@@billyosullivan3192 while this bug never was in the original game, only being a myth, Civ 5 did have this behavior intensionally put into it. Either way, the "bug" is well known *and* a Civ reference.
you'd be surprised how often it comes up when a war kicks off, hell Eire was neutral in the Second World War but still rounded up most of the IRA guys to keep the peace after an IRA raid on an Irish armoury and a bombing in the UK. Canada and the USA would intern people suspected of being people who could make problems
That's as close as you can get to saying the quiet part out loud without actually saying the quiet part out loud. Preventative Indefinite Detention... Life prison sentence, because you might do something. Show me the difference.
one thing that is never brought up in indian independence (and most other colonies) is just how much the world wars basically just made keeping the territories unviable economically. by 1945 britian and most european cultures were bankrupt, bombed out, and manpower depleted. colonialism wasn't fated to end when it was due to moral reasons, economic factors just meant that britian literally just couldn't afford to stay in india.
I'd argue it probably COULD have kept going if it wasn't for the USA and USSR breathing down their neck to decolonize. Britain just sorta gave it up considering the triple whammy of internal pressure, external pressure, and financial strain. In an alternate world where the USA was neutral on the idea, Britain probably wouldn't have given up everything.
I'm pretty sure every historical documentary about the British Empire I've seen, makes it clear that after WW2 Britain was broke and maintaining a colonial empire was seen as no longer economically viable.
@@BartlomiejDmowskiwhat you google? I tried “british india milk drowning” and all i got was the British discovered a group of Indians would kill their babies by drowning them in milk
You forgot to mention the millions of Indians who served in the British forces, even Gandhi formed a volunteer ambulance unit in South Africa and was decoared for his service.
@@johnallen7807 Lets emphasise that the Indian National Army (INA) was the name given by India's nationalist/freedom fighter movement in response to the onset of colonialism on their land. The British Indian Army, which contributed to the war effort provided Indian fighters who far eclipsed the numbers that defected to the INA, by the order of 2.5 million (nearly 60x the number of soldiers and personnel).
Tens of thousands of Indians did rebel in the form of joining the 43,000 strong Indian National Army (allied to Japan) and another 4000 ish joining up in German service. It wasn't unusual during WW2 for people to resist their colonial rulers by joining whatever side was fighting against them. Of course, this was a high risk move, as when the Axis lost, any independence movement who had sided with them (even those who had justifiable reasons) found themselves screwed,
You're assuming that they joined willingly, which is false. Bose forcefully conscripted Indian soldiers who were captured in Malaya to serve in the INA, at threat of being forced to work in the death railway if they refused.
Somehow not mentioning the 40,000+ troops of the Indian National Army that fought on the side of the Japanese against the British, led by Chandra Bose. It even had a "Gandhi Brigade". Bose shook hands with both Tojo and Adolf.
@@davidhouseman4328 when you’re impoverished because all your food grains and wealth is taken to support Britain, it is hardly volunteering if you fight just so you can provide 2 square meals to your family. They weren’t any less skilled, but volunteering is a term used extremely loosely by western historians
@@davidhouseman4328 I would bet most people even in this comment section wouldn’t know the euphemism. You seem to be knowledgeable and weren’t ignorant luckily. God bless
A part of India based in the Andaman and Nicobar Island province did technically rebel! Mainly due to Japan taking it though and establishing the Azad (free) Hind government but it was done with after a while.
An Indian friend explained it differently. He said that India as country did not exist until the British took over, it was a collection of states with different leaders, aims, and even languages. Then according to him, we all learnt English, could unite and kick you out, he said with a smile.
I'm Indian and I can tell you that the part where he said that we all learnt english is wrong, although it is correct that there were lots of different nations with their own interests, Hindi/Urdu was the lingua franca of the subcontinent due to the trade during pre-colonial era, only the top elites, scholars, and very well educated people in India spoke english during the time, this was also during a time when most people did not go to school and a big portion were illiterate. The British did unite us as we saw a common enemy and wanted a nation for ourselves.
The ancient and medieval world perceived nations vastly differently to how we do today. Borders were much more fluid back then. Indians from time to time, were unified under the control of one empire, but often underwent fragmentation. However, there was a sense of one civilization, through multiple leaderships. This was backed by the religious ethos of the nation. A nation cannot be defined purely from the lens of modern-day political entities.
