The colonial forces that dotted the battle maps of World War II were crucial for the Allies to fill out their ranks and keep up their momentum. While India contributed the largest number of volunteers, at some 2.5 million troops, Africans, Arabs and others fought and died for the freedom of the Allied powers. This is still under the yoke of colonial rule.
About 15 percent of all the Victoria Crosses — Britain’s highest decoration for valour — awarded during the Second World War went to Indian and Nepalese troops. The honour was bestowed upon service members from other colonies as well. While these colonial forces are often forgotten or overshadowed, they not only helped the Allied powers win their war, they also set in motion events that would eventually lead to some of the colonies’ independence.
Source: https://russellphillips.uk
Despite their sacrifices, these troops were never treated as equals. They were largely under the command of European or American officers, although they were skilled fighters. It was difficult for them to rise up the ranks and become officers. Their compensation was far less than that of their white peers. It worsened if their skin colour was darker. As poorly as Indian soldiers were treated, their African peers fared far worse.
Their skill on the battlefield helped stoke nationalism at home; however, the colonial forces were in many ways helping Britain maintain its crumbling empire, as it came under onslaught by Japanese, Italian and German forces.
Although the battlefronts of Europe are romanticized in novels, history books and films, much of the war was fought in and over British (and to a lesser extent, French) colonies. In June 1940, the Axis powers launched the North Africa campaign and fighting broke out across Algeria, Morocco, Egypt and Tunisia as they tried to wrest those colonies from British and French rule. Japan snatched up British colonies like Singapore, Malaya and Burma (now Myanmar) and tried to invade India.
It would be the entry of the world’s most vocal supporter of liberty and self-determination, the United States, that would help the Allies restore their momentum and shift the tide against the Axis.
But the alliance between the United States and Britain was forged in tension. Why? Opposing stances on colonialism. While the United States remained on the sidelines for nearly half of the war, its calls to end colonialism irked Britain. The colonies were needed as Britain’s financial reserves were nearly exhausted.
Indians were angry when Britain, which ruled them, declared war on Nazi Germany in 1939 and exploited their resources to support the conflict. Some Indians who were loyal to the raj, fought enthusiastically for the Allies, but the vast majority volunteered because they were offered land, a stable salary and steady meals. Others joined to refine their technical or engineering skills.
In August 1941, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed what became known as the Atlantic Charter, a new vision for the postwar world, highlighting the right of all people to self-determination. The Atlantic Charter spurred hopes of independence among the British colonies. But a month after the charter was signed, Churchill clarified that the right to self-determination outlined in the document applied only to countries under German occupation.
A significant consequence of the war (WW2) was the rise of independence movement across Asia and Africa. Many gained confidence to end colonialism and had America’s tacit support. So, did Britain fight alone? No, it was the British Empire, be it from Canada, Australia, India or the African states that provided resources and manpower to defeat the Axis powers.
A sad state is when “Remembrance Sunday” is observed, not much credit is given to the colonies who fought alongside the “mother” country. Some of the great battles at Imphal or Kohima are hardly heard in the light of victories at El-Alamein or the European theatre. Why can’t Britain address that?
Reference:
The forgotten colonial forces of World War II, Maria Abi-Habib, Sept 1, 2020
(https://www.nytimes.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment