WIA .. I will say the eastern front simply destroyed the German army. It was a huge mistake by Hitler and a amazing defence and counter by the Russians. I hope their is never another one like it.

God beware anything like this will be repeated.
Sure it was Hitlers big mistake to attack Russia with the UK stubbornly resisting still. But if "Barbarossa" would have started a month earlier, as planned, the Army Group Center would have reached Moscow before the winter. And then Stalin would have probably surrendered on terms. And still, superior US armament and supply could have won the war, although at considerably higher cost for the Western Allies (and, highly likely, a nuclear attack on Germany). On the other hand the destruction of the Stalin Regime, the worst dictatorship ever besides Hitler, would have saved us the Cold war, the nuclear arms race, the oppression of Eastern Europe, Korea war, Vietnam...

Quoting NA (Reply 102): On the other hand the destruction of the Stalin Regime, the worst dictatorship ever besides Hitler, would have saved us the Cold war, the nuclear arms race, the oppression of Eastern Europe, Korea war, Vietnam...

It is debatable that if German regular army generals would have been able to stop the SS from killing and burning everything that the population may have welcomed them. The war crimes committed against the indigenous people during Barbarossa back lashed on Germany and lead to the defeat.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 101): Another point .... Do you think Britain and its allies could have defeated Germany if Hitler had not invaded Russia.. I just imagine a invasion of Europe by the allies with Germany having 150 more divisions to counter with.

Best not to ask that question AGM100. Does that help?

Not only 150 more divisions, 150 more that had not been chewed up and spat out by the Russians.

Ironically too, the blockade would have mattered a lot less if he had not invaded Russia.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 101): Another point .... Do you think Britain and its allies could have defeated Germany if Hitler had not invaded Russia.. I just imagine a invasion of Europe by the allies with Germany having 150 more divisions to counter with.

It seems highly unlikely, doesn't it? The whole thing is a series of how impossible it would have been without one element or another. I guess the easiest way to answer that is to say that it is surely inconceivable that Germany and Russia would not have eventually gone to war.

But assuming that somehow that happened - and that the rate of technological progress without an ongoing war slowed to the point that nuclear weapons were not to arrive as early as 1945, then I would say that the position of a Europe dominated by Germany would probably have remained in place for many years. Many a novelist has postulated a form of European Union dominated by Germany in what would then be post-war years.

And herein a question arises: What of Britain in such a circumstance? With little or no prospect of being able to defeat Germany, would Britain have carried on the fight, or would both sides have recognised the impossibility of defeating the other and come to an armistice? Certainly, Britain would have had to maintain a simply vast navy and airforce to ensure its independence. And for how long could that have happened? Would the US disengage itself from the UK, or would it be in their strategic interests to have ensured that at least one nation on the other side of the Atlantic remained free and strong?

Interesting questions!

It the case that Banco has mentioned above, it might have been the case that what we know as the 'Marshall Plan' now might have arrived sooner and for only one nation.
I think too that in these circumstances, the Manhattan Project would still have gone ahead.
Something that Nazi Germany could never match, or just succeed in before the US.
Churchill would never reach any kind of settlement with Hitler while he drew breath.

Back to 1940, while it is true that if somehow Hitler could magic up a complete, in depth, major amphibious assault capability, in June/July 1940, an invasion post Dunkirk could have worked if the RAF had lost air superiority for at least a time.

By September/October, when Operation Sealion was due, the British ground forces while still far from recovered from Dunkirk, were nonetheless in a much better position material wise.
Add in the now almost gone, certainly forgotten, defences on and around the South Coast, extending way inland, the UK was a much tougher nut to crack.
Hitler also, from his WW1 experiences, regarded the British as especially tenacious in defence.

This rapid improvement was due to the total military/industrial/human mobilisation the UK carried out from the start.
Watching a doc tonight on how the NHS came into being from a standing start, against considerable opposition in some quarters, in just 6 months, you wonder at the sheer speed and determination of the whole raft of Attlee's reforms not just that part of it.
In a worn out, bankrupt nation.
But we perhaps should not be, since that much of that government had also served in Churchill's wartime coalition, where they learned how to manage and succeed on this scale.
With the a lot of the general consensus for these peacetime reforms as there had been for fighting the war.

No government since has had that sort of experience, in those circumstances, since.
So the oft repeated and unfavourable comparisons with that period are a bit unfair.

Quoting GDB (Reply 106): So the oft repeated and unfavourable comparisons with that period are a bit unfair.

I probably agree but which ones do you have in mind?

It was not only the NHS that arrived double quick. The railways and mines were rapidly going out backwards under private ownership.

But the bit I like about the whole ed and health system is that it came from the pen of Beveridge who was shoved off to do job that by Churchill to keep him out of his (Churchill's) way. There is rich irony in that. Would it ever have happened in peace time? You have to doubt it.

Back to the invasion, probably the Navy would have made it impossible when Hitler had half an opportunity and by late in the Battle of Britain there would have been sufficient artillery onshore to make it even less possible. But the escape of Salmon and Gluckstein (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) shows that right through to early 1942 the British did not exactly control the English Channel.

Quoting Banco (Reply 100): Twelve hundred warships covered the landings, and of those nearly 1,000 were Royal Navy. Think on that and what it means - it was the British who enabled the landings to be made, not the Americans.

The US had far more ships available...just that they were busy in the Pacific.

Quoting Banco (Reply 100): However, the comment that Britain provided the US with an "aircraft carrier" is a common misappreciation of the power of Britain at the time. Only in the very final months of the war was Britain anything other than an equal partner. Take the D Day landings, yes, US troops formed the largest contingent, but first they had to get there. Twelve hundred warships covered the landings, and of those nearly 1,000 were Royal Navy. Think on that and what it means - it was the British who enabled the landings to be made, not the Americans. It was then the Americans who enabled the push across Europe.

I dislike these one point extrapolations. It was a joint effort to send Hitler and his crew to hell, don't you see, and the fact that your navy provided a large number of floating gun platforms and sailors was only because that's where they were don't you see? Their duty stations were in the waters around Europe for the most part. Would you have imposed a balance test: "Oh no, can't go forward, not enough Yanqui sailors here everyone stand down!" I could make the same point about the Pacific war, but it's futile counting tombstones, don't you see?

