American Reacts to WW2 from India's Perspective 🇮🇳

In this video I learn more about India's role in World War Two, and also more about British rule in India during this time. If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe!
00:00 - Intro
01:36 - Reaction
26:54 - Outro
Link to original video: • WW2 From India's Persp...
Support my channel on Patreon: www.patreon.com/sogal_yt?fan_...
Follow me on social media:
Instagram: / sogal.yt
Twitter: / sogal_yt
Facebook Page: / sogal-104043461744742
Facebook Group: / 238616921241608
My Star Trek Podcast: www.tribblespodcast.com/
Join my Discord: / discord
If you want to send any snail mail:
SoGal
P.O. Box 34913
Memphis, TN 38184
USA
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
#India #BritishEmpire #WWII

[@SoGal_YT]

Thanks for the Patreon request, Joanie! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media, and join my Discord & Patreon: ❤ Patreon: www.patreon.com/sogal_yt?fan_landing=true 🐕 Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ 🏀 Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT ⚽ Facebook Page: facebook.com/SoGal-104043461744742 🏖 Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/238616921241608 💥 Discord: discord.gg/amWWc6jcC2 🖖 My Star Trek Podcast: www.tribblespodcast.com/

[@cjrecio5702]

Hello SoGal, can you watch the Spanish Civil War Factions by History with Hilbert, please?

[@JoanieAdamms]

My pleasure, I'm glad this got to you ✨

[@thkempe]

Hi Sarah. There is a reaction video like yours, but from an Indian guy. Maybe interesting to see, how the video about the Indian perspective is viewed from an Indian perspective 😄 kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2HCm6mPm6Z_oqM

[@rk-ytbe]

British indian government was called RAJ

[@deWiAnNaEnEcBi3857]

Please react to "Azadi - a tribute to India's greatest freedom fighters" byju's video...

[@krakendragonslayer1909]

India accepted many children refugees from my country during WWII. Polish famiiles exiled from Ukraine to Kazakhstan escaped Soviet Union as refugees to Iran and India. Men formed army and went further to Palestine and Italy, women and children were excellently cared by Iranian and Indian kings (shahs and rajas).

[@user-ox1bh3vh2t]

And how you repaid to the peoples of that region? By killing them in your border with Belarussia and previosly voted to bomb their lands the people of Middle East that acceped you when you were refugees today saw from another side of a wall which you biult. And how Emil told us that you murder people on the border. Your government is Fashist government and you are hypocrites.

[@krakendragonslayer1909]

@@user-ox1bh3vh2t No, Indians and Persians normally come and work here in Poland, they had no reason to be on Belarus border. Those on border were Kurds and Arabs.

[@krakendragonslayer1909]

@@user-ox1bh3vh2t And Polish ministry (with help of other countries) used their connections in Kurdistan to convince Kurds to take their people back by airplanes.

[@user-ox1bh3vh2t]

@@krakendragonslayer1909 Did your ancestors which cross borders from Soviet Union to Iran or from Turkey to Iran normally came and worked in Iran or India? And what is the difference between polish refugees in 1930s and arab, kurd, afgan refugees today? You ran from a war they ran from war too. The war which your country with your allies kindeled in their homes. And by accepting refugees today you could show the gratitude to Iranian and Indian people by helping their neighboor people. But you again show your nature. Who said the words: "Poland is hyena of Europe"?

[@user-ox1bh3vh2t]

@@krakendragonslayer1909 What hypocrite do you understand your hypocricy?

[@stephenparker6362]

Hi, Sarah, very interesting. Raj is a Hindi word and in this connection simply refers to the period of British rule in India from 1858 to 1947. The Jewel in the British Crown was the term given to India it indicated that India was considered the most important part of the Empire at the time.

[@gigabyte1739]

Yes, Raj Literally translates to rule or government.

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

Cognate with Latin "regnum", and pretty much meant the same thing.

[@TrashskillsRS]

The American call for decolonization was ignored by the Europeans. It also became a low priority for America because of the Cold War. The US was even seen as hypocrites due to Puorto Rico and Panama Canal

[@neildiamondo6445]

America based on colonisation at expense of native Americans

[@Thatoneidiot001]

Still hypocrites telling children colonialism is bad forgetting about Hawaii and Guam and Puerto Rico and many inhabited islands

[@shyamsrikrishna5057]

From seeing the comments section, it is sad to see that even to this day there are lot of British people who can’t accept the fact that the British empire did a lot of bad things not just to India but all the colonies. Saying that these places would have been bad even if the British had not invaded is just an excuse and that can’t justify the bad things done by the British raj

[@subhadeepbanerjee9191]

Forget the comment section, even this girl seems to not 'accept' the fact that the British Empire did atrocities in India even though she is not British.

[@abhinavraj6034]

@@subhadeepbanerjee9191 Yes bro i accidentally clicked this and going to report this offcourse 😑😑.

[@robleyusuf2566]

In fact most of British soldiers that died world war 2 were Indians

[@yugiohmastermind8]

India was 100% the focus of the British Empire. Back in the day before it was colonised by the British it was the Europeans who desperately travelled across the globe to trade with India since India had the largest economy in the world and had more valuable resources than any other country besides maybe China. Every other country especially European ones given that they were much smaller and needed to colonise in order to obtain such resources, desperately flooded to the east indies such as the Dutch, French and later the British who began trading with the Indian mainland for a while. When back then the power roles were completely reversed with India being the powerhouse of the time with the Europeans being the weaker powers who had to beg the Indians to trade with them. Once India was eventually conquered by Britain it was seen as the Jewel of the crown/empire, arguably more valuable than most of their other colonies all over the world put together, due to India's massive population and abundance of resources that dwarfed practically everywhere else. Britain's rule over India for around 2 centuries is a large factor in what allowed Britain to be the world's sole superpower for around a whole century.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

10:21 In documentries and books you'll hear the name "Indian Army" and while many of the units did contain regiments raised in India their were British regiments to, during the battle of Kohima the British Royal West Kents regiment was a part of the Inidan army at the time.

[@chrisbovington9607]

15:32 We were awful. Most empires are awful to their subjugated peoples. Watch the movie Gandhi. That is relatively gentle on the British and still not flattering. It showcases just a few of the injustices that were key to Gandhi's story, but even that includes a massacre of unarmed and peaceful men, women, and children as well as a policy that caused mass starvation (a different instance from this video) in peacetime. During the British empire, there was a gradual improvement in the attitudes of some towards the ordinary man, towards women, towards other "races", and towards colonial subjects in general, but it took centuries to culminate in women's suffrage and growing support for independence movements, etc. All the while, there was widespread racism and abuse. You must understand that the empire began in a time when democracy and human rights were unheard of and the universal truth was that the strong took from the weak and power justified everything. The ruling elites saw the exploitation of others as both their rightful privilege and a necessity for maintaining their position. Remember, the empire began in an age where the struggle for power in England was between monarchs and nobles. The ordinary people were just there to be ruled. Democracy didn't exist yet. And England was still subjugating the rest of the British Isles. The first colonies were merely attempts to extract additional resources and avoid being eclipsed by other European powers. Then there was the Civil War and the Protectorate (the deposition of the King and the rule of Parliament, followed by the tyranny of one man), the Restoration (a slightly limited monarchy), and the Glorious Revolution (an attempt to restore monarchical despotism followed by the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and the final preeminence of Parliament). But even then, only property owning men over the age of 21 who paid above a threshold of tax each year could vote for their members of parliament. And at this time that translated to only about 3% of the population! There followed a gradual expansion of sufferage, beginning in 1832 and culminating in 1928 with universal sufferage for men and women over 21 and then again in 1969 with the enfranchisement of those over 18. And we are talking about the population in the UK here. Meanwhile, colonials either had no voting rights or severely limited voting rights (remember the cry of "no taxation without representation"?) and the difference usually came down to race. But that is not all. The oppression and exploitation of the non-european peoples ranged from neglect to abject slavery. The entire system rested upon the extraction of wealth, whether in the form of material or labour or life or suffering or all of these together. Even the eventual abolition of slavery did not end the cruelty or exploitation of millions by other means. I recognise that some good came out of the British empire. But on balance ... Remember, you might feel that the guy in the video is being one sided, but the video is about the Indian perspective.

