|
I belive there are three major reasons why India receives little credit for it's forces in WW II. The biggest reason is that Indians did not fight under a seperate command; not only were RIA Regiments completely integrated into the wider British Army, 95% of the Officers above the rank of Captain were British. To a large extent it is the Officers accounts of battle that will shape the wider public's perceptions. As British Officers serving in the British Army, they characterised their victories as British victories rather than Indian ones. The ANZACs and Canadians with their own officer corps had a distinct identity, and so when the 7th Armoured Division took Benghazi, it was not only a commonwelth victory, but an Australian victory by Australian soldiers and Officers, the only Pom in the picture being Cunningham the 8th Army commander and Wavell above him. <BR> <BR> The other issue is that the vast majority of Indian forces fought on the Eastern front in the China-India-Burma theatre, and in Singapore-Malaya. This was what was despairingly called 'The Forgotton War by the men who fought in it', Yanks, Indians and Brits alike. The Major focus of British attention was their struggle for survival first in Dunkirk, then Crete, in our air, in the Atlantic, and then North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normany, Belgium and Arnheim. These are also the theatres in which the majority of British troops fought. It was the same politically as well; Commonwealth commanders in Asia were on the bottom of the priority list; Australia was told they were to all intensts and purposes on their own, after which they turned to the Yanks (and have stayed with them ever since) for national defence. Singapore was a disaster, the worst in British military history, in part because a German commerce raider in the Indian Ocean captured British documents outlining the serious weaknesses of British forces in SE Asia. The germans promptly passed the intel on to the Japanese. After the humiliation of Malaya and Singapore came Burma. This string of defeats has clouded interest n the theatre long after the war ended. few appreciate the determination, valour, sound (and often brilliant) tactics and logistics both Indian and British that characterised the Burma campaign, which if not for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have steam rolled the Japanese right back out of Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. an While Indian forces did in fact participate in the N.African campaign, they were not numerically significant. The 4th Indian Division did distinguish itself in action against the Italians in 1940 during Wavell's counter attack. I'll post Montgomery's OrdBat at El Alamein, but there were I beleive only two Indian divisions out of 17 present in the 8th Army. Someone mentioned the seige of Tobruk earlier; there were the three brigades of the 9th Division, the 7th Australian Division's 18th Brigade, the 3rd Armoured Brigade (two regiments), four regiments of British field artillery, and two of anti-tank and two of anti-aircraft artillery. Of the twenty seven infantry, artillery, and armoured units fifteen were Australian, eleven British and one Indian. Morshead the garrison commander had 13 infantry battalions, 12 Australian and 1 Indian at his disposal. <P><BR> There is I believe one other reason why Indian contributions to the War are so poorly understood, and that is the lack of Indian publicity, or healthy self promotion. Few Indians and non Indians alike realise that the RIA was an all volunteer force. The assumption amongst many is that these were poor men unwillingly pressed into service by a colonial government. Such men are to be pitied, not praised. This impression is reinforced by the apparent lack of Indian pride in India's contribution to the war effort. <P>Overall, no single ally could have won the war on their own; Not the Soviets whose lifeline for nine desperate months depended on the artic convoys to Murmansk, and resources tied down by the cancelled Sea Lion operation, the Blitz, and North Africa, or even the Americans who triumphed in the Pacific largely on their own, but could not have won in Europe without ULTRA, 'Tube Alloys' , hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth soldiers, tens of thousands of Commonwealth aircraft, naval and merchant marine vessels, and of course an unsinkable aircraft carrier anchored of the coast of Europe.<p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 26-09-1999).]
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
<P>Now the comparison between Corregidor and Singapore is not a fair one. Just how populated was Corregidor by comparison to Singapore, and what was left of it after these months of non-surrender? The British and Indian troops who surrendered to the Japanese army, rather than fight to the last civilian, were no less brave than the Americans who fought on Corregidor. Unlike the Americans, the British-Indian forces had no prospect of any assistance arriving for a few years. <P>No embellishment needed. But there has been FAR, FAR, too little recognition of what Indians did to win the war for the so-called Allies. Most Westerners hear, if they hear any mention at all, only about the small Indian POW units which were converted to INA units by the Japanese, in the ususal myth that all of us are the "enemy" of western civilization. <P>Like they believe that Edmund Hillary climbed Mt. Everest and dragged Tenzing Norgay up, while the truth is that Tenzing climbed up carrying his own oxygen, tools and supplies, Edmund, and all of Edmund's stuff, and the camp supplies, and Edmund's flags and radio and batteries and TV and VCR and other stuff. Probably his easy-chair and his whisky decanter and his safari hat too...only the ice was available in plenty up there.<P>I wonder if you have seen the Benny Hill show on "The Men Who Built the British Empire" 
<p>[This message has been edited by narayanan (edited 26-09-1999).]