Quoting Banco (Reply 105): It seems highly unlikely, doesn't it? The whole thing is a series of how impossible it would have been without one element or another.

Agreed , I for one think that the catastrophe at Stalingrad was the beginning of the end for the German army itself. However , as far as coalition of the allies I would probably point to the heroic defence of the air battle over Britain. The British pilot , spitfire and hurricane became romantic symbols here in the US. Pearl harbor of course turned the war switch on full, but the battle of Britain may have been the beginning for the American people at least. Once the American people got the idea of brave British pilots shooting down Hun bombers it became a giant movie , and Hitler was indeed the bad guy. And we love our movies to end with the bad guy in a hole somewhere.

In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes the Germans made was they never built a long-range bomber force that could have attacked targets several thousand kilometers from the German homeland. The Luftwaffe actually looked at the idea of a "Ural Bomber" that could attack targets east to the Ural Mountains of the former Soviet Union from German bases; if Heinkel had been able to get the He 277 project going earlier (replacing the two unreliable DB 606/610 engines with four more reliable DB 603's), the Luftwaffe could have hit Soviet military industry well east of Moscow, and given how far the Germans advanced during Operation Barbarossa the bombers could threatened targets well east of the Ural Mountains, too.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 101): Another point .... Do you think Britain and its allies could have defeated Germany if Hitler had not invaded Russia.. I just imagine a invasion of Europe by the allies with Germany having 150 more divisions to counter with.

Certainly an interesting question.

My own feeling is, probably yes, they could have. But the strategy would have had to be different, and it would have taken longer. And been even bloodier.

It’s a mistake to reckon that the British could not have taken Germany on because they only had a small army. Sure, they did at first, in both wars – but that was only because, being an island with a big navy, they just didn’t need a big standing army. I believe that the United States was in the same boat in 1941 – seem to recall reading that their army at that time was only the seventeenth largest in the world?

Given that neither Russia nor Japan nor the United States was involved, it would have boiled down to the British Empire and Commonwealth versus Germany and Italy. It’s not generally realised that Britain didn’t ever have a manpower problem – only an equipment and supply problem. Counting in all the Dominions and, most important of all, India (which in those days included what is now Pakistan) Britain had almost limitless reserves of manpower to count on.

More or less a fair fight, when you put it that way.  

Snag was, Britain was pretty broke by 1941. But I think that, although Roosevelt would not have been able to bring the United States into the War if Pearl Harbor hadn’t happened, he would certainly have continued (and re-doubled) Lend-Lease – essentially, weapons for free, just give them back when its over. A masterly decision.

Oddly enough, Russia’s entry into the War caused Britain untold problems at first, because the priority was obviously to get supplies to Russia, and the only way to do that was to reduce supplies to Britain. But by 1943 the matchless American talent for mass production was producing enough for everyone.

So I fancy that the Empire/Commonwealth’s strategy, if Russia, Japan, and the USA had stayed out, would have been:-

1. Win the ‘Battle of the Atlantic’ – which the British and Canadian navies achieved by late 1943, much helped by the availability of long-range aircraft from the USA.

2. Kick the Axis out of North Africa (which, again, was largely achieved in late 1942 at El Alamein.

3. Take advantage of Britain’s enormous technogical lead in the area of four-engined heavy bombers to paste the shit out of Italy and force its surrender (attacking the ‘soft underbelly’ of the Axis, and attacking Germany from Trieste into Austria, which was always Churchill’s preferred strategy).

4, Finally offer the German the option of having their cities bombed into rubble, or surrendering. With no unwise insistence that any such ‘surrender’ had to be ‘unconditional.’

The crucial factor (the 'Schwerpunkt,’ as the Germans put it at the time) was that British aircraft (fighters AND bombers) were so superior to anyone else’s products that Germany had no hope at all, from 1941, of either bombing Britain on any scale, or of resisting RAF Bomber Command, with its increasingly-effective heavy bombers, target-marking techniques, and radar aids. They had no effective defence against the night bomber – and, by 1943, the RAF was perfectly capable of knocking out complete cities in a single night. And doing the same thing to yet ANOTHER city three days later.

One of the problems that the USAAF faced was that the B17 only carried 6,000 pounds of bombs – and that its mid-wing design meant that it could not carry the light-case 4,000-pound ‘cookies’ that were the real ‘city-killers.’ The RAF bombers, by contrast, could carry 12,000 pounds to distant targets – up to 22,000 pounds at medium ranges, with modifications.

The figures for the Dresden raids are instructive. On the legendary ‘Destruction’ night, 14th. February 1945, RAF Bomber Command sent 772 bombers that dropped 2,659 tons of bombs; the USAAF, the following day, sent 316 aircraft, which dropped 782 tons. That was the pattern through WW2 in Europe. The RAF delivered about three-quarters of all the bombs that were dropped on Germany, right through…..and sank almost all the U-boats……

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm

So yes – I think Britain, the Commonwealth, and the Empire could have won. It would have taken longer, and the human and financial cost would have been even higher. But once those celebrating German officers waded out into the sea off Dunkirk, and the water lapped over the tops of their jackboots, they must have realised that they had no proper navy or air force to get them across the English Channel to finish the job.

So, from that moment, the eventual outcome was never in doubt.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112): One of the problems that the USAAF faced was that the B17 only carried 6,000 pounds of bombs – and that its mid-wing design meant that it could not carry the light-case 4,000-pound ‘cookies’ that were the real ‘city-killers.’ The RAF bombers, by contrast, could carry 12,000 pounds to distant targets – up to 22,000 pounds at medium ranges, with modifications.

True. but the B24 Liberator was something of an unsung hero that was built in larger numbers than the B17 and hauled its share of tonnage you may be sure, particularly the -D and -H marks.

The 17 was built partly as a response to the prewar theory that the bomber would always get through.

I wonder what the comparison of weapons effectiveness does to this calculus: how many light incendiaries = the destructive power of one of your blockbusting heavies?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 113): I wonder what the comparison of weapons effectiveness does to this calculus: how many light incendiaries = the destructive power of one of your blockbusting heavies?

Light incendiaries were effective at burning folk out of homes in the old cities, not so effective in Berlin because of wider streets, perhaps also better civil defense. If you were quick with the sand you could put them out. On the other hand, dealing with an incendiary in the roof was difficult if you were in an air raid shelter in the cellar!