[@Be-Es---___]

Any country that implies rules on who may vote and who not is on a slippery slope.

[@chrisbovington9607]

@@Be-Es---___ No, you have it backwards. We're talking about OLD history. The vote was gradually extended. So we effectively "slipped" upward. And the word you wanted was imposes, not implies.

[@deWiAnNaEnEcBi3857]

Not only Pakistan and later Bangladesh(east Pakistan) are separate from India. Myanmar (Burma) and other many Countries are separate from undivided India. Total 14 countries are separate from India. This video is about only 15-20% about WW2 history from Indian side. And I don't know why Western people always talking about that Gandhi give us freedom. Their many great heros, legends and million of Indian people give us freedom. Gandhi just one of these great freedom fighters... This is not one side video. He talking about the truth. You don't know nothing about our history. That's why you thought that this is one side video. This is not one side video. This is the truth.. 🙏🙏🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳❤️❤️❤️❤️

[@atharvarajadhyaksha4813]

India is literally the crown jewel because the jewels in the queen's crown came from India

[@starrynight1657]

If you're talking about the jewel....Most people don't care about that rock, it's just used as a nationalist symbol. And of course Indian nationalists are far from the only ones who claim it, others say they stole it.

[@aasamspb967]

@@starrynight1657 kohinoor is mined in the Andhra region during Kakatiya dynasty (according to my knowledge) and it was gifted to the North Indian kingdoms. At last it reached a teen age ruler in Punjab and the British took it after they won the war against a 13 year old. Britishers are so brave.

[@starrynight1657]

@@aasamspb967 Indiashers have a lot of bigotry and are easily led.

[@aasamspb967]

@@starrynight1657 bigotry is everywhere. Not just India. And every one is easily lead. Not just Indians. Indians can lead India too. India can survive on it's own too. We don't need stupid europeans for that.

[@starrynight1657]

@@aasamspb967 Well obviously Mr Godi and the whole anti-West ideology and indoctrination shows how Indians are easily led. There's a need to be praised, a need to hate, a need to feel superior, a need to be racial etc. There's a lack of proper unbiased media and education.

[@dharmendramishra1672]

It's not a one sided video, it's the reality.

[@steveinheathfield]

Sadly it is a fact! Not helped by a cyclone in 1942 and trade with Burma cut off.

[@abhijeetchoudhury7060]

@CHRISTIAN KNIGHT no they mostly hanged us.

[@steveinheathfield]

@CHRISTIAN KNIGHT We were in charge, and not to be blunt, decided not to do anything about it or even denied it was happening. On our watch, however you look at it, we have to shoulder the responsibility. Churchill has been quoted as blaming the famine on the fact Indians were “breeding like rabbits”, and asking how, if the shortages were so bad, Mahatma Gandhi was still alive. The juxtaposition of War Hero/Monster - you can take your pick or study history. Scratch beneath the surface and you will soon see.

[@steveinheathfield]

@@abhijeetchoudhury7060 oh subtle!

[@hakimuddintjabrot4102]

@CHRISTIAN KNIGHT Fighting for your freedom from an outside conquerer who is exploiting you to the core is a crime? Really!! If Indian military was to occupy Britain today and I am to give the same logic to you what what you have to say about that?

[@krakendragonslayer1909]

"Raj" translates etymosemantologically to: - "a reign" in English, - "rex" in Latin - "das reich" in German - "rząd" and "raj" in Slavic (Polish). - "le regime" in French Literally it means "realm" or "kingdom" or "king".

[@SweArdaia]

This is correct. Hindi, like most European and many languages inbetween, is an Indo-European language. This means they are all related even if they developed in different directions. "Raj" is one of those words that is still pretty recognisable to Europeans. Raj is cognate to English "Realm", Latin "Rex" (and thus French "Roi"), Scandinavian "Rike/Rige", German "Reich" and many other words in many other languages.

[@TrashskillsRS]

Rex in Latin like in Greek

[@krakendragonslayer1909]

@@TrashskillsRS Yes, I realized mymistake just after I wrote it, but had no time to correct

[@MarkVrem]

Interesting cause in South Slavic Raj (Rai) or Vraj in other Slavic. Is the Kingdom of Heaven. Although looking at etymology on Wikipedia .. Vraj is most likely related to Persian Rayi, which means wealth, abundance.. Heaven is a place the dead go full of wealth and abundance.

[@krakendragonslayer1909]

@@MarkVrem Yes, in Polish "raj" also means "paradise"; "rząd" is "government" or "order" or "line". Btw. Isn't Italian governmental television called "Rai"? I remember it was available when I was a child.

[@stephenparker6362]

The conflict between India and Pakistan certainly is not friendly, they have fought wars and are both nuclear powers. One major point of contention are disputed regions of Kashmir. It is a problem that always has the potential to escalate. It is worth studying more.

[@kratos71]

All credit goes to UK and USA the hypocrites and roots for all the evil cause all over the world. And no Kashmir is not disputed it's legally chosen to join india when some Brits officer helped pakistan to attack and capture some part of it.

[@toiletsauce_]

Raj is a Hindi word meaning "rule". So the British Raj literally means the British Rule (over India). It was founded in 1858 after a failed Indian revolt against British colonial rule in 1857. It essentially put India under direct British control

[@paulausten5786]

My Grandfather fought with the Indian 4th Division in Africa & Italy. He had nothing but huge praise for them & insists we wouldn’t of won without them. There are 3 books on the Indian army during WW2 in the Middle East, Africa & Italy. The Tiger Strikes Western Africa, Indian 5th Division (1940/41), The Tiger Kills is the Indian 4 Division in North Africa (1942/43) & The TigerTriumphs Indian 10th Division, Italy. All are very good reads.

[@colindonald3161]

Fascinating stuff, nice to learn along with someone else 👍

[@googleaccount4471]

It was the jewel due to the insane amount of wealth the Britain was able to make from India. Yes the British were responsible for the deaths. Not sure why you can never accept the British committed evil acts, every empire has

[@markthompson5367]

The flag shown on the maps during the fight against the Japanese looks like the emblem of the British armed forces general headquarters and represents all 'British' forces at the time. Given the subject of the video it is more appropriate than the Union flag.

[@iansheridan4569]

The British working class was oppressed by its own Business people and Land owners as well. Everything was profit driven. As mentioned by a previous poster we had incidents such as Peterloo.

