The Indian Volunteers in the German Army and Waffen-SS

[michael mills]

However, the real point is that, as all those examples show, there was no such thing as a "taboo against using non-European troops against a European opponent". Those who could use them, used them if they found it necessary.

Then why did the British not use their large numbers of Indian troops against the Boers?

The European troops of the British Army had an unexpectedly hard time overcoming the Boer resistance, and suffered an unexpectedly high level of casualties that caused a scandal back home.

That could have been avoided if the British had been prepared to use the large numbers of Indian soldiers at their disposal as cannon-fodder. But they did not use them against the Boers, and the reason they did not was that it was considered dishonourable to use "coloured" troops against a European enemy.

By 1914 the British had obviously got over their inhibitions about using non-European troops against a European enemy.

[Ironmachine]

Thirdly, the proximate causes of the mutiny were religious rather than nationalist.

So?
The mutineers were trying to overthrow their British rulers.

So? No one here had said that the Indians (some Indians, at least) could not in any circunstance mutiny/rebel/fight against the British. What was in question was the ultimate motivation for the mutiny/rebellion/fight, and in that regard Sid's comment is completely pertinent.

However, the real point is that, as all those examples show, there was no such thing as a "taboo against using non-European troops against a European opponent". Those who could use them, used them if they found it necessary.

Then why did the British not use their large numbers of Indian troops against the Boers?

The European troops of the British Army had an unexpectedly hard time overcoming the Boer resistance, and suffered an unexpectedly high level of casualties that caused a scandal back home.

That could have been avoided if the British had been prepared to use the large numbers of Indian soldiers at their disposal as cannon-fodder. But they did not use them against the Boers, and the reason they did not was that it was considered dishonourable to use "coloured" troops against a European enemy.

By 1914 the British had obviously got over their inhibitions about using non-European troops against a European enemy.

Let's remember that your original statement was:

A bias against Indian troops on the part of European populations can be traced back to 1914, when Britain introduced them on the Western Front. In doing so, Britain was breaking a taboo against using non-European troops against a European opponent; non-European colonial troops were supposed to be used only in colonial wars against other non-Europeans.

Your example of the Boer war, when combined with the provided examples of the actual use of non-European troops against a European opponent, may suggest that there was a British taboo against using non-European troops against European opponents, but certainly it was not a general European taboo.
But even for the British, the situation is not as you paint it. The British did send Indian troops to the Boer War, though there were not used in combat, AFAIK not because "it was dishonourable to use "coloured" troops against a European enemy" but because there was a tacit agreement between British and Boers to use only whites in military operations for fear of arming Africans who might later turn their weapons against both British and Boer.
But the British were more than ready to use non-European troops against "a European opponent" when neccesary. Just some examples: sepoys were used against Spanish troops in the capture of Manila in the Seven Years War in 1762; they used Indians against the French in many battles in India, like for example the Battle of Condore in 1758 and the Battle of Wandiwash in 1760; Indian troops were sent to Egypt in 1801 to fight the French, though they arrived too late to engage in combat; West Indies regiments (black soldiers from the British West Indies colonies) fought in the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 against an opponent that should qualify as European just like the Boers; Indian troops were sent in 1878 to Cyprus to garrison the island against any Russian attempt to break out of the Black Sea.
So it seems that those supposed inhibitions the British got over in 1914 did not exist.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Hoot,

I wouldn't argue for a moment that partition wasn't a bloody shambles that was the responsibility of the British as departing rulers. However, Indo-Pak politicians had their role to play as well, especially at the local level.

Furthermore, not only were Hindus and Sikhs killed during partition, but Muslims as well. Your family tragedy is mirrored in Pakistan, where Karachi is largely made up of the families of surviving Muslim refugees from partition. In neither case were the British doing the actual killing. In all cases it was local communities going at each others' throats.

The base measure of the severity of British rule is the population. It was about 150 million when the British achieved dominance in the subcontinent and nearly three times as many when they left only 150 years later.

Not everything is or was, in whole or in part, the fault of the British, good or bad.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Michael,

You ask,

"So?

The mutineers were trying to overthrow their British rulers."