The smaller explosive bombs were not very destructive of industrial equipment but the 4000 lb cookies were. Quite a bit of photo recon was misleading as unroofed factories were assumed to be out of production whereas the undamaged lathes were humming away in the ruins. Add a cookies and the lathes did not work so well - so it appears.

The German version of a cookie appeared early on and were called by the British landmines. They were smaller and some at least were dropped by parachute. This appears to be one that did not explode:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aused-commuter-chaos-diffused.html

In my alternate scenario above, I neglected to also have Hitler magic up a rather more substantial navy too!

Fair comment about the US commitment to the Pacific, only the US, with it's size, resources of every kind in almost ridiculous abundance, could have prosecuted the war as they did in both Europe and the Pacific.
Only after D-Day in fact, did the RN re-commit to a substantial Pacific fleet, about the biggest they ever did anywhere, but by 3 years into America's WW2, it was by comparison a bit part player.
When you consider that the RN was bigger than the USN at the start of WW2, that's breathtaking.
How the hell did Japan ever think they could win, or even force a stalemate?

Then again, by late 1943, the Royal Canadian Navy was the 3rd biggest in the world, albeit mostly Destroyers, Corvettes etc, but that was what was needed.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 114): The smaller explosive bombs were not very destructive of industrial equipment but the 4000 lb cookies were. Quite a bit of photo recon was misleading as unroofed factories were assumed to be out of production whereas the undamaged lathes were humming away in the ruins. Add a cookies and the lathes did not work so well - so it appears.

Bomber Harris knew that each bomb dropped was going to keep a certain number of people from getting to work, and depriving Germany of man hours was part of the project. If a factory is not destroyed but the workers aren't on the job because their houses were burnt up or leveled, and the roads and trolleys aren't working is about the same thing.

Quoting GDB (Reply 115): How the hell did Japan ever think they could win, or even force a stalemate?

How indeed. Yamamoto himself understood this. Hubris is an amazing thing to behold.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 113): I wonder what the comparison of weapons effectiveness does to this calculus: how many light incendiaries = the destructive power of one of your blockbusting heavies?

To use the light incendiaries efficiently you'll have to crack the tiled roofs of the houses first (European houses at this time were built out of bricks with wooden floors, attics and stairwells), this is what the cookies did. They were huge blast bombs, which blew the rooftiles from the buildings, exposing the wooden interiors. The light incendiary bombs were not heavy enough to crash through the rooftiles and would burn harmlessly on top.

Then the next waves of bombers would drop fragment bombs and multipurpose HE bombs. The fragment bombs would disturb the firefighting operations by directly targeting the civil defense staff, while the conventional HE bombs would crater roads to destroy water lines for the fire hydrants, cut electricity supplies to pumps and break cooking gas lines to create additional hazards. They would also collapse buildings, making roads impassable.
FInally there were delayed detonator bombs, which would explode hours to days after the bomb raid, endangering recovery operations.

Jan

Yes, Dougloid - the RAF made good use of the Liberator, particularly for anti-submarine patrols, given its huge range.

Lovely story about a guy named Norman F. Ramsey, though, who came close to being executed for cowardice (or maybe 'conduct to the prejudice') even though he was a civilian....  

In 1943 he was appointed as head of the 'Delivery Group' of the Manhattan Project, tasked with finding an aeroplane that could deliver either or both types of atomic bomb. He researched the matter, went to Canada, where Lancasters were being built, met the designer, Roy Chadwick, and reported that the British Avro Lancaster could carry either type of bomb (Fat Man or Little Boy) almost any sort of distance, with very little modification, and would only require a 6,000-foot runway. Then duly reported his findings to General Leslie R. Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project - who, if anything, hated the British even more than he hated the Germans or the Japanese.....

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPT36,M1

Groves was apoplectic and went all the way up to Arnold and Roosevelt himself to get them to light a fire under Boeing to get the B29 flying (and suitably modified) in time to carry the thing.

Interesting to reflect that 'Enola Gay' only JUST made it into the air from Tinian with full fuel and its six-ton load on the way to Hiroshima, and that 'Bock's Car' had a fuel fault and had to 'land short' at Okinawa, with two engines cutting out on final approach.

Arguably a couple of RAF Lancasters could have flown the operations from the short runways at Iwo Jima or Okinawa with no dramas at all - 'Piece of cake, old boy,' in the traditional RAF slang...........  

[Edited 2008-07-06 10:22:32]

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 117): To use the light incendiaries efficiently you'll have to crack the tiled roofs of the houses first (European houses at this time were built out of bricks with wooden floors, attics and stairwells), this is what the cookies did. They were huge blast bombs, which blew the rooftiles from the buildings, exposing the wooden interiors. The light incendiary bombs were not heavy enough to crash through the rooftiles and would burn harmlessly on top

Correct, for dehousing, that was the recipe and the timing was critical. The effect of the cookies was why they also sent over single Mosquitoes with cookies.

The effects on equipment were another reason to use cookies.

It is true that discomforting workers was a major raison d'etre for Harris, but in practice there are few reports of staffing being a problem with factories. Destruction of equipment was another matter.

Sometimes the most surprising things proved a problem. In my home town the worst problem was when a fire got going in a good station and the butter and sugar melted and ran burning down the neighbouring streets. That gave the worst smoke pall we ever had and the city shuddered every night for a week until the fire was controlled assuming that the attack had been planned and the bombers would return now their target was nicely marked. But they never came. The original bombs could well have been a "mistake" - a high proportion of bombs dropped landed well away from where intended for both sides. But it scarcely matters once the bomb has exploded. We were not much given to analysing intent. Maybe the RAF were, but not us.

About 'cookies,' by coincidence, I read a dreadful story the other day, in a book a friend (another blitz survivor) sent me about RAF aircrew in WW2.

Cookies were dreadfully unstable - crews were forbidden even to try to land with them on board. So 'jettison zones' were established in the Channel and the North Sea, shipping was warned to stay clear, and crews were told that, if they'd had an abortive operation, they were to drop their cookies there before returning to base.

An Australian bomb-aimer with 622 Squadron RAF, Gordon Dalton, said that he'd had to do just that after their fighter escort failed to turn up for a daylight raid on Siegen in Germany on 15th. December 1944.