[@penultimateh766]

Baloney. The working class screamed for tea and the business people provided it. If they hadn't, you would have just gotten it through businesspeople in Holland or some other place. India loses either way, and it's YOUR fault for hating coffee.

[@iansheridan4569]

@@penultimateh766 Yawn

[@penultimateh766]

@@iansheridan4569 Thanks for admitting defeat by using a childish non-sequitur

[@johnbircham4984]

@@penultimateh766 yeah we could always have got our coffee from slave plantations in South America instead.

[@penultimateh766]

@@johnbircham4984 True, you would be similarly guilty either way. So let's just call it your lust for a caffeine buzz.

[@cataclysm2943]

One sided yes😂..he is still biased in favour of the Brits.

[@gigabyte1739]

Yes 😅

[@king-yl8ht]

True 😓

[@golgapa3570]

yes

[@jstevinik3261]

@@golgapa3570 How?

[@golgapa3570]

@@jstevinik3261 The amount of looting British did from India is approx 50 trillion pounds And the amount of kill is just bigger than any genocide. We indians have suffered a lot from the wars of british Empire . Now we are have build a 2trillion country with 70 years of hardwork . So he just told you the bad things mildly it is way worse than that no words for the atrocities and mass killings.

[@iainmalcolm9583]

Like with most subjects, a 20 minute video doesn't cover anything is great detail. People expect too much. Just accept as a start point and explore further if you find a subject interesting.

[@tonymaries1652]

'Jewel in the Crown' was a phrase commonly used by English historians and commentators during the period of Empire. In the eighteenth century the British had a strong and expanding influence in the Indian subcontinent but they were in competition with other European nations, notably France. It is important to consider that before the Industrial Revolution the largest economies in the world were not in Europe, they were India and China. With the loss of America as a colony India became very important to the British as the other parts of the world they were trying to colonise like Canada and Australia were in comparison very economically undeveloped. India before the British took over was a loose gathering of principalities and some of these were extremely large and wealthy. British influence in India was not just confined to the military and the Indian Civil Service. Thousands of British families had businesses in India, and this continued for several decades after independence. A friend of mine grew up on a tea plantation owned by his parents. It is difficult to believe when you look at the number of Indian owned businesses in the UK today but colonial India seemed to have lost the ability to manage a commercial business. My several times great uncle was a plant expert, and still well-known in horticultural circles today. Not middle class and university educated, but the son of the village shoe maker who went to the local grammar school (in Victorian Britain usually where the children of farmers and tradesmen were educated). He eventually became manager of the palace gardens of the Maharajah of Darbhanga, and later moved to a similar position for the Scindia of Gwalior. The mango is revered as one of the most prized elements in Indian cuisine yet the elder Maries moved to positions where the art of cultivating mangoes had been almost completely lost by the Indian proprietors and the gardens had returned to the wild.

[@spielboy6931]

The narrators description of the Indian invasion of Burma is a bit disingenuous as it was a british led army ( ie british officers dictating strategy and objectives) with both british and Indian soldiers within its ranks. Undoubtedly at both Imphal and Kohima there were very brave troops of both nationalities. Reading up on the 14th Army ( commonly called the Forgotten Army ) might help understand what it achieved - basically it inflicted the greatest defeat the Japanese army ever suffered. It was both Indian and British soldiers that achieved this.

[@eamonnclabby7067]

Seconded...

[@vijay-c]

The 14th was made up of soldiers from all over the commonwealth, but the bulk was indeed made up from the British Indian Army, so I don't think it's entirely fair to call it disingenuous when he calls it the "Indian army" - it's faster than saying "British Indian Army".

[@spielboy6931]

@@vijay-c it is disingenuous - it implies it was purely an Indian army - and as I said it was an British led army ( the senior commanders were British) but the constituent soldiers were drawn from the British army, Indian Army as well as units from Nepal & Africa - so it was not purely an 'Indian Army'.

[@spielboy6931]

@@vijay-c faster does not mean accurate. Look I have the utmost respect for any soldier who served and I dont want this to degenerate into some nationalist internet forum argument. I have stated what my views are and I stand by them.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

23:00 The Gurkhas were attached to the Indian army as individual Battalions in Indian army regiments.

[@stephenparker6362]

It is true that Churchill refused to help the Indians during the Bengal famine and insisted they still export rice to help the war effort here.

[@rishiganguly3569]

@CHRISTIAN KNIGHT Whoa boy, aren't you a bit rasict

[@rishiganguly3569]

@CHRISTIAN KNIGHT It's spelled 'gora' and it's not really a racist term. It technically means white, which is not a demeaning term in any way. Anyways, I agree Indians are racist as well and have been racist mostly to ourselves only, but the thing is bruh, we learnt it from the British. I'm sorry to say but it's true. The British version of racism has spread to a lot of the world. Ofcourse I am not saying British folks are bad, I personally love British culture and modern day Brits have nothing to do with what your ancestors did.

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

@@rishiganguly3569 That's a lot of BS. The racism is found in ancient texts and roughly aligns with caste status as darker skinned people tend to be lower caste across India. Pingala kesha, gaura varna symbolized brahmins, while dark as an urad lentil the lower castes. Genetically the caste status reflects (again only broadly) the percentage of steppe pastoralist ancestry that arrived ~4000 years ago with the Indo-European expansions.

[@rishiganguly3569]

@@rexsceleratorum1632 whatever dude. The British were effin racist in the past. It's true and verified

[@stephenparker6362]

Winston Churchill, without doubt a great wartime leader, did have controversial views on race, he essentially believed in racial hierarchies and considered white people superior. Although he was a zionist he was an anti Semite. I suspect India doesn't regard him as a hero.

[@thatindiandude4602]

I mean, Churchill is regarded as a Satan figure. But IMO, he was a product of his time. Have a look at his contemporaries. I am sure a lot of their socio-political views would not be kosher today. I mean, Gandhi himself was criticised a small minded orthodox hindu by Ambedkar. A Dalit who crafted the Indian constitution.

[@game_maniac2404]

Churchil was like a hitler for India.

[@ALEXANDER-wf9cw]

The British Raj was the rule of the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent from 1858 to 1947

[@heshangunarathna3262]

Ceylon was ruled seperatedly as british ceylon.

[@5556665012008]

As a Brit his comments are very fair considering how harsh the British were there, although many people don't like to admit it

[@bradenvalentine1775]

Some video suggestions that are only partially connected to this, but link to some things you mentioned: The World War Two channel (Indy Neidell) recent video "Australian-American War of 1942 - The Battle of Brisbane" is a pretty good look into how Americans were in the places they were deployed during WW2. It also includes a lot of Australians beating up Americans, which might make me somewhat bias... Kraut's "China vs India | The State and the Society" video is a very good dive into how India came to exist as a nation, including how the British ruled throught the British East Indian Company and subsequent British Raj, and the state they left the subcontinent in when they left. It also focuses on China and compares the two heavily. Roughly half or more of the video is focused on China and it's pretty long, but still overall a very good video that has a lot of interesting insight into how nations are formed using India and China as lenses.

[@user-ox1bh3vh2t]

India from old ancient times have big population but never suffered from a Hunger until Enlightened Britishs came to India. How many years of Hunger appeared since British came to India 25? 30? How many people British killed in Bengalia? How you can call it? I call it Genocide. And last question: How British should pay for what they have done?