Yes, but not for reasons of Indian nationalism, which was the subject I was addressing.

The British situations in South Africa and in WWI were rather different. In South Africa they did not need to use Indian troops because they were not under fundamental national threat and could field large enough forces of white volunteers to handle the situation. In WWI national existence was more directly threatened and there was a massive shortage of trained soldiers compared with the mass conscript armies of the continent, hence the use of Indian regulars on the Western Front until enough Britons had been raised. I would suggest that pragmatism always trumped racial issues as far as the employment of non-European troops by Britain against other Europeans was concerned.

Indeed, as a country with an historically small population, Britain had fought most of its continental wars using a majority of foreign troops. At neither Blenheim nor Waterloo were more than a third of Marlborough or Wellington's troops British. It was only the racial arrogance of the late Victorian period, combined with relatively weak foes, that allowed Britain the indulgence of not using non-European troops against Europeans, and then only against the one foe - the Boers. I would therefore suggest that the Boer War was an aberration rather than the norm.

Cheers,

Sid.

[michael mills]

It would appear that my post about the motivation of the Indian POWs who joined the Legion Freies Indien has elicited a very aggressive reaction from Ironmachine. I think it worthwhile having another look at my post to see what it was that caused him to come out swinging.This is what I wrote:

One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that the members of the Legion Freies Indien had all been members of the British Indian Army prior to their capture in North Africa, and had received their military training from the British. It is very unlikely that they had been "Nazified" in any way since being inducted into the Legion; their motivation for volunteering to fight on the German side must have been the nationalist one of opposing their colonial master, Britain.

I have highlighted the crucial part of my post, namely the fact that the actions of the Indian recruits cannot be attributed to a putative influence of National Socialist propaganda since they were not exposed to it for very long, whereas their training by the British would have subjected them to strong pro-Allied propaganda. Unlike German soldiers, the mentality of the Indian soldiers had not been formed by the experience of National Socialist indoctrination; rather, it had been formed by their upbringing in their own Indian culture, supplemented by the training they had received from their British masters.

Accordingly, it is extremely unlikely that the Indian POWs who volunteered for the Legion were motivated by sympathy for the German cause or for National Socialist ideology. As I wrote, it is most likely that their motivation was a desire to fight against the British who were ruling over their country.

I think any reasonable and unbiased person reading my post would grasp its essential meaning, ie that the Indian recruits were not motivated so much by support for National Socialist Germany, as by hostility to their colonial rulers. Unfortunately, Ironmachine seems to have been unable to grasp that essential meaning, since he responded as follows:

Or not. IMHO, it is a bit presumptuous to assume that all of them volunteered for that reason alone, when there are other motivations that are equally possible, like volunteering just to get a better life outside POW camps, for example. If they really volunteered to fight for the Germans due to a nationalistic desire to oppose their colonial masters, then one must wonder why they had volunteered previously to fight for their colonial masters. Did they have a epiphany while under German captivity?

.

The smart-arse flavour of the last sentence is palpable.

It seems that Ironmachine was unable to accept that the Indians who joined the Legion Freies Indien could have been motivated by a desire to free their country from foreign rule, a motivation that I think most would find acceptable and indeed laudable. I have the impression that his attitude is that any person who voluntarily chose to join the German side against the Allies can only have been driven by the basest of motives, such as a desire to loot, rape and murder.

[Ironmachine]

It would appear that my post about the motivation of the Indian POWs who joined the Legion Freies Indien has elicited a very aggressive reaction from Ironmachine.

Only if you think that any disagreement with your ideas is an aggression can you consider that my posts were a "very aggressive reaction". There was nothing aggressive in them.

I think it worthwhile having another look at my post to see what it was that caused him to come out swinging.

Indeed it would be worthwile that you have another look at your post to see what you wrote.

This is what I wrote:

One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that the members of the Legion Freies Indien had all been members of the British Indian Army prior to their capture in North Africa, and had received their military training from the British. It is very unlikely that they had been "Nazified" in any way since being inducted into the Legion; their motivation for volunteering to fight on the German side must have been the nationalist one of opposing their colonial master, Britain.