To quote, "As Gordon said, 'cookies were going off everywhere,' in great plumes rising out of the Channel. Amidst the chaos, someone in the squadron (Gordon was never quite sure who) reckoned he saw, unbelievably, a small single-engine aircraft flying through the explosions thousands of feet below. This sighting was confirmed by several others back at base, amazed that anything at all was flying in this designated 'no-go' area. Later that evening, the BBC News Bulletin reported that band leader Glenn Miller had been reported missing en route to France on his way to give a series of concerts to entertain the troops. Officially, the fate of Miller's plane has always remained a mystery."'

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 120): About 'cookies,' by coincidence, I read a dreadful story the other day, in a book a friend (another blitz survivor) sent me about RAF aircrew in WW2.

Another problem existed on the German side:
The cookies didn't look like bombs, but rather like water tanks and the three fuzes at the front end were made out of brass.
I know of one incident in early postwar Berlin, where a dud cookie, dug up from the rubble of a ruined house, made it to a scrap yard, where an enthusiastic worker was just about to use a cutting torch to remove the "brass fittings" from the old water boiler. Fortunately he was stopped by a colleague, who recognised the bomb as what it was.
Other, similar incidents didn't end as happily.


This picture shows a RAF Lancaster dropping a bundle of 4 lb stick incendiaries followed by a cookie over Duisburg in 1944.
The Incendiaries had a hexagonal crosssection and were about 2 feet long. They were packed in bundles held together by steel straps, which were released by pulling a pin attached to a lanyard connected to the aircraft, when the bundle was dropped.
There existed several versions: The basic version had a head made out of steel to make it fall headfirst (important for the working of the fuze), while the body was made up out of magnesium sheet metal filled with thermite pellets. Some versions had a small explosive charge inside the head, which would explode with the force of a grenade when the fire reached the head (the fuze was in the hollow tail section), to discourage firefighters.

Jan

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112): Counting in all the Dominions and, most important of all, India (which in those days included what is now Pakistan) Britain had almost limitless reserves of manpower to count on.

What makes you think we would all have supported England ? From an Indian perspective at the time, there was no difference between the British and the Germans - the latter brutalized Jews, while the former brutalized us.

With Gandhi's civil disobedience movement having reached a crescendo, widescale Indian conscription to the allied cause would have been a recipe for munity from within. Britain holding on to India through the war owes itself to little more than Churchill's thickheadness.

Indeed there was an Indian Army, but they primarily defended their own homeland against Japanese invasion, finally stopping the IJA on India's borders after they had conquered China and Southeast Asia.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 122): Indeed there was an Indian Army, but they primarily defended their own homeland against Japanese invasion, finally stopping the IJA on India's borders after they had conquered China and Southeast Asia.

You very much belittle the devoted service of large numbers of Indian soldiers who served with great gallantry in Abyssinia, Eritrea, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy - right up to the end of the war. And all the way down through Burma against the Japanese, too.

Plenty of Indian names among this list of Victoria Cross recipients. And that was only in the Mediterranean theatre:-

http://www.milhist.net/mto/victoriax.html

[Edited 2008-07-06 23:32:07]

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 122): Indeed there was an Indian Army, but they primarily defended their own homeland against Japanese invasion, finally stopping the IJA on India's borders after they had conquered China and Southeast Asia.

I understand what you are saying and I think Nav was a bit bullish, but the record tends to support him rather than your interpretation. Wiki on the British Indian army opines:
At the outbreak of World War II, the Indian army numbered 205,000 men. Later on during World War II the Indian Army would become the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in size. These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces.

Particularly notable contributions of the Indian Army during that conflict were the:

* Middle East Theatre of World War II
o East African campaign
o Anglo-Iraqi War
o Syria-Lebanon campaign
o Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran
* North African campaign
o Operation Compass
o Operation Crusader
o First Battle of El Alamein
o Second Battle of El Alamein
* Battle of Hong Kong
* Battle of Malaya
* Battle of Singapore
* Burma Campaign
o Battle of Kohima
o Battle of Imphal
* Italian campaign
o Battle of Monte Cassino


About 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during this conflict. Indian soldiers won 30 Victoria Crosses during the Second World War. (See: Indian Victoria Cross recipients.)

I will not argue with that. Of the 30 Victoria Crosses in WW I & II to the Indian Army a check shows that 12 were awarded for battles in India or Burma, which means that 18 were for battles elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Victoria_Cross_recipients
Gives you details of the acts for which the awards were made through the links.

And to put it bluntly, had the Indian army not been there, Rommel might still be running riot in the Western Desert - albeit on his pension!

No person in the UK in WW II was under any illusions about the debt we owed to India. But I guess this is not the place for a long argument about the problems of colonialism. Many of us already know, and those who don't are not listening!  

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 123): You very much belittle the devoted service of large numbers of Indian soldiers who served with great gallantry in Abyssinia, Eritrea, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy - right up to the end of the war. And all the way down through Burma against the Japanese, too.

Ah yes, I was waiting for that response - I worded my statement for the purpose. The Indian efforts were indeed belittled, but it is the British who belittled them.

Of course we fought the Japanese to a standstill on our borders. It's our damn country, unlike the case of the Brits in the British Indian Army.

The reason why I say this is - what did all that effort get us ? *Nothing* but a few military medallion trinklets.

Thousands of Indian soldiers fight in the middle eastern theatre, and India gets a few pieces of metal ? On the other hand, the US and UK obtain significant assets in oil, not to mention geopolitical interests in the post war governments in the area. Thanks to Churchill's visceral hatred of India, as opposed to FDR, we were excluded from Yalta and Potsdam.

But of course, you would rather complain that I don't acknowledge the Victoria Crosses and the other baubles  

War is about geopolitical gain. We gained *nothing* of the sort out of our sacrifices, and lost plenty. All these lectures about VC recipients is condescending nonsense.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 125): War is about geopolitical gain. We gained *nothing* of the sort out of our sacrifices, and lost plenty. All these lectures about VC recipients is condescending nonsense.

Sounds as if you preferred Chandra Bose. Where did that get him?

FDR was more against the British Empire than against colonialism - if you doubt this check what he proposed for what is now Indonesia. In any case, do let us know exactly what FDR did for India. India was not at Yalta or Potsdam for other reasons, and both those conferences were with the 3 principals, plus China if it could have got there. No idea why you think not being there was an affront. Foundation of the UN, that is a different matter.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 125): Thanks to Churchill's visceral hatred of India, as opposed to FDR, we were excluded from Yalta and Potsdam.

Also that opinion is not exactly consistent with:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=319
CHURCHILL AND THE INDIANS
by Inder Dan Ratnu

Perhaps you think that hating Hitler and Hitler's love of Aryans, Churchill also hated the real Aryans - whatever you think of Churchill, he was not that stupid.   

Quoting Baroque (Reply 126): Sounds as if you preferred Chandra Bose. Where did that get him?

It's nowhere near that binary.

The tragedy of India in World War 2 is we had Indians fighting both on the Allied side and the Axis forces. But *both* sides ultimately lost. It is immaterial whether a given Indian soldier reported to Bose or George V.

They can only claim to have won if they gained anything out of it. They gained nothing. They both lost land, people and resources. They were compelled into an impossible choice between supporting a bunch of vicious imperial rulers who caused their own country enormous harm, or a bunch of depraved thugs busy gassing people elsewhere. Whichever side they chose, they lost.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 126): Also that opinion is not exactly consistent with: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...d=319

Ah yes, an article from The Churchill Center. Absolutely the best source of impartial information   The Churchill Center could as well publish a picture of Churchills lips imprinted to Gandhi's posterior and it would still change nothing.

Allow me to put the situation of India's participation in WW2 very bluntly:

What was in it for us ? Nothing.

Please don't bother to insult my intelligence by responding with a list of VC/MC/whatever recipients, battlefronts or some articles. I'm well aware of all that.

I'll repeat - war is a military means at geopolitical gain. India gained nothing for the enormous contributions it provided. It lost its own territory and people. It lost its historic trading ties and spheres of influence in the Middle East and South East Asia. It was denied representation at wartime and postwar strategic summits. It was denied access as a permanent UNSC member. It was denied access to the developing hydrocarbon energy relationships in the Middle East.

For all the enormous valour of Indian forces, all that was gained was a few trinklets stamped with the face of The Chinless One (Victoria), or some other heraldry. All you and NAV20 have done is provide a laundry list of what India did. Have you any comprehension just how condescending you sound ? Of course I'm aware what we did. I'm also aware that we gained absolutely nothing in strategic terms for it all.

Barfbag, sounds as if you'd have been delighted if Hitler had beaten Britain and put in the British equivalent of the French puppet Vichy regime?

A few questions:-

1. Do you reckon that, If Commonwealth forces had been defeated in North Africa, and the Germans had gained control of the Suez Canal and the Middle-Eastern oilfields, India would have been entirely unaffected?

2. Do you think that Hitler, of all people, would have granted India independence? Or would he have done what he did to the French colonies - like forcing Syria to provide bases from which his armies could threaten Iraq and Persia, and forcing French Indo-China to provide the Japanese with bases from which they could invade Malaya, Burma - and of course India?

3. Have you forgotten, or did you not know, that, at the time of WW2, every Indian Army brigade was one-third British? Yes, Indians died helping the British; but so did Britishers die helping the Indians.

4. Had the unthinkable happened, and Britain had been completely defeated, do you imagine for one moment that Hitler would have granted India independence? Or isn't it much more likely that you'd just have got yourselves a Viceroy with a German name, and garrisons made up of German troops instead of British ones?

5. In any case, as to what 'India got out of it,' do you not recall that Sir Stafford Cripps promised all the main Indian political parties, in 1942, that he would do everything in his power to grant India independence after the War. You're quite right that Churchill refused to sanction that offer at the time - but, in 1945 Churchill was voted out of office, Cripps became part of the post-war Attlee Labour Government, and he was able to deliver on his promise.

[Edited 2008-07-07 03:35:00]

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 127): The tragedy of India in World War 2 is we had Indians fighting both on the Allied side and the Axis forces. But *both* sides ultimately lost. It is immaterial whether a given Indian soldier reported to Bose or George V.

Hey, you know, you may have a beef with the British, but I think it's safe to say that had the Axis won, you guys* would have would have been screwed.

*And by "you guys," I mean me too, as an Indian-born American.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 127): Of course I'm aware what we did. I'm also aware that we gained absolutely nothing in strategic terms for it all.

Well YOU might think that Britain was ungrateful, but let me tell you it was not.

On your direct suggestion, do let us know what India might have gained is strategic terms.

Control of the Suez canal? I think the Egyptians think they own that - wonder why.

A few oilfields in the ME, well news there too, all the US, UK and any other nations interests were well and truly nationalized by the end of the 60s.

Do let me know what great strategic gains Britain made at the expense of its own, American or Indian blood, just any gains at all as a result of WWII would be interesting. A lot of debt. Anything else? Oh yes, they won Le Grand Charles too.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 128): 4. Had the unthinkable happened, and Britain had been completely defeated, do you imagine for one moment that Hitler would have granted India independence?

Even more interesting BB, have you checked out what it was like in the Greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere? At least with India occupied by the gracious overlords, Indonesia would probably have been able to feel better that its 4 million dead were no longer second only to China - they would have been third to China and India.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 127): I'll repeat - war is a military means at geopolitical gain.

It's not nearly as one dimensional as you suggest. Wars are fought for moral and religious reasons all the time. Sometimes people who have little interest in geopolitical gain get attacked and have to defend themselves the best way they can. Norway and Denmark, anyone?

The Indian man in the street had some choices to make, although none of them were good. I suspect this average man did not look at the situation in terms of geopolitics-that's usually a pastime for intellectuals and people who are not working stiffs. But it's always the intellectuals and political types who make these sort of arguments-and they're as hollow now as they were in 1939.

Maybe the Indian soldiers, sailors and airmen who gave Lincoln's "last full measure of devotion", couldn't say that India got one more square meter of land or one more seat in a meaningless political body, but to suggest that their service was worthless does you a disservice, Mr. Bag, unless you consider defeating Fascism was a sucker's game.

Consider the way James Baldwin rephrased Pastor Neimoller's famous analysis. "If they come for you in the morning, they're coming for me at night."