[@daxcoco1229]

I love history and your Channel, I also love Star Trek! just getting into your Tribbles & Transporters Podcast. Gonna watch Voyager the cloud see if I can gain some points.😀

[@eamonnclabby7067]

That's quite enough Data...

[@myfootballjesus]

So we have switched from binging on England to India now so much to learn

[@CHEESYHEAD684]

The Indian newspaper: "An Austrian painter declares war" lmao

[@shreyashprashu]

jewel in the british crown is not just symbolic but also literal...the kohinoor diamond on the crown

[@ianprince1698]

the raj was an empire and Kings from Queen Victoria carried the title Emperor/ Empress of India.on British coins had ind.emp. on them to mark this we of course were told this was a benevolent arrangement and I found no hostility from the Indian and Pakistani people that I worked with, in the late 60sbut former soldiers were less happy as a gardener in London in the late 1960s Japan was a problem as the Japanese had seen the European empires in Asia and Africa and wanted the same. from their point of view the real reason for the British withdrawal was we could no longer afford it but we seemed to have parted on friendly terms and formed the Commonwealth of nations, the brigade of Gurkhas are Nepaliees mercenaries whom the British army has great regard for even now feature in any battle that Britain sends troops there are many a story about the Gurkhas from those who had seen them in action

[@tonybaker55]

In the Sangro War Cemetery, in Italy, where my uncle lies, there is found the "SANGRO RIVER CREMATION MEMORIAL, one of three memorials erected in Italy to officers and men of the Indian forces whose remains were cremated in accordance with their faith - the other two cremation memorials are in Forli Indian Army War Cemetery and Rimini Gurkha War Cemetery. The memorial at Sangro River commemorates more than 500 servicemen." Watching the movie Ghandi will show you a version of what happened before, during and after Indian independence.

[@iangrimshaw1]

It's an interesting topic. When you might say, 'the British', the majority of us (or them, in the past) didn't have 'owt to do with India. The East India Company was a company of British capitalists and aristocrats who plundered India of its wealth and behaved in a rather beastly way. The ordinary people in Britain didn't gain from this. We (I class myself as from a very ordinary background) were still busy with things like Peterloo. Fast forward to WW1 & WW2 and the so called colonists behaved in an heroic way to support Britain in those wars. I count myself fortunate in having friends who have Indian grandparents who fought in WW2 as did many members of my family. We stand together on Remembrance Day.

[@penultimateh766]

So these aristocrats forced you ordinary blokes to drink tea?

[@DaveF.]

@@penultimateh766 No, and tea drinkers didn't force Chinese people to smoke opium either. Consequences do not necessarily have intent.

[@djtwo2]

@@penultimateh766 And did these aristocrats stop widow-burning?

[@staffan-]

The trade in itself did benefit UK as a state, however. And from 1858 India was under direct British rule, so the UK cannot be absolved from the colonization of India. Other than that I don't disagree with you. The East India Company was ruthless. I can also imagine that the welth did not reach the poorer levels of British society, but that would have more to do with British domestic policies of the time. The resources from India certainly strengthened the international position of the UK.

[@penultimateh766]

@@DaveF. So either way, the aristocrats were just cogs in the wheel. Thanks for confirming.

[@dave_h_8742]

It may be worth balancing this and other vlogs on British involvement in India by finding out what went before it, how the elite treated the population and how the famines were delt with, if at all by the Maharaja's.

[@thatindiandude4602]

The problem with a lot of western especially British colonial history is that they often claimed to be carrying the white mans burden to civilise the natives. So it carried with it extraordinary moral culpability. The Indian Maharaja throwing his subject to the wolves of natural disaster is behaving as a typical oriental despot would. But the British through their own public relations campaign to market their colonisation would be, should be better no? So Churchill with his callous attitude towards Indians and their plight is pretty much behaving like an oriental despot rather than a leader of the free world. Also, the second element of this is nobody likes to be ruled over by foreigners. From the Africans, to Middle Easterners to Indians they will always have a very emotional response to having been colonised because they perceive it as extreme humiliation. Look at how contentious Brexit is and how touchy perceived European meddling in British politics it is to the Brits.

[@dave_h_8742]

@@thatindiandude4602 let's just face facts the ones in charge don't care for us commoners weather that's a Maharaja Churchill, Governor or Head of the army.

[@dave_h_8742]

@@thatindiandude4602 Pt.2 totally agree with that. Strange really we are ok with our lot abusing us but not with someone else. Brexit is a bad move and voting for Torys was a worse one.

[@thatindiandude4602]

@@dave_h_8742 it's not really strange. For Africans, a lot of these warlords historically has drained their countries of resources to enrich themselves. But to question that they need to ask deep uncomfortable questions about their society. The coloniser narrative is attractive because you can blame Europeans. And the intelligentsia in Europe strangely is willing to play to that. Contrast that with the Turks. They were a historic imperial power who have committed genocides. There us a reason why 'Turkish denial' has become one of my favourite turns of phrases.

[@Lazer-bp9lf]

My friend told me about his grandpa's father who lived in Eastern Bengal (who later migrated to West Pakistan after independence). The conditions there were horrific. You would find a dead body if you walked for 3 to 4 minutes. All the villages were deserted or destroyed (intentionally by the British). Most people wouldn't even help the people nearly starved to death out of fear that they themselves might starve for giving away food or get diseases. Plus the cyclone of 1942 worsened the conditions. The worst part was that as the villages were set a blaze the British, the crops needed to feed the people got burned as well and the ones which were left (and by "left" I mean they literally took every single grain that was available, even the ridiculously tiniest amount) were taken by the British and exported to feed the soilders in Europe and Africa during WW2. Oh yeah don't forget most of it also went to the British Isles to feed their population too. Also the estimates number of people killed in this famine is controversial. It could be 2 to 3 million people at minimum and up to 7 or 8 million people at maximum. That's why so many Indians absolutely despise Winston Churchill (who is still claimed to have "to have not done anything inhumane" by most of the British public).

[@amacater]

Burma effectively was effectively considered as a part of British India until 1946. The Indian Army was, effectively, it's own animal: British trained officers transferred between the British Army and Indian Army, pay scales and uniforms were different.

[@melvincain5012]

The "class" system is the "caste" sytem. Commentary infers the "caste" system was a British over Indian system. The caste system was an ancient Indian regeme where if you were born of a lower caste you could not rise higher than your status. You could only work in a subservient way to a higher caste. You could not marry or fraternise with a member of someone of a higher caste.

[@markcopsey4729]

Yes any form of contract with a lower caste meant you were polluted. If this happened you would have to go through a religious purification ceremony performed by a high caste brahmin priest, who you would have to pay.

[@thatindiandude4602]

@@markcopsey4729 also adding to the confusion are the sub castes. So essentially sub divisions within the caste system that were ranked based on the jobs you did. Also class did not equal caste. Vaishyas for example are the merchants, traders and professionals and they were quite often more wealthy than the Kshatriya or Brahmins but were still ranked below them.

[@starrynight1657]

Yes some Indians try and twist aspects of India and push them onto outsiders. Trying to make out that anything wrong with India now was only the fault of others. Nationalism often creates some idealised period in the past from which to draw inspiration from. India as it is is an empire created by various groups over several hundred years, and Britain was the final one piecing it together. Then part of it split off because of internal religious difference.

[@krakendragonslayer1909]

You confused "caste" with "varna". It is a common mistake among Westerners. Varna system is racial system of stratification, Caste system is a family bondage to certain job / trade.