I have highlighted the crucial part of my post, namely the fact that the actions of the Indian recruits cannot be attributed to a putative influence of National Socialist propaganda since they were not exposed to it for very long, whereas their training by the British would have subjected them to strong pro-Allied propaganda. Unlike German soldiers, the mentality of the Indian soldiers had not been formed by the experience of National Socialist indoctrination; rather, it had been formed by their upbringing in their own Indian culture, supplemented by the training they had received from their British masters.

I have also highlighted the crucial part of your post, though it is a different crucial part. I agree that Nazi propaganda was probably not a strong influence. However, considering as you do that thousands of individuals were moved to volunteer only ("must have been") by a nationalist motivation to fight their British masters is IMO going too far. And you have failed to provide any evidence to support your idea.

Accordingly, it is extremely unlikely that the Indian POWs who volunteered for the Legion were motivated by sympathy for the German cause or for National Socialist ideology. As I wrote, it is most likely that their motivation was a desire to fight against the British who were ruling over their country.

In fact, originally you did not write that the desire to fight against the British was most likely their motivation, but that they must have been motivated by nationalism; and there is a great difference between both sentences. I can agree that a desire to fight the British was a much stronger motivation than Nazi propaganda for some/many of the Indian volunteers. But the reasons for that desire (other than a nationalist motivation) or the existence of other reasons to volunteer are points in which we disagree.

I think any reasonable and unbiased person reading my post would grasp its essential meaning, ie that the Indian recruits were not motivated so much by support for National Socialist Germany, as by hostility to their colonial rulers.

Then I must be a reasonable and unbiased person, because I also think that hostility to the British was more important than support for Nazi Germany as a reason to volunteer. However, reading your post I see that the only reason you mention to volunteer is nationalism. Can you accept that at least some of the Indian volunteers joined the Indian Legion for other reasons?

Unfortunately, Ironmachine seems to have been unable to grasp that essential meaning, since he responded as follows:

Or not. IMHO, it is a bit presumptuous to assume that all of them volunteered for that reason alone, when there are other motivations that are equally possible, like volunteering just to get a better life outside POW camps, for example. If they really volunteered to fight for the Germans due to a nationalistic desire to oppose their colonial masters, then one must wonder why they had volunteered previously to fight for their colonial masters. Did they have a epiphany while under German captivity?

The smart-arse flavour of the last sentence is palpable.

I'm not used to tasting asses so I can't really say, but you are probably right as you seem to have ample experience in the matter (of being a smart-arse, not of ass-licking). However, other than the word "presumptuous", that with English not being my native tongue I can have misused, I can't see anything offensive in that post.

It seems that Ironmachine was unable to accept that the Indians who joined the Legion Freies Indien could have been motivated by a desire to free their country from foreign rule

Not at all. If I were unable to accept that, why would I have said in a previous post what follows?:

Just to clarify one point, I can agree that a number of Indian volunteers probably had the nationalist motivation you mention as their principal (or even only) reason to volunteer to fight on the German side.

It seems that in addtion to having another look at your posts, you should have another look at my posts.

, a motivation that I think most would find acceptable and indeed laudable.

Maybe, though it is not the only acceptable and indeed laudable motivation, and joining Nazi Germany's war effort to do it is something that I think many would not find acceptable or laudable. And of course, the acceptability or laudability of that motivation has nothing to do with the point being considered.

I have the impression that his attitude is that any person who voluntarily chose to join the German side against the Allies can only have been driven by the basest of motives, such as a desire to loot, rape and murder.

The persons who voluntarily chosed to join the German side against the Allies could have done it by very different reasons; you are the one who are reducing all the motivations (for the Indian volunteers at least) to just one, not me. I have the impression that your attitude is that anyone who dares to think differently (than you) is an enemy that is attacking you, and you react accordingly, without making any effort to understand the point of view of other posters.
It would be really easy to end all this. I have already posted (and reposted) that surely a number of Indian volunteers were motivated by Indian nationalism. I have also posted that your original statement implied (in fact, almost explicitly stated) that the nationalist motivation was the only motivation to volunteer. Can you agree that there were other possible reasons for the Indians to join the Indian Legion?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Michael,

I would suggest that it is simplistic to ascribe nationalism as the sole motivator for Indians to enlist in the Legion.

By removing them from their British officers, the Germans left the hitherto largely apolitical Indian other ranks in a vacuum devoid of previous authority and loyalties. They were then "worked on".

It would be interesting to know to know how many Indians spontaneously volunteered before being "worked on".

Cheers,

Sid.

[michael mills]

Sid,

The Indian POWs may indeed have been "worked on" by their German captors, but the crucial issue is the content of the "working on".

I doubt very much that the "working on" consisted of lessons in National Socialist ideology, in such themes as the superiority of the German race, or hostility to Jews.

I think it almost certain that the "working on" consisted of appeals to their latent hostility to British rule over India, the offer of an opportunity to fight against the British with the ultimate goal of ending British role. In other words, a cultivation of a nascent nationalism.

The crucial point is that the Germans were motivating their Indian captives to fight on the German side by utilising an anti-British sentiment rather than a specifically pro-German one, let alone a pro-National Socialist one.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi David,

A clarification, please,

Is it the "slurs" or their "anti-nationalistic" nature that you are objecting to.

I can understand your objection to "slurs", but is it not as OK to be as "anti-nationalistic" as to be anti-Fascistic or anti-Communistic, etc.?

Nationalism seems to me to be an offensive form of national projection designed to make one's national identity dominant over others. This seems like a thoroughly dangerous thing and has led to numerous wars.

Patriotism, on the other hand, seems more benign. It is essentially a defensive reaction to real or perceived outside threat to one's own identity.

In short, to paraphrase Orwell, "Patriotism - Good, Nationalism - Bad".

Cheers,

Sid..

[Ironmachine]

Maybe David means "anti-national" when he says "anti-nationalist", as in "anti-Indian" instead of "anti-Indian nationalism". That seems to be a recurrent problem as English-speaking authors on the SCW kept calling a side "Nationalists" when they have been always called "Nationals".
But I may be wrong.

[hoot72]

Good day all,

On the subject of why the indian POW's who were captured in North Africa jumped at the chance to join a national army with the introduction of indian students who were already in Germany, the general belief, and this is me asking a former Indian National Army member who joined late, in early 1944 was that "...it was going to be a unified, indian army...not a british indian army with british commanders dictating where in the empire we would serve but rather a patriotic sense of duty of saving mother india. It was also about money and being able to feed father and mother and the family back in the village and being able to send something back every month but everyone i know longed to go home. The longer they stayed in europe, the more home sick they became and they soon had many conflicts and confusions amongst very many of the groups within the azad hind as to why they were there and when they were actually going back to india to do something. None of this materialized and the sad part is many of these boys were village boys were uneducated farmers who didn't understand many many things about their situation."

My interview with the said member who is now in his 90s was back in 2014

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi hoot72,

Some of that doesn't sound altogether plausible.

Most regular Indian soldiers (who formed the great majority of those captured earlier in the war against the European Axis) came from military castes and had family military backgrounds. They were more than just village boys.

Furthermore, service in the Indian Army was one of the surest ways to get money sent regularly to their families. Service with the Axis would not have this effect.

Cheers,

Sid.

[hoot72]

Hi hoot72,

Some of that doesn't sound altogether plausible.

Most regular Indian soldiers (who formed the great majority of those captured earlier in the war against the European Axis) came from military castes and had family military backgrounds. They were more than just village boys.

Furthermore, service in the Indian Army was one of the surest ways to get money sent regularly to their families. Service with the Axis would not have this effect.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid,

I come from a sikh background and 3 generations of who served the British in South East Asia, going all the way back to 1858.

Just to give you a bit more of an understanding what life is like in Punjab and the way things are and were.

Our old family castle or fort is still in existence, south of Tarn Tarn in a village in the middle of wheat fields where everyone has the same last name.

Each village essentially had a "village chief" or "Chieftain" who dictated to the rest of the clan, and in many cases represented the will of the clan but acted more like a prince.

When he went to war, the whole village went to war under his banner.