In purely geopolitical, realpolitik terms Mr. Bose made the cardinal mistake of the age-he simply backed the wrong horse.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 128): Barfbag, sounds as if you'd have been delighted if Hitler had beaten Britain and put in the British equivalent of the French puppet Vichy regime?

You simply don't get it. It's not a matter of wishing any particular side won. That is entirely besides the point.

There was little qualitative difference between Britain and Germany from an *Indian* viewpoint at the time. An Indian in 1940 had *no* way of telling who was a better choice, in a manner we have the benefit of asserting today.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 128): 2. Do you think that Hitler, of all people, would have granted India independence?

No, I think that Hitler would have been *no* better than the British. There's nothing intrinsically better about Britain at the time than Germany, from an Indian perspective. Don't confuse the clarity of today's hindsight with the situation then. Our pick was not an either-or option, it was a neither.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 128): Have you forgotten, or did you not know, that, at the time of WW2, every Indian Army brigade was one-third British?

Good Lord. This is like having recited the Ramayana and then being asked "Who is Sita ?" (replace with Bible and Jesus for a western analogy). I know what Indians contributed; my assertion is India got *nothing* for it.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 128): Had the unthinkable happened, and Britain had been completely defeated, do you imagine for one moment that Hitler would have granted India independence? Or isn't it much more likely that you'd just have got yourselves a Viceroy with a German name, and garrisons made up of German troops instead of British ones?

We *did* get a Viceroy with a German name - Battenberg, aka the hurriedly renamed 'Mountbatten'   I'm under no illusion about Hitlers munificience. We'd have had to fight to get rid of the Germans just as hard as we fought to get rid of the British, and just as hard as we fought to finally stop the Imperial Japanese Army at our borders - something even Chiang and Mao's combined forces could not do.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 130): Well YOU might think that Britain was ungrateful, but let me tell you it was not.

I'm sure they were grateful, but show me the money. Genuine regard at a personal level is entirely another matter. It is not my dispute that the average Briton was not grateful. It is not even what I'm talking about.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 128): 5. In any case, as to what 'India got out of it,' do you not recall that Sir Stafford Cripps promised all the main Indian political parties, in 1942, that he would do everything in his power to grant India independence after the War.

Are you aware that the Cripps Mission was an utter *failure* ? That for all Cripps 'promised', he was summarily rejected by Gandhi and INC ? That in response they were collectively dragged to jail for the umpteenth time ? What does that tell you about what we thought about the mission ? I suppose you'll tell us how we were a bunch of ungrateful wretches who didn't just quietly take what we were given ?  

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 131): It's not nearly as one dimensional as you suggest.

Wars are always followed by geopolitical changes, even if the cause of conflict was religious. Even the religious effects result in geopolitical changes, e.g. a mass conversion after a war leads to qualitative differences in social and political behavior.

An Indian fighting during WW2 (either on the Axis or Allied side) fought to free his homeland. The fact that they fought on both sides just underlines how difficult a choice we had. Folks just using the benefit of 60 years of history to whine 'can you imagine Hitler winning' simply do not comprehend the choices an Indian faced then - it was a case of the devil in our midst versus the deep blue see beyond.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 132): Quoting Baroque (Reply 130): Well YOU might think that Britain was ungrateful, but let me tell you it was not. I'm sure they were grateful, but show me the money. Genuine regard at a personal level is entirely another matter. It is not my dispute that the average Briton was not grateful. It is not even what I'm talking about.

OK I see, what you want was a part of the national debt after WW II and presumably liability to pay the US for Lend Lease equipment. Well I am sure that can be arranged. There is a Mr Brown who used to be quite good at numbers in the UK, Just write to him. I am sure he will oblige.

What money are you talking about?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 133): What money are you talking about?

Ah the condescention continues. Now its "ok, how much money do you want ?"   That's particularly appalling, coming from you, B.

Why don't you take a shot at these questions:
* Why wasn't a single Indian commander part of the Allied forces strategic command ?
* Why was India kept out of Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam ?
* Why were we kept out of UNSC permanent membership ?
* What took the UK two years to leave India after WW2, when even Churchill was voted out in '45 ?
* Why was India kept out of the oil deals with the house of Saud and the Shah of Iran ?

I'm sure those who suffered under the Nazis would have something to say about your comparison's Barf Bag.
And how do you know that Britain was ungrateful?
Your blind hatred hardly suggests reasoning.
(Which happened to be untrue).

Some in SE Asia might have at first, made the same comparisons that you do, when the Japanese arrived, not for very long though.

And yes, we ARE aware of the dark side of our own history, can you say the same?

Anyway, WW2 certainly fast forwarded Indian Independence, the UK gained nothing from WW2, except survival.

Quoting NA (Reply 59): I only know about 2. Until WWI Germany was extremely successful, economically and military. And the seads for WWII were laid by the imprudent draconic punishment of Germany after WWI. If the Allies would not have economically strangled Germany after 1918 a Nazi Party would never have had a chance, that I believe in

Whilst Germany as a nation existed, and economically it was successful during this time, it is not quite accurate to say that Germany was extremely successful as it was only a new nation with little clout.
As for the seeds of WWII you are quite correct. WWII was almost completely unavoidable after the punishment handed to Germany after WWI. Of the main allies (Britain, France, USA), France was quite simply on a path of vengence to annilate Germany economically and socially. Whilst the other allies agreed in the end to the punishment handed to Germany in the Treaty of Versailes, it was France that pushed for Germany to accept 100% responsibility for WWI (even though the seeds had been sown in the Franco-Prussian war, and that WWI started in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that other countries were involved and that Germany only entered the war as a consequence of multiple countries declaring war on each other including her allies). Now that is not to say that Germany was not at fault in WWI... Germany comitted many atrocities (including gas, flame throwers etc) and caused WWI to be much more damaging than it should have been.

Had Germany been made to sign an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and partial culpability with reparations being limited to damage caused to the other countries (and not to their militarys and populations) then Hitler would have never risen to power and WWII would never have happened.