[@shirokun4742]

@@markcopsey4729 In the West, names like “John Smith”, “Ed Fisher”, “Tom Carver” are derived from “John-the-Blacksmith”, “Edward-the-Fisherman”, “Tom-the-Woodcarver” which respectively denote their ancestral family occupations. Today however, a John Smith, or an Ed Fisher, or a Tom Carver, might be a neurosurgeon, or an airline pilot, or a steelworker, etc

[@johnbircham4984]

Shoot me down in flames here, I am speaking out of ignorance but Bengal, currently Bangladesh is constantly suffering from feast or famine. It's in the rain shadow of the Himalayas. Whilst the land is fertile because of it , it is also subject to flooding which causes devastation to the population. This has repeatedly occurred since Indian independence.

[@skasteve6528]

Yes there have been famines in India before. The huge number of deaths in this case though, were a direct consequence of British actions before & during the famine. Mountbatten's regime (and by extension the King's regime) was happy to see Indians die, rather than reduce food exports to Britain.

[@tonys1636]

Only part of Bengal ended up in East Pakistan as it was then, a lot of Bengalis were of the Sikh religion so got caught between and suffered atrocities' because of the Hindu and Muslim conflict made worse close to the borders of India and the two Pakistans as both Hindus and Muslims tried to flee to the respective countries. Many were wealthy enough to flee to British African colonies and the UK, arriving penniless as had to bribe or pay for expensive passages in unseaworthy vessels around the tip of India. Much like refugees trying to cross the Channel today. For once the conflict of partition was a result of division on religious grounds not of the making by the British Govt. but by Muslim and Hindu in the new Indian Government .

[@cringe1660]

Famines can happen But not a single time since independent india A large amount of people let alone 2 million died because of it So no your point is invalid

[@wilsondsouza1395]

British Raj was the name given to the entire British colony of India

[@jeetroychowdhury5490]

I am from bengal and he is 100 % right.

[@mg9854]

Well how would people of Britain be able to reflect on this guy and his knowledge? I doubt if they even have the word "India" in their history textbooks!

[@akshaypal6753]

Indian soldiers liberated Haifa now in Israel from the clutches of Ottoman empire in WW 1

[@alanb9337]

Something like 12000 Americans were involved in the (CBI) China Burma India campaign and related activities. A key role they performed was supplying military supplies into China over the high mountains from North Eastern India. 'Flying the Hump' had the human cost of 1000 lives and material cost of 600 planes. One of the most dangerous air routes of the Second World War. 'Merill's Marauders', American long range jungle patrol units in Burma were some of the OG special force operators. 'Wings over Burma' the US Army Airforce aerial resupply of Chinese and British units fighting in the Burmese jungle was decisively helpful. Why did the Allied commanders have such a harsh resolve when fighting the Japanese in the Burmese theatre, the Allies had lost 130 000 soldiers (British, Indian Australian) as prisoners to Japanese with the fall of Singapore and Malaya. The Allied POWs and local civilian coerced labour were building the Burma railway for the Japanese.

[@wilsondsouza1395]

The British would not know about this because they were never told about it.

[@j3errym]

Your videos do highlight how insular and politically censored the US public and private education system is. I worked for a major US corporate for the whole of the 21st Century and regular met online and in person with Americans and very few (unless studied History at University) had any real accurate knowledge of 19th and 20th century world history political or military and many didn't even have true factual knowledge of US history , just a few PR patriotic spun events, ironic and hypocritical as they often accuse other countries of doing this. We had many secondments on 2-3 year rotations between US and UK/EU (mainly engineers, Managers and Sales, those that brought their families over to the UK were astounded at the up to 10th grade history texts and also astounded at the NHS and amount of paid Holiday.

[@ckk7000]

I do like that these videos show that there *are* people who are curious about the rest of the world and have an acceptance of new&differing views. A history syllabus in primary&secondary school could never cover every event from every perspective; so the only realistic option would be to have a few optional modules where you could choose to study WW2 with an online course from a particular nation's perspective.

[@Me11012]

7:42 No, Actually I have 2 points to explain. Firstly Japan was not trying to attack Burma but actually one of our country's ( India) greatest freedom fishter 'Subas Chandra Bose' who was wanted by the british escaped india reached various countries and by the time the british found out which was by him telling where he was to the indians through radio from russia he had headed off to germany and through submarine later on reached Japan. At japan he got backup and with his army he went and successfully captured Andman and Nicobar Islands and was supposed to head to burma but just then USA dropped the 2 bomb ' Nagasaki and Hiroshima ' and he had to recruit and his goal of reaching Delhi ( India's Cpital ) was never accomplished. I cannot go into detail fo what happend to him after as it is still today not revealed and many things about this has just started being discovered so I sujjest you to go research about this. Second point, If indeed ww1 and 2 never involved india they would not have existed and most modern things would not have existed, almost everything we beleive the other countries invented would have rightfully been under the name of india. India would also still be Number 1 in the world and many things would have changed, fr example the whole world needing to know english, the large number of christianity and several other changes. So in conclusion this would actually be the best possible outcome for the world and most definetely india. Sometimes even I wish I was born in a timeline where this happend. But yes do research about ancient indians, knowledge about them has been lost over the period of time india was ruled by the british and if they still existed omg you could never ever even beleived how great it would be, so so great, greater than the greatest thing the world has ever even seen. Thank You.

[@oliversherman2414]

As a Brit, I consider myself to be patriotic and there's a lot of moments from my country's history I'm proud of. However, I feel deeply ashamed of the empire's rule over India. India may have been the "crown jewel" of the British Empire but that doesn't hide the fact that horrendous atrocities were committed and we should never whitewash or forget these crimes against humanity. I still love my country and am not ashamed of being British, but I hate what we did in India and the far eastern colonies

[@iz723]

You can't exactly present a non negative view when dealing with how the British exploited India. It is what it was, evil.

[@thatindiandude4602]

I mean, look at all the other comments. I mean, I get it, nationalists of all stripes tend to do this.

[@Kreatorisbackyt]

Britain called india as jewel because even in 1938 the GDP of British india was bigger than GDP of countries like Japan, Italy and France In 1938 ( 1990$ exchange rates) GDP of india was 258 Billion $ GDP of U.S was 799 Billion $ GDP of France was 185 Billion $

[@colinharris7287]

the VC Victoria Cross is our medal of honour but its a lot harder to win

[@arnavsharma9614]

Stfu medal of honor in India is way better than your shitty british cross

[@Hoopyfrood345]

India ❤ wonderful people.

[@Hoopyfrood345]

Me, a chalky white northern european (Britisher) motorcycling across India..... Would and will, go back there in a heartbeat. Incredible place, amazing people. 🙂

[@thatindiandude4602]

@@Hoopyfrood345 I was born in Kerala, down in South India 😀 Also someone with a positive attitude about Indians? That's rare on the internet.

[@DaveF.]