0:38 "Split Bengal into two, to separate the Indian and muslim populations, the Indians reacted poorly". They were all Indians, this is an extremely grave error to confuse hindu with Indian. It's far before the 2 state option, and makes no sense.
@@rohannair9945 it's not a slip, if you want good information this is not the right channel (in fact, no animated TH-cam channel will be the right channel for learning anything)
The exact same mistake was repeated when India was granted independence. Bengal got split *again,* with half of it being assigned to Pakistan solely on the basis of being Muslim-majority. And on a larger scale, the entirety of India was divided up along those lines. (And ignoring that any religions *other* than Hinduism and Islam existed in the region.) The partition was a mistake. There should've either been one united India, or multiple Indian states based on shared cultural history rather than just religion.
@@RedXlV I get why it was done, the British feared a bloody civil war if it wasn't. Unfortunately there kinda was one anyway, though would it have been worse without partition, who knows. Generally it's been argued partition could have been done a lot better, but the consequences if it wasn't done at all are hard to know.
@@RedXlV We see what happens when an empire is broken up into "multiple states based on shared cultural history" in the Balkans and the Caucasus. The leading group in each new ethnostate proceeds to persecute its own minorities. A similar situation after Austria-Hungary broke up was dealt with by ethnic cleansing and genocide, which nobody talks about now because it was overshadowed by what the Nazis did. In India only Communists vote according to ideology and not religion, caste, tribe, etc. Letting the leading caste in each state hold all the levers of power would be a disaster. The effect of reorganizing the states within India according to language is mitigated by having the state governors appointed by the central government (and always being senior civil servants from outside the state) and their being in charge of the administration counterbalances any tyranny of the majority that the elected state legislature may feel inclined to show. France has that with its Prefects, and Putin has done the same in Russia. Unfortunately the EU has no mechanism for parachuting a Eurocrat in to supervise the venal politicians in the national capitals. The nearest the Western European countries have is their constitutional monarchs, but they are no match for a determined populist or ideologue.
Completely failed to mentioned that more than one-million Indians volunteered to fight on behalf of Britain during WW2, making it the largest volunteer army in history.
The term volunteer is very deceptive in this context, and I would request you to go through works on India's experience during WW2- like Yasmin Khan and Srinath Raghavan. Recruitment was often done through Princely states and Zamindars, who used their economic and political power over peasants to mobilize them as soldiers for the British Govt. That doesn't mean that there weren't Indians willingly joining the army for bread and butter- but the reality was more complex and nuanced. Many people actively resisted war recruitment.
this was actually because of 3 reason 1) they promised food, cloths and income, and with all the famines(caused by british only), they did not had many options. 2) due to gandhi, he supported indians to take part in war which simply proves that he was a british stoog and nothing else, 3) many battalions came from the princly states whose people were loyal to the state not the british , but those states were loyal to british.
There's an important factor in this which is worth considering. For most of the British Raj, the Indian Army (which mainly consisted of Indian soldiers with British officers) was funded out of taxes levied in India. Typically, the army was no larger than 200,000 men, which is surprisingly small for a country the size of India. But the World Wars changed this. The British government needed more men. In WW1 the Indian army expanded to around 600,000 men. After 1918 it dropped back down to 200,000 again, but in WW2 it expanded to around 2.5 million men - the largest volunteer army in history. During these wartime periods of rapid expansion, the government in London wound up having to fund most of the costs of the expansion, both in wages and in equipment and supplies.
Also it overlooks the disunity of Indian regions and populations for centuries. It was easier to hold such a nation when there wasn't a unified populace or even leadership for so long.
@@JeffEbe-te2xs Apart from the two World Wars (where it fought in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South East Asia and the Pacific) the British Indian Army fought three times in Afghanistan, three in Burma, three in China, once in Persia and once in Nepal. The “Great Game” between the British and Russian Empires was a major factor in many of these conflicts.
The unexpected Parks and Recreation "right to jail, right away" reference at 1:44 made me laugh hard. The magic of this channel is in the little things.
@@MesaperProductionsGuys, I'm pretty sure his 'no' sounds like most if not all other no's I've heard the History Matters TH-cam channel narrator say.... Are you sure you can detect a sizable difference in tone, I'm talking a higher tone to indicate that no sounding unsure surprised etc?