Also as a side note, the current mess in the Middle East would also be much more stable post WWI if France had not gotten greedy. The Middle East was to have been handed back to local sheiks/principalites but organised as only a few nations rather than the dozen or so nations there now. Britain was prepared to give up Iraq to this agreement, but France decided that it wanted to retain its territories. As a result Britain did not want to be disadvantaged to France so the area was divided up between them resulting in the current mess. The US President was reportedly furious with this (not because of them getting territories back as the US had none of its own there anyway, but because they had turned their backs and lied not only to their Western Allies, but also to their Allies in the Middle East who had recently warned that without their proposed solution the Middle East would turn into a war fuelled hotspot of instability).

Quoting GDB (Reply 135): I'm sure those who suffered under the Nazis would have something to say about your comparison's Barf Bag.

In other words "we only subjugated you as a nation and plundered your resources, we didn't send you all off into the gas chambers", yes ? Well thank goodness for small mercies   In fact, I see NAV20's original statement as one of rare and brute honesty, shorn of the half-baked pretense at gratitude for India: "Britain had almost limitless reserves of manpower to count on."

That statement underlines the paternalism of British rule and Indian contribution to WW2 - one where we were treated as nothing more than a source of material and manpower, and denied representation as a nation of people on par with any other. Even France and China, under occupation by Axis powers - had De Gaulle and Kai-Shek to speak on their nations' behalf. Nations under Axis occupation had a better chance at being represented in Allied strategic talks than nations under British occupation.

I'll continue to challenge folks explain why no Indian was ever permitted access to wartime and post war Allied strategic discussions. Why was Indian allowed to represent India in a manner that De Gaulle did for France or Kai-Shek did for China. Why were we not permitted to be a founding permanent UNSC member ? Why were we not allowed to dit at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam ?

Instead of answers to these hard questions, I'm pretty sure the responses will be on the lines of claiming I "hate" Britain and that "I should be thankful Hitler didn't rule India".

The point lost on every Brit/Aussie poster here is we didn't want anyone ruling us - it is immaterial whether we're speaking of the British, Germans, Japanese or Martians. The presumption that Germany/Japan might have ruled India is nothing more than hypothesis. The reality is that Japanese forces never made it past India's borders.

Quoting GDB (Reply 135): the UK gained nothing from WW2, except survival.

The UK, along with the US and Russia, drove wartime and postwar strategic debate. It got a permanent membership at the UNSC. It had the opportunity to influence the postwar worldwide dynamics.

India, despite stopping the Japanese and being a significant part of stopping the German thrust to Africa/Middle East, got no such representation or opportunity.

The fundamental fact is India was denied its due in WW2 as a *nation*, with its concomitant ability to represent and safeguard its interests. We are not and never were a 'source of limitless manpower and resources' as NAV20 so crudely put it, nor was Britain ever a rightful representative of Indian interests.

India at the time of the second world war was part of an empire , which happened to governed by the UK. Therefore Britain represented all the countries of the empire at these meetings it was as simply as that

The UNSC was set up in 1945 I believe, at which time India was not an independent nation so could not become an independant member of the UN

2 years to leave a country is not long, and believe me, most of the soldiers in India could not wait to leave, and that included two of my uncles. It could have been done quicker if there had only been a single opinion within India of what India wanted.

As to your other points I have no idea, and to to Baroque and GDB, you are wasting you time discussing this subject with Barfbag as he will not accept that anybody else's interpretation of history is in anyway correct, the only true interpretation is his. Perhaps as he becomes more mature he will see the falsehood of this

littlevc10

Quoting VC10 (Reply 139): Therefore Britain represented all the countries of the empire at these meetings it was as simply as that

That is plain falsehood. France and China were under occupation *yet* had independent representation. India, despite being under colonial rule, was represented independently at numerous fora, including the Leage of Nations, the Olympics and cricket.

The simple fact is Britain chose when to provide India latitude for independent representation, providing it in the case of some, and resolutely denying India the ability to represent its interests at wartime, and subsequently as new geopolitical equations were set, when it was most important.

No number of military trinklets and personal gratitude compensates for denial of independent representation at the time.

Quoting VC10 (Reply 139): The UNSC was set up in 1945 I believe, at which time India was not an independent nation so could not become an independant member of the UN

Get your facts straight. India was a founding member and signatory to the UN charter; we were denied access to the Dumbarton Oaks conference in 1944, when US, UK, Russia, France and China met to discuss the foundation of the UN, and were subsequently denied permanent membership.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 137): Why were we not permitted to be a founding permanent UNSC member ?

Which "India" do you think should have been part of the UN Security Council, the part that became "India" or the part that became Pakistan?

Well, Chandra Bose is another guy like Ezra Pound. He's only memorable for the reminder that when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

Quoting Johns624 (Reply 141): Which "India" do you think should have been part of the UN Security Council, the part that became "India" or the part that became Pakistan?

Considering that the UNSC came into existence two years before the partition, how is your question relevant ?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 142): Chandra Bose is another guy like Ezra Pound. He's only memorable for the reminder that when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

For an Indian in the early 1940s, the British and Germans were merely dogs of different breeds. We end up with fleas either way.

Hindsight is a dangerous perspective to judge the past from. You ought to know that.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 143): Hindsight is a dangerous perspective to judge the past from. You ought to know that.

Well, yes.....that's what you've been doing all evening.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 143): Hindsight is a dangerous perspective to judge the past from.

Also pays to keep both eyes open, Barfbag.  

"WHEN YOU GO HOME,
TELL THEM OF US AND SAY -
FOR YOUR TOMORROW,
WE GAVE OUR TODAY."

(Inscription on the 2nd. Division memorial at Kohima)

http://www.worcestershireregiment.co...php?main=inc/burma_kohima_memorial

Every war has its turning-points. In the case of the Japanese attack on India, the turning-point was undoubtedly Kohima Ridge in April 1944, which a small force from 2nd. Division, British 14th. Army, captured and held for two weeks, until reinforcements came up.

The main units involved were detachments of the Queen's Own Royal West Kent Regiment, the Worcestershire Regiment, the Seaforth Highlanders, the Cameron Highlanders, and the Assam Rifles.

For Heaven's sake, Barfbag mate, it was a WORLD war, against a monstrous tyranny that threatened all of us. And by 'us' I mean the ordinary people of Britain and India and countless other countries, all over the world.

You helped us and we helped you. The British helped to secure your 'tomorrow,' and the Indians helped to secure ours.....

[Edited 2008-07-07 20:48:14]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 145): against a monstrous tyranny that threatened all of us.

Britain was a monstrous tyranny that subjugated India. The relative evilness of the Third Reich does nothing to make Britain 'better'. The argument is condescending garbage, on the lines of telling a rape victim that she's lucky it wasn't an axe murderer she faced.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 145): You helped us and we helped you. The British helped to secure your 'tomorrow,' and the Indians helped to secure ours

Funny that the questions about India's representation in wartime and postwar strategic gains are altogether ignored. Instead of course, we have mushy statements about our 'tomorrow', whatever that means.

Do you have an answer to these questions or not ?

* Why wasn't a single Indian commander part of the Allied forces strategic command ?
* Why was India kept out of Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam ?
* Why were we kept out of UNSC permanent membership ?
* What took the UK two years to leave India after WW2, when even Churchill was voted out in '45 ?
* Why was India kept out of the oil deals with the house of Saud and the Shah of Iran ?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 144): Well, yes.....that's what you've been doing all evening.

Quite the opposite. Whatever Britain symbolized in retrospect does nothing to change the Indian viewpoint *at that time* - that they were unwelcome imperialists. That does not in any way imply preference for Germany.

Bose, more than anything, symbolizes the fact that Britain was then hated in India to the extent that there were Indians who were willing to deal directly with the monstrous Third Reich itelf to be rid of them. It is no different from the Allies having Stalin on their side to deal with Hitler.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 134): * 1. Why wasn't a single Indian commander part of the Allied forces strategic command ? * 2. Why was India kept out of Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam ? *3. Why were we kept out of UNSC permanent membership ? *4. What took the UK two years to leave India after WW2, when even Churchill was voted out in '45 ? *5. Why was India kept out of the oil deals with the house of Saud and the Shah of Iran ?

VC10 is probably right. Using my numbers that I inserted into the quote.
1. The command of the Indian army is an area where localization or whatever you want to call it was lagging. You need someone more familiar with the BIA than I if you want a better answer.
2. For about same reason as Canada, Australia, NZ, Brazil, South Africa, the Rhodesias, Kenya, Uganda, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland and the others I have forgotten were not there. As has been said, the theory at the time was that Britain represented the whole empire. Reading:Essay from “Australia’s Foreign Wars: Origins, Costs, Future?!” http://users.cyberone.com.au/ibuckley
would be a good start to explain some of the contradictions brought on by the extreme conditions of war.
3. When the UNSC was set up, India did not exist. Sorry, not as an entity that could have been on the UNSC. The deliberations that lead to the UN charter are strange in a number of respects, but that is a whole new thread.
4. Pretty damn quick compared with how some political settlements are being arranged. As someone pointed out, it would have helped if Jinnah had not changed his mind. You also have to give the B Indian Army some credit there for, largely at least, not taking sides and making that bloodbath worse. IM me with how and when you would have arranged the handover. I look forward to an interesting read.
5. What oil deals are you on about? There was no deal with the house of Saud with the British, you should know that. SOCAL and TEXACO had it all sewn up in the mid 30s. At the time, IPC for some strange reason thought Saudi A had little potential. (Break off here for a three hour lecture on thin plate tectonics - by someone else - and its control on oil distribution and the awful fate of that theory!!) They thought you needed to be in the Zagros, which was where they had found their large Iranian fields and Kirkuk. The Iranian concessions go back to before the find at the Masjid-i-Suleiman No 1 well in May 1908. Note that in "1922 the Americans had announced their " Open Door " policy whereby their oil companies were too have equal access to Middle East oil on equal terms". So I think your argument is not with the Brits on that. Ask how Gulbenkian got in. In the early 1900s, India did not have much of either expertise in oil or need for oil, it was not an issue. By 1945, it was also not an issue, INOC came to mean Iran national Oil company, not Indian National Oil Company. And just to add interest, most of the venture capital for the Masjid-i-Suleiman came from the goldfields in N Queensland via a solicitor (D'Arcy) who sold out of the Mt Morgan Gold Mine. So maybe, Australia should have an overriding interest!!

Hope that helps.

I am just happy that the India I have visited was so different to the one indicated in some posts. I well remember asking about a visa and being assured by a real salesman for his country that having a UK passport, I would not be needing a visa. Oh no, you will not be needing a visa - to make sure I got it. I am equally sure that Britain was a slightly more pleasant place for the four Indian students who were my friends at University than one might conclude. I will confess to sending back one Hindu student from Australia to India with a strong taste for steak - guilty as charged mi lord.

Which reminds me, an Indian judge (Radhabinod Pal and there was an Indian prosecutor, P. Govinda Menon),was appointed to the war crimes tribunal in Tokyo and his findings are some of the most instructive of the comments from the judges. Pal might have been a man after your own heart BB.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 148): 1. The command of the Indian army is an area where localization or whatever you want to call it was lagging.

2,500,000 Indian soldiers. Decisive engagements against *both* the Wehrmacht and the Imperial Japanese Army. And you say 'localization' and 'lagging' ? What precisely was Chinese contribution then, besides being invaded by the Japanese and not even being involved against Germany ? Or France for that matter. The Indian Army, unlike those two, took on *both* Axis powers (ignoring Italy).

Quoting Baroque (Reply 148): 2. For about same reason as Canada, Australia, NZ, Brazil, South Africa, the Rhodesias, Kenya, Uganda, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland and the others I have forgotten were not there.

Why were France and China represented ? Why was it that nations under Axis occupation had representation while those under British rule did not ? Don't you see the absurdity of the position ? The nations under the allegedly more 'benevolent' power had less representation.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 148): When the UNSC was set up, India did not exist. Sorry, not as an entity that could have been on the UNSC. The deliberations that lead to the UN charter are strange in a number of respects, but that is a whole new thread.

* India was a founding member of the UN, and signed the inaugural charter.
* India was a member of the League of Nations.
* China was no more a country at the time, being under Japanese rule until mid-1945, and subsequently under the grip of civil war.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 148): IM me with how and when you would have arranged the handover. I look forward to an interesting read.

It's pretty straightforward. The British had no business being in India in 1939-40, any more than they did in 1945 or '47. What prevented Britain from giving independence in 1939 in return for participation on the Allied side ?