I'm not sure there's any 'Britain bashing' in this video at all. There was a famine - it wasn't deliberate, but it happened and it was vastly made worse by a lack of relief, undoubedly caused by a multitude of factors. Not least of which were that prioritises of the UK government were entirely not focused on the suffering of the Indian citizenry at the time. I am 100% not surprised by that. The only thing I would say about this video that i feel is slightly one sided is that the numbers of dead caused by the war and famine are given, they're also on the scale of those killed during the partiition of India after it achieved independence (also, of course, influences by British policy decisions amongst other factors). While that's not directly relevant this video, it perhaps would have been useful to give some scope to the numbers even if it's just to be indicative of the scale of the populations involved

[@laurencefraser]

Ehh, It's the usual thing of 'everything said is true, they just left out the bits that didn't fit the narrative'. Because reality is messy.

[@shardulpatil7260]

Could you please react to the "the silence of swastika : biggest betrayal of 20th century" documentry on youtube ? By aktk documentries , It has english sub titles

[@mr.limitless1437]

Williston Churchill was not so defferent from Hitler!

[@stephenparker6362]

India gained its independence in 1947 and I suspect they would have gained it anyway regardless of WW2. It is interesting to note that the Conservatives lost the 1945 election and Churchill was not in government. Pakistan was created at the same time.

[@thatindiandude4602]

I also suspect all the religious bloodbath and the ethnic bloodshed would have happened regardless as well. It seems British colonisation had an external entity acted as a dam to hold back those, but the cracks were appearing more qnd more.

[@alchemist7412]

@@thatindiandude4602 The demand for Pakistan started during the partition of Bengal province in 1911 when the British separated Muslim majority East Bengal from the Hindu majority West Bengal. However this communal polarization deepened during the Khilafat movement (Muslim protest in India during the dismemberment of Ottoman caliphate) supported by Gandhi.

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

@@alchemist7412 Until the Khilafat issue, the M League openly supported the British Raj. They were the minority yet the rulers before the British, but they knew they wouldn't have the same kind of power in a future democracy. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was very explicit about the reasons for supporting the British rule, that they should prefer the rule of the "people of the book" over the rule of the (mushrik) Hindus. But the Khilafat (caliphate) rebellion changed all that. Carving out their own nation out of British India suddenly became all the rage.

[@scaleyback217]

It may have been considered the jewel in the crown by those in power, those making money from it, for the most part India was where some working people knew about and maybe even went to if they joined the forces or civil service. For the greatest majority of the population they were more concerned with putting food on their own tables than what was happening in India or anywhere else in the Empire. I'm guessing most would not have even been able to find it on a map.

[@orion7326]

Indian here. My great-grandfather fought in WW-2 in the African theatre. He was taken POW but he escaped and rejoined his regiment. His brother fought in the European theatre and survived almost miraculously. Both of them neither received their pay nor any benefits, but he had no qualms about it. Both believed strongly that this is OUR STRUGGLE against our enemy and hence, had no qualms about anything. Sadly enough, their British superiors didn't consider them similarly (to be their own) but that's a long gone story with no hard feelings anymore on the Indian side. Also, the Japanese air force bombed India heavily. We lost family in that. There were literally no British spitfires over here, and the small number of aircrafts that were here got quickly outgunned by the Mitsubishis. We all were sitting ducks. The ordeal ended only when the British Indian army was able to push Japan back out from Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

[@kaustubh14jr]

You may watch a video on the 1971 India Pakistan conflict which will give you an idea of relations between india and pakistan. Also interesting would be in complete involvement and support of US towards pakistan even though Pakistan butchered it's own people in Bangladesh

[@miheerchouhan4251]

Good video sister it's give me some knowledge

[@randy1as]

Let's say I have it from the horse's mouth as our family had participated in both WWs and in almost all theaters where there were Indian troops. Having said that I can assure you that the guy is laying it out absolutely mildly of what happened or what Indians suffered. The Brits while white had hearts blacker than coal. They devastated people wherever they ruled. Without India (to a large part) it would have been a soggy little Island grubbing it out.

[@terryjosie]

The Indian National Army (INA), formed first by Mohan Singh Deb, consisted initially of prisoners taken by the Japanese in Malaya and at Singapore who were offered the choice of serving the INA by Japan. A force of under 40,000 was formed, Intelligence and special services groups from the INA were instrumental in destabilising the British Indian Army in the early stages of the Arakan offensive.

[@eduardoserrao7372]

India was not a political entity ever, just after II war it became a nation. There was some idea, perhaps, of belonging to a somewhat shared civilization, I am not sure.

[@markcopsey4729]

That's right 'India' was a vast collection of communities divided by religions, languages and castes often mutually antagonistic.

[@starrynight1657]

I agree. I consider it an empire in itself. It's kept together by inertia, some think the more industrialed south may break away eventually, they hated Modi trying to make Hindi officially the government language.

[@cringe1660]

​@@starrynight1657the whole south is different from north theory is propaganda Most of the Indians share same dna

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

Their was a Japanese push into India which was stopped at Kohima.

[@skasteve6528]

The battle of Kohima & the battle of Imphal are among the most important battles WW2, in my opinion.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

@@skasteve6528 I would agree with that statement, though sadly the Far Eastern forces are often ignored and they aren't known as the forgotten army for nothing.

[@eamonnclabby7067]

@@joshthomas-moore2656 Always remembered in this house....

[@starrynight1657]

Some Indians even helped the Japanese army.

[@joh451]

The history as given is correct although it is seen from a one sided perspective which was the inherent intent. The Raj or rather the British Raj is a reference to British rule in India. "Raj" is actually a Hindu word roughly translating to kingdom or empire. Therefore the British Raj can be thought of as the British Indian Empire. This was a separate entity from the British Empire of which it was part. So why British Indian Empire? The first thing to understand is that India was a diverse collection of states before the British arrived. These states were differentiated sometimes ethnically, sometimes religiously and by relative prosperity. Wars between the states were common. The British arrived in the form of the East India Company and the purpose was to trade for India's immense natural resources. The problem was that the constant disputes and fighting interfered with trade. The East India Company resolved this problem by raising it's own army from the empire and from within India itself.This was used to resolve disputes and protect the interests of the East India Company.Eventually the states that couldn't do business with each other found themselves doing business with the East India Company instead. At some point the East India Company bit off more than it could chew and the Indians rebelled. This led to direct intervention by the British Empire who took direct control in the form of the British Raj or British Indian Empire (an empire of the states of India). The British Raj was remarkably successful for a long time. It gave the British Empire a source of cheap manpower and extensive resources. Indians from certain tribes proved to make good soldiers and these were taken into the Indian army under the command of British officers. Good soldiers are always useful when you have a large empire to protect. This is largely the reason that India was considered the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. It was also successful from the Indian perspective. The country was peaceful, trade was encouraged and the average Indian was better off. The British established an effective civil service and built railways. That is not to say that they were not exploited but rather that things were much better than before the British arrived. The video you watched focused very much on the second world war and Indian independence as if they were overly related. The independence movement actually predated the second world war by many years. The British had actually started the process of dismantling the Empire prior to the war and creating the much looser British Commonwealth. The mainly white colonies of Australia. Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were already effectively independent although still united under the British crown. India was not included due to concerns that the removal of British rule would lead to fighting and fragmentation of the country. This did actually come to pass when independence was granted. India and the second world war. When Britain declared war on Germany the King called on the British Commonwealth for support and one by one they responded by also declaring war. This included India although this was done by the viceroy without consulting the Indian congress which caused some ill feeling. During the war some 2 million Indians volunteered to fight in the Indian army and saw action in Burma, North Africa, Italy and other places. Indian casualties during the war were relatively light in terms of the war itself. In 1942 the British government attempted to open negotiations with Indian nationalists for more support in return for independence post-war. The talks quickly broke down. Indian independence was granted in 1947 and resulted in between ten and twenty million people being displaced and an estimated several hundred thousand to two million people killed. Today India and Pakistan are facing off with nuclear weapons. They also have a tendency to assassinate politicians. Maybe the British Raj wasn't that bad after all. Burma. The US troops involved were known as Merrill's Marauders. This was a 3,000 strong deep penetration unit trained to use guerrilla tactics behind enemy lines. These were modelled on Britain's own Chindits and would probably be called special forces today. Gurkha's did indeed fight in Burma. These included Nepalese Gurkhas as part of the Chindits and ethnic Gurkhas as part of Burma's own forces. US influence on British decolonisation. There was probably very little in reality. The speculation arises out of a joint statement of British and US objectives for the end of the war (Atlantic Charter). This included the words "the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they live". This very ambiguous wording was seized on by some nationalists as some sort of commitment. The British didn't interpret it that way and in fact the US supported the continuance of the British Empire as a means of keeping the spread of communism in check.