And when son's did not come home from war (i.e. First Anglo Sikh War as an example), it was his responsibility (or in the case of the chieftain being killed in battle, his son would be next in line to lead regardless of age) to look after the widow's and their children and in many cases, they were married off as 2nd wives or 3rd wives to other villagers from the same village to ensure the clan had a new generation of children and boys to replace those who were lost and to work in the fields off from periods of instablity and war.

In the case of WW1, and the Sikh's that went to war, it was done more so not only because it was a "calling" but because it was also about survival and wages. The chieftain went, so everyone else followed.

Whilst the women tended to the children, the cows, buffalo's, and fields, the husbands and son's would send back money to help with month to month life. This was the PRIMARY reason Sikh's as a race went and joined the British in the mid 1800's.

The vast majority of the "warrior" class were already dead during/after the first anglo sikh war. Those who had not perished in the various engagements with the British perished/drowned trying to cross the Sutlej at the most important battle of the whole campaign, which, would define the future of Punjab, the battle at Sobraon.

They (the sikh army) lost the vast majority of their warrior class there including 8,000-10,000 drowned trying to cross the river when the bridge head was burnt down by one of their own (a british spy).

You get into the second anglo sikh war and the remenants of this sikh army and having lost more men, there was not much of a "sikh army" left that had been brought up on a military upbringing.

Those who served the British, post second anglo sikh war did so because of money and because putting on a uniform was a hell of a lot better than walking around the fields and working like a dog in kaca and a cotton tee looking after the cows and goats and under the hot sun.

To put on a uniform was more honorable and it paid.

Most did not think about death or the risk of death and that is the primary reason you find sikh's being recruited to work as policemen in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Brunei, and China in the late 1800's. They went because the pay was good and together with any income raised from the endeavours in the wheat fields, it meant more money for the family at home.

I write this because this is what has been told to me from my grand mother and having visited the villages we originated from, and having a better understanding of the social and economic aspects of village life in the 1800s, which, have not changed a lot in 200 years, you get to understand why money was so so important to the village.

Cheers.

[hoot72]

Maybe David means "anti-national" when he says "anti-nationalist", as in "anti-Indian" instead of "anti-Indian nationalism". That seems to be a recurrent problem as English-speaking authors on the SCW kept calling a side "Nationalists" when they have been always called "Nationals".
But I may be wrong.

The recruitment of indian's to serve in a national army to not only invade India and to over thrown the British was introduced/suggested in Berlin by a young generation of Indian's living and studying there and further supported by Bose.

He felt, as they did, if they could get the german's to essentially fund (and funding an entire army was not cheap) the Indian Legion, to train it and to then assist it with the invasion of India, it was a means to an end.

What Bose and the leadership did not count on was the turn of events in Russia and the beginning of the end of the German army after Operation Barbarossa.

Bose himself, was actually a communist in nature and was actually upset when the German's launched their invasion of Russia and felt after the tide began to turn against the Germans in Russia that he had made a categoric mistake working with them and forming the Indian Legion.

You will not after 1943, he does not make anymore trips to Europe and is not seen again in Germany.

The whole point of the formation of the Indian Legion was Nationalistic in nature.

These POW's were convinced them joining the Legion would mean freedom and an end to colonial British rule. Of course, sentiments changed once the Allies invaded in 1944 and some willingly surrendered to the Allies, whilst others were simply lost...as to what to do. And you have a very very small minority at this point in time who wanted to support the Germans and felt an obligation to the Germans.

After the initial anti tank engagements against both French Sherman's and American units, the entire 950 was essentially retreating all the way back across the Rhine and were out of action.

Bar the engagement in Italy, 950 ceased to be an operational unit in early 1945 and were waiting for orders that never came.

They were a means to an end for the Germans to use as propaganda tools.

And the Germans were a means to an end for Bose to fund the army and to help him with logistics to get to India and to help fund the invasion of India that never happened.

The Burma campaign with the Japanese was a separate nationalistic mission.

[Ironmachine]

The whole point of the formation of the Indian Legion was Nationalistic in nature.

Maybe for Bose and his most close collaborators, but what about the Germans? After all, there were the Germans who created, funded and trained the Indian Legion that, it must not be forgotten, was a unit of the German Army.