[@thatindiandude4602]

India was referred to as the crown jewel because it historically contained prosperous kingdoms who gained that prosperity through trade with empires through antiquity. It also presented itself as a large, captive market in which the British demolished any native artisans or industry and simply pumped the finished goods their own industrial heartlands produced which they had made using raw materials extracted from India. The Railways that you mention was pretty much a freight network. I know Indian nationalists present a rosy pre-British India, but what you have presented is a bit laughably self-deceptional

[@thatindiandude4602]

Also, not to be a pedant, but its Hindi not Hindu. It's not usually from certain 'Indian' tribes it is from a Nepali group called the Gurkhas and another religious order known as the Sikhs.

[@abhijeetchoudhury7060]

Lol

[@Reviewnator]

I know I am late ,, and you might have came to know about this maybe... but do you know... Indians fought both for Allies and Axis at the same time

[@staffan-]

Regarding the relations between India and Pakistan, let's just highlight the fact that both nations developed nuclear weapons, partially in an arms-race against each other (but also China).

[@thecreator9913]

It's china, pakistan is like Mexico of India

[@tengshenavneet96]

Not accepting facts and not taking responsibility is so british and would only result in some other conflict in future. Past and history is important to know and acknowledge so that this never happens to anyone. I am sorry but i hate from my guts the brits who love british raj from past . Britain has never apologized for jallianwala bagh massacre till this date. I cannot ever forgive britain for what they did to us 🙂.

[@jamieeadle7223]

You saw the Raj flag with the jack at the beginning, that's the British Indian army flag, not British Raj flag

[@Waterford1992]

23:41 Its the British Indian Army flag

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

One of the best units in the British 8th Army was the Indian 4th infantry Division which fought from Operation Crusader till the end of the North African Campain the Division would then later go on to help fight in the Italian Campaign and would try to take Monte Cassion with the 2nd New Zealand Division. Also India's contribution wasn't really taught in my high school and they are kind of the forgotten allies along with China. Finally India's realtionship with Pakistan is still highly tense, mostly this focuses on the disputed territory of Kashmir which was rather badly divivded during the partition, the Kashmir area has been four wars/conflicts and several more boarder skirmishes, in fact as far as i'm aware their is still an Insurgency going in Kashmir at started in 1987. (Someone correct me if that last point on the Insurgency is wrong)

[@thatindiandude4602]

Insurgency is still going strong in Kashmir.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

@@thatindiandude4602 Thank you for the information.

[@cringe1660]

​@@thatindiandude4602insurgency at the border It has greatly reduced in kashmir itself since abrogation of article 370

[@thatindiandude4602]

@@cringe1660 to be fair my comment was wrong 2 years ago. It was on a downhill curve for more than a decade. I would argue almost all insurgencies have been on a downward trend.

[@alansmithee8831]

Hello SoGal and Roger. I have commented before that I may have Indian ancestry, my uncle was a British muleteer in Burma and my Royal Navy dad sailed to Ceylon at the war's end. As well as this most of my classmates at school had parents from the former British India. I toured Europe with one before university and stayed with his family in Germany, one of whom had married an ex soldier from there who had been in North Africa. When he heard my dad's other older brother was captured in Libya he just wanted to befriend me. This video is another topic that I would say fits the "don't mention the war" category if you want to stay friends. I have previously mentioned that the first friend I made at university was Alok Sharma, now a UK cabinet member. He just replied to one of my "best wishes" emails that I send him from time to time. Better to look forward as friends, whilst not forgetting the past. Note it was when a Labour government was voted in by ordinary working British people, who voted Churchill out, that Indian independence was achieved. If you watch the film "Gandhi" on one of your film nights there is a bit showing ordinary mill workers cheering him on a visit to northern England, despite his opposition to British clothing. The last Viceroy was Lord Mountbatten, who you may have spotted in the Prince Philip video? I commented before about some other films you could watch to see both sides of the Raj, which I will not try to explain:- The Chess Players Kim The Man Who Would Be King P.S. if Britain had not invaded India, then another European power would have. See KZbin video "India vs Europe" by Odd Compass.

[@laurencefraser]

In fact, other European powers Did invade/colonize India. Part of how Britain gained control of all of India was taking other Empires' Indian colonies in the peace deals after wars over one thing or another.

[@colinharris7287]

check out Captain Charles Upham VC and Bar the only man to win 2 VC and live he was from Newzeland a journalist recorded he should of won 8

[@sunildutt7650]

Raj means rule or kingdom

[@nachi0806imp]

Yes British for there 200-300 years of rule took away 3-5 Trillion dollars USD with respect to todays Value from India.. Raj means Rule

[@williamwilkes8177]

Forever

[@youraverageshitposter1533]

Raj = Rule. The British named their colony in India the "British Raj".

[@AnthonyLopez-lb2bd]

The youtuber kraut does delve into the relationship between India and Pakistan and they're place on the world stage

[@commentbellow8185]

Ghandi inspired the American civil rights movement. Martin Luther King went to India and visited Ghandi's home in the nineteen fifties.

[@britbazza3568]

India was the largest nation we had as a colony and it's natural resources were and still are immense so its where the UK developed a lot of its wealth.a Raj is an Indian Emperor of a particular region

[@thatindiandude4602]

Not to be a pedant, but a Raj refers to the rule or reign. Raja is a ruler. So British Raj means British reign or rule. In Indian modern lexicon Raj has now been used interchangeably. For example the stranglehold of the bureaucracy is known as Licence Raj.

[@britbazza3568]

@@thatindiandude4602 nothing pedantic about that at all thank you for enlightening me of that fact.

[@j3errym]

He is being Historically accurate not opinion. In US and UK politics it seems now fact can be questioned as opinion or bias or toted as "fake news" and swept under the carpet, or justified with some racist PR. The British Empire was basically colonial slavery and exploitation and the racism and exploitation as repugnant and shameful as US segregation, slavery and exploitation. The US WW2 military was a segregated racist endeavour, in fact legally supported whereas segregation was not the case within British Forces or Britain , though a blind eye was turned to any, among colonial forces segregation was still in effect.

[@adityajoies]

lol, it's crazy how after 1947 everything was one-sided towards British. Now suddenly one sided KZbin video towards India made this girl curious to know the other side. It's also amazing how these major events are completely unknown to the common west while many major events of the world are actually thought in Indian schools without bias. I have to applaud western academia and their governments to control the mass without making them realize they are being controlled to think in a particular way.

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

Postmodernism/postcolonialism has been demonizing the west for decades now, I'd be suspicious too if I were a westerner. And this youtuber is not a scholar of history. If you ask some random guy or gal in India about these things they'd probably know even less about the war beyond perhaps hearing a familial war story about someone who fought in Burma and then ironically being a fan of Subhash Chandra Bose who was of course against them and bffs with the Nazis.

[@atintripathi5948]

Madam the bengal famine was responsible by churchill winston

[@eeshanchandratre6456]

First of all Subash Chandra Bose was not a militant extremist leader he was a freedom fighter who allied with axis power beacuse he wanted india to be independent and kick out the Brits. Infact Gandhi non violent protest didnt do anything. It was when Subash Chandra Bose allied with Japanese to kick out the British revolts started within the British controlled indian army , Navy and airforce and finally led to independence if Subhash Chandra Bose would have not mysteriously died or disappeared Pakistan would have been part of India and even leaders of Muslim league lead by jinnah respected Subash Chandra Bose. Gandhi did fooled indian Hindus in the name that our religion promotes non violence so we should hold peaceful protests. As an indian I feel Gandhi was either crazy or was a British stooj. PS- Idea to capture Singapore and enter from Burma was the idea of Subash Chandra Bose he convinced Japanese to attack Brits in india

[@quoniam426]

The British were more concerned about Germany and the Japanese invasion of South East Asia was kinda a secondary front. The British panicked and sent badly prepared troops, unescorted ships against the vastly more prepared Japanese air naval forces. (Battleship Prince of Wales, which survived its encounter against Battleship Bismarck and Heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen in the Danemark Straight was sunk by carrier borne aviation from the Imperial Japanese Navy). So it is concievable that given the lack of means and information, the British panicked and chose the Scortched Earth strategy against a possible Japanese invasion just in case and that it finally wasn't necessary but of course, it was too late for that... The Cast system was created long before the British came to India. It is part of traditional Indian culture. It is supposed to be abolished by now but thousands of years old traditions don't die easily... The Brits came out of the war completely ruined and couldn't help India restore itself as a result. Decolonizing was as much a wish from the local populus as it was a way for the United Kingdom to stay afloat on its own foundations after the war.

[@simonbeaird7436]

7:40: If the British had not been in India, there would not have been a British Empire, at least not as we know it. India was the economic engine that drove the expansion of the British Empire. Possibly, some other European power would have moved in to take over India, either Russia, France or Germany. World history from that point would be very different. Alternatively, India might have remained a patchwork of independent princedoms, as it was before the British (or French or Portuguese) came. Again, with world history taking a different path. 21:50: Indian Army formations were a mixture of Indian and British units. The video mentions Indian units taking part in the invasion of Italy. One of these was the 7th Indian Infantry Brigade. This consisted of:- 2nd Battalion, 11th Sikh Regiment; 4th Battalion, 16th Punjab Regiment; 1st Battalion, 2nd Ghurka Rifles; 1st Battalion, Royal Sussex Regiment. This pattern was followed in other formations most of the time. 22:36: My late father-in-law fought at Imphal. His unit was part of the 20th Indian Infantry Division. In spite of the name, only two of the nine infantry battalions were Indian. Three were British and four were Ghurkas. The Artillery units were all British and the engineer units were all Indian. Just shows how names can be misleading.

[@dave_h_8742]

Growing pains between Muslim and Hindu areas lol read massive massacres on both sides. Got to agree on British not caring on the food shortages as they did that with the Irish potatoe famine demanding they keep exporting to Britain. He then goes on about storms and fungus devastating crops so as The Pub landlord would say, "it's complex" . Scorched earth policy was done by Russia to Napolion and Hitler so a buffer zone of nothing the enemy could use was an obvious choice especially as the British military knew from previous years in the north Africa campaign about long supply lines being a serious problem.

[@jeffhurst2077]

If India had followed Ghandi and withdrew Indian assitance, The Japanese would have flooded into India

[@Hi-tx3jg]

i aggree with this guy

[@Be-Es---___]

The US was in favour of decolonisation, because they were afraid that independence fights would be supported by the Soviet Union. And independence was inevitable. This 'liberated' most of Asia. The quotes are there because the US later supported many dictatorships if the were against Russia (i.e. Marcos on the Philippines).

[@zaftra]

It was also the British army that got the Bengal famine under control, it's debatable with it was man made or natural, this vid as a very prejudice slant, but it did have a British person with a whipping India and banged on about racial segregation when there wasn't any in the UK let alone India.

[@thkempe]

It doesn't matter if the famine was natural. India was ruled by the British. So the British were responsible for the lack of help, which eventually came too late for 2-3 million people.

[@zaftra]

@@thkempe The provincial government denied that a famine existed, and humanitarian aid was ineffective through the worst months of the crisis. The government first attempted to influence the price of rice paddy, but instead created a black market which encouraged sellers to withhold stocks, leading to hyperinflation from speculation and hoarding after controls were abandoned. Aid increased significantly when the British Indian Army took control of funding in October 1943, but effective relief arrived after a record rice harvest that December. Deaths from starvation declined, yet over half the famine-related deaths occurred in 1944, as a result of disease, after the food security crisis had abated.[19

[@thkempe]

@@zaftra The colonial power is responsible for the organization and constitution of its colony, which also includes the actions of its provincial government. Sorry for the British clay feet.

[@zaftra]

@@thkempe NO, that just cheap and lazy, Britain did it. Famines and natural disasters can happen any time in any place, for a variety of reason. It was quite clear in the vid, assuming you watched it, that a lot of places were ruled over by local Indian rulers, India is a vast country and there was a war on - but the British did eventually get the situation under control; much the same way Britain has been sending billions upon billions of pounds to Africa to help with their famines for as long as I can remember. Britain even sends aid TO India now, when it has a space program, spends much more on it's military and has bigger gold reserves. 'sorry for British feet of clay', that reveals your Anglophobic anti empire propaganda, but if you want to list all the good things Britain as done for the world, versus the bad, go right ahead.

[@thkempe]

​@@zaftra Natural disasters can happen - several millions of deaths, can not. As long as local Indian rulers were not sovereign, but were placed under British colonial rule, the colonial power cannot deny its responsibility.

[@malsm8892]

Its an American view point anti empire anti British some of the famine was Indian racist against other racies

[@nikhilmalviya8018]

'Raj' in sankrit and Hindi means rule, literally. British rule was called British raj.

[@wwciii]

The Raj was the British government in India.

[@ALEXANDER-wf9cw]

British Raj or Indian Empire

[@R4M_Tommy]

India has always been the most important English colony. They would've fought a lot harder to keep the American colonies if it wasn't for the fact that India was 10x more important. There's an Extra History series about how the English conquered India.

[@johnbircham4984]

British colony.

[@djtwo2]

You need to learn the literal meaning of "always". Don't slop it around.

[@laurencefraser]

@@djtwo2 Mind you, if he'd said 'was always' rather than 'has always been' it would have worked ok. The two have rather different implications. Seriously though, no one Actually uses the word 'always' literally. If it was only ever used literally it would never be used at all, and we consequently wouldn't even have the word.

[@robet007]

😀👍