My great-grandfather Aladeen Mirza Mughal was British-Indian Officer (8th British Army, V. Corps, 4th Indian Infantry Division, 43rd Indian Lorried Brigade) from Punjab in Ww2 (He fought in Egypt, Libya, Tunesia and Italy). He loves the British and after the British left, he stayed with them and went to London. He was scared that the Indians hate him after the partition because his family was in the British-Indian Army (Punjab Regiment) since 1858 and fought every war for them (Mahdist War, 1st and 2nd Anglo-Afghan War, Boxer Rebellion, Tibetian Expedition, World War I, British Expedition Force in the Russian civil war and WW2)
Something that's been forgotten now - is the British required all their colonial officers to speak the local language and understand local customs. You wouldn't have gotten that from most empires in history.
Its also the bribing of Indian princes. The British Empire would provide luxury goods to the princes/nobles of India, in exchange for their cooperation.
A classic method. The English did the same in Ireland with "surrender and re-grant" - Irish nobles would give up their Irish titles in exchange for English-given ones ... and keeping their land and wealth.
The World Wars also played a major role in creating a more unified sense of national identity in India. Among other things, Britain had to expand the Indian Army to a size where they had to recruit people of all races & religions, compared to the prior (racist) policy of recruiting mostly Punjabi Sikhs & Nepali Gurkhas. This undermined Britain’s “divide & rule” strategy, & as Indians of all backgrounds fought together, they developed a stronger sense of camaraderie & unity.
It wasn't racist. It was a security issue. The Brits were reasonably certain (after going through the Sepoy Revolt), that those guys would not try and shoot them in the back or massacre/rape/torture British civilians if left as guards.
Subhash Chandra Bose rebelled and fought alongside the Japanese against the British with his forces. Westerners see him as a mere puppet but he's well respected in India.
@@utkarshsoni3300 Yeah, but you could say the same thing about De Gaulle and the Free French during WW2. It's what happens in the decades afterwards that decides how they are viewed.
That's because Bose was indeed a puppet. Look up the death railway in Burma that the Japanese built, with Bose's support, using slave labour. Some estimates rank the death toll all the way to 350k, many of them being Indians, btw. Bose then used this railway in order to invade British India, which failed, badly.
Hey man! I loved the video, but you left out a few important bits 1. The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre 2. The Indian National Army, the story of which that would inspire revolts in 1946, a full year after its failure to liberate India (it did after its disbanding) 3. Government of India Act, 1935 guaranteeing (some) autonomy, like 10% autonomy but it was a big relief after decades of riots and brutal arrests 4. Brutal suppression of the Quit India Movement
1? No. 2? Yes. Britain was basically incapable of projecting power overseas after France fell and the amount of manpower, equipment and importantly planes it would take to suppress an Indian revolt would have left the home islands and more strategically important holdings like Egypt and Gibraltar vulnerable. Especially in the event of Axis or Soviet support for the revolutionaries.
I mean, economically speaking at the time, probably not. They had manpower, but I don't think they could have sustained a large force through a war of that scale at that time. Today, though? Yikes.
Well the British needed Indian soldiers to fight in Burma and had many in Egypt. So I don't see how the Brits could have won. The economics afterwards would be crap, but that's a tomorrow problem.
@@andrewstepanek8933 even one is a yes because compared to the British army the Raj's army (which would later show signs of mutiny) was way larger and armed.
Indians fought for Britain in WWII, against both the Nazis and the Japanese. In 2000 I met an Indian veteran who had fought for Britain in Italy, and was wounded in Foggia.
You do know there was a faction known as the Indian national army who fought for independence with Japanese support. Not to mention there was a naval mutiny in 1946 .
I imagine that another reason was probably the ethnic diversity of the region... it's hard to unite hundreds of millions behind a cause when many of them were never close to each other, not to mention the challenge of deciding who's gonna be in charge, religion and stuff like that.
@@michaelmicekhe also said that demonetisation issues led to him shortening the videos, since YT is his only job; although he said that he would make 10 minute history again if YT fixed the demonetisation issues and that if he ever had a "last video" then it would be a ten minute history
I've learned that no matter how obvious or familiar the answer to a History Matters title seems to me, I will likely still learn something interesting if I watch it!
As an Indian myself, I can tell you this thing. Although the British did have control over India, the Indian administrators dealt with the majority of the population(and I am not talking about the princely states here). Majority of India’s population was rural. Most rural Indians never saw a foreign, let alone British person except when they roamed around the country. Among the urban population, they did support independence overwhelmingly but the majority of the population that was rural had never heard of the British and their lives barely changed before, during and after few decades after British rule.
Up until states were able to consolidate their power more firmly via technology, this was really the pattern of life. When a new king etc. got in it was pretty much "oh okay, wonder how the harvest is going?" because for the most part the state was unable to project their power on rural areas and instead someone like a village elder or local lord was the de-facto king in this territory. And yeah you see this as late as even modern day Afghanistan where a lot of these villages didn't even know that the USA invaded Afghanistan and thought they were the Soviets.
@@QuentinofVirginia And then there was Siberian Russia, where a lot of people didn't even know they were part of Russia, and the government didn't know how many people were there until a Soviet census. Meanwhile today, we still don't actually know how many people are in the interior of Papua New Guinea. Estimates range up to about double the number of people that we DO know are there.
@@Bruteforce765 There weren't famines all over India, only in Bengal and some other places but Indians were mostly not concerned en masse they saw it as a result of world war and not the local administration.
India did rebel during WWII under Subhash Chandra Bose who lead revolts in Bengal and North Eastern India. He also collaborated with Germany and Japan militarily against the allies.
Indians also tried to rebel against British in 1915 with help of germans ,ottomans, and Irish nationalist .gadhar party ,indian independence committee and ansulan samithi were all part of it .but british intelligence found it and crush it .
The Indian National Army he created was one important reason why Britain had to leave India whole Gandhi was there to calm down the Indians and not fight what a puppet funny even today people don't believe he was an agent
Well when the British Raj was formalized it was made up of 3 identities. The Indian Subcontinent I.E India Pakistan and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka (and Maldives), and Burma. This was because those 3 groups were wildly different in Culture. The Indian Subcontinent had the same culture while Burma was much different. Thats why many Indians proposed borders of India only excluding Burma Sri Lanka and Maldives (and technically Afghanistan if that even counts). So to answer Burma was always separate. Unlike India Pakistan and Bangladesh who were basically forced to separate due to the British creating tensions and divisions among religious groups by forcing them to only vote for their religious political leader aside from Sikhs who were lumped into the same category as Hindus
To drastically oversimplify a fairly long story, Yugoslavia would have been pretty hard to invade and also the Soviets hope that Tito would be overthrown from all the pressure they were putting on Yugoslavia.
"India" didn't rebel but Indians sure did. While the leaders of Quit India advocated for nonviolence, many of their followers around the country took action on their own to destroy government buildings, police stations etc, and kill British policemen and soldiers. This required Britain to redeploy thousands of troops that could have been sent to North Africa or Burma.
Hello. I love your videos, and I wanted to know whether you'll ever consider making more 10 minute videos about Spanish, French, Greek, Roman or Persian history.
I'm a historian but also a teacher of the subject. I've often and loudly pointed my students to this channel but this video was way too fast paced to engage most people. Your videos are usually fast paced sure, but this felt incredibly rushed. Just some honest feedback from a loyal subscriber.
Because even according to Indian separatists statistics , only about 10% of Indians wanted independence straight away. Many ether didn’t want it or understood it would come in time.
Most were kept extremely illiteby the great British to prevent any idea of independence from the extremely large population the agitations had large role of gandhi skills as a mass mobilizer
To add to that the concept of a united India in the modern sense wasn’t really thought of by the native inhabitants. India is often called the subcontinent for how many different ethnic groups and differing communities were there and throughout history had conflicts with each other. It’s the reason why the east India company was able to dominate as they played off Indian princes against one another to eventually achieve their goal and I remember that I believe that some sikhs actually went to the British to get rid of leaders or people they were in opposition to. The British empire didn’t have a massive army but one that was ever well trained and would often get locals to aid in their efforts. Regardless of the moral implications of their actions they knew how to play the game even when they have hiccups like the mutiny in India or the siege of Kabul.
@@LiberTeaBag It did enter Revolutionary Tipu sultan becoming Citizen Tipu. The entire Sikh empire was created on the basis of French army and had many commanders from Napoleonic army.
Information on this video is incomplete. Critical events such as the foundation and military actions of the Azad Hind Fauz led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and the naval revolt of 1946 have been omitted. Fact of the matter is Britain didn't leave India it fled from India before it got violently kicked out.
A few things that remained unmentioned- There were attempts at revolution during both WW1 and WW2-both involving German support. In WW1, a revolutionary (the same person who tried to assassinate the Viceroy)-Rash Behari Bose-would ship weapons from Germany to incite armed rebellion, the “Ghadar Uprising”. This would fail as the British would quickly learn of their plans and Bose would flee to Japan. In WW2, Rash Behari allied with the Japanese to invade India-and formed the Indian Independence League (in 1942). Another Bose-not related to Rash Behari-Subhas Chandra Bose-would lead the IIL and re-organise it into the Indian National Army-its sole goal was to invade India with Japanese assistance and liberate it. It is worth nothing that after Bose’s death and the Red Fort Trials-where his soldiers were tried for treason-a major mutiny broke out across the Royal Indian Navy when the sailors discovered Bose’s activities. Attlee has cited this mutiny as one of the main reasons British presence in India became unfeasible.
Suggestion: If you find the narration too fast to clearly comprehend, then you may want to go to the gear sprocket symbol and adjust the playback speed to .75. The narration may be too slow for your liking, but the words are fully comprehended.
2:01 fun fact though there was a regiment of Indians in the German Army, formed as a way to fight the British in another front i think but it didn't last long
@@comrade_commissar3794 yeah pretty much....in the end they had different goals, the germans had theirs and wouldn't have gone well for India if the Germans ruled the world
@@ColonialMaster Nah youre a racist. Many Indians view Bose and the INA as National Heroes, and the Indian Legion and the INA are noted to have commited virtually no war crimes compared to all other powers. Also, The 1946 trials saw mass support from hindus to muslims to sikhs, including the navy and pressured the brtiish to release all ina soldiers
Most of the people from lower castes didn't rebel much to firangi masters for certain reasons. A local saint from Malabar district naned Sri Narayana guru, claimed during ww1 that " The British were his masters because they gave him Sanyasa(Sainthood) so they should be thankful to Britishers."
0:55 *Next video idea: Why did the Brits Partition 🇲🇲Burma (now Myanmar) out of India in 1937?* - especially given that it was British Raj’s largest province, 90% follow Buddhism which begun in India itself (unlike the later Islamic Partitions) & very few people have even discussed this on TH-cam so far…
Cultural difference north east and south atleast had trade and historical connections to other parts of the Indian Subcontinent but Burma its a whole another area detached through the mountains and forests and Banaras were too big of a group to ignore and be joint with India
@@lordlegendian0287It’s not that easy or distinct, as you think, as over half of the ethnic groups in the Indian northeast and Burma are the same. They probably wanted to appease the people in the valley. Clearly was a terrible decision in hindsight as Myanmar is in eternal civil war from its inception and the Indian north east is eternally destabilized.
If the "Indian people" (as if there was the modern conception of an united Indian identity and nation state at the time) wanted them gone right away, it's kind of strange how local lords and nawabs kept willingly working with the British against their fellow "Indians." There was no race war for control of India. Plenty of Indian rulers supported the British over their rivals and former conquerers. People extrapolate modern nationalism to the past where it didn't exist in the same way.
@@theskycavedin the kings supported the British because the nationalist movements were left leaning and India would have abolished all forms of monarchy upon independence (like it did in out timeline, those kings lost all lands and influence)
Brutal fact: Million Indians fought for the Allies in both wars and millions starved to death, their grown crops were taken away to feed the British and allied soldiers
@@alexandrugheorghe5610 Well, if it's fun for the west, then they should have acknowledged it for the best I mean Indians not only just forced to participate but also were sent in the frontlines to fight the axis. But, they didn't it's just fun at least for the west
@@ryandanngetich2524well because a lot of colonial power declear war own colonies for asking indipendence like french algerian war , french indo china , dutch indonesia war and portugese declear war any colony in africa and asia they consider their province by portugese dictator until carnation revolution come dictator remove and next leader accept colonies indipendence
Indeed a few years later Britain had to deal with the, Malayan emergency. Imagine that but India, being the most populated state, and a very angry one, on top of that you would have Chinese support through direct land border, for the communists. It probably would have turned like Algeria. What a lot of people doesn’t know was how quickly the communists would have gained power, as they literally they were the major power even in the 90s, despite a socialist government, actively appeasing them throughout.
Actually, in WW2, Chandrashekhar Azad joined the Japanese to defeat British India. But Gandhi knew that freedom through violence would bring more violence later. So he opposed it.
India rebelled in 1857 which was crushed, but the East India co. was removed from administering India. During WW1, India was offered self-rule post the war, if Indians cooperated during the war. Indians cooperated but self-rule didnt come. In WW2, Indians rebelled. Together with German & Japanese destruction of British power & prodding by US - Britain had no choice but to let go!
Funnily both times it was crushed by Indians or Hindus or Buddhists from Nepal. In case of 1857 it was crushed by Sikhs, Rajput, Pashtun and Gorkhas and in WW2 Marathas, Gorkhas, Sikhs fought to stop Japanese and INA. If Indians cooperated back in 1857 or in 1944-1945 just simply by putting down their arms like "nah! we are not fighting on your side" then it would be a story of few days or at most few months.
India has potential to Balkanize, if not near but far future, it's not off the table. I read this fascinating book '- India after Gandhi' which covers formation of India as we know it, in more detail with annotated articles and first person accounts. Everyone knows Pakistan went their way and there is also a standing question of parts of Kashmir, but very few would know that erstwhile Kingdom of Travancore covering most of the southern 'India' wanted an independent country and both Pakistan and UK supported it (For each uniquely different reasons) before the CM of the kingdom had a mysterious assassination attempt, similarly very far east and very far west and north and even a part of central India wanted to part ways with India. The linguistic separation of states later in 1950s only adds more credence to this division.
We were never taught such things in school. I will not ever apologise for the actions of previous governments, over which I had no control, but I am certainly disgusted with their treatment of the "Empire". It is no wonder that so many countries wanted independence. What is really strange is why they are still in the Commonwealth- Perhaps it is the overseas aid that goes towards buying up British companies and also supporting their space and nuclear programs?
That is a myth, sorry. It was popularised by a random Indian author (not a historian, might I add) who created an outlandish theory about Churchill being responsible for it all. It then gained popularity online.
@@ColonialMasterit isnt a myth. The bengal famine really happened. For starters yes the bengal famine didnt directly start from churchill, it started because of natural reasons, but churchills neglence made those deaths larger. If britan actually focused on bengal those death couldve been minimilised. So the bengal famine isnt a myth, and churchill didnt cause all of it, hes js a factor which is still bad. In all fairness people didnt care if any famine happened anywhere but western europe. The holodomor a famine happening in europe which at maximum killed 2 million people was neglected in europe. Or the armenian genocide. What i wany to say is that unless it happens in western europe, like 2 world wars, the west will not care.
No one has mentioned that the number of Indians who volunteered to fight for the commonwealth was the largest volunteer number in any country at any time in history. At the height of the empire there were less than 1000 actually British people administrating the whole indian sub continent. The video and comments have not recognised a large community of indian people who actually supported the British. India was a very important part of the allies and in the defeat of the axis.
Coming from an Anglo Indian myself it has to do I believe with modern Indian nationalism and the role that being anti British unites them. My ancestors were sepoys who fought in the 1880s and would eventually move to Guyana however they only married fellow Indians and maintain their identity from the sub continent. My Indian family isn’t anglophiles however at the same time they respect the British to an extent for the role they shaped indias administration in later years and their military which is why I believe you had lots of Sikhs in the military. The issue stems of modern Indian nationalist which by all means I understand the importance of nationalistic sentiments but they go beyond the pale. They often state things that never occurred in history or exaggerate crimes the British committed to of absurdity. They deny that Alexander won his most famous battle, claim of great Indian empire that spanned across the globe bigger than Britain and various other falsities. I take both my pride for my Anglo and Indian heritage’s seriously and understand that both committed monstrous actions in history but the Indian nationalists don’t.
@@williamfrank962lol you respect both but criticised only Indian nationalists. Also enough with both sides bad nonsense as one was a coloniser and other was a victim of colonisation.
@@Garuda_31 I criticized them for their mindset in which they ether deny outright of any wrongdoing by India in its history or not acknowledge the values that exist in India thanks to the British or even how there were Indians who willing would aid them in their wars. I didn’t say it was bad for them to be proud of their nation but the issue is the fact they deny any possibilities of positive results brought by the British to India. Also, during the conquest of India many Indian princes sided with the British willingly to take out their rivals and that many Indians received some level of autonomy in compensation for their allegiance showing that this conquest was more a great game rather than a conquest like that of westward expansion or the aztecs vs conquistadors and even then they were aided by natives as well. Further I fully acknowledge the British of wrongdoing during their history when discussing my indian ancestors and how they viewed their overlords but still admired aspects of them. The issue is that you seem to not understand that history isn’t a black and white affair that is the result of multitudes of people, beliefs and previous conflicts that result in events that have multi levels of complexity to them which makes it impossible for someone to completely make one side black and one side white. The criminal actions I was referring by India weren’t concerning anything against the British even though there’s stories of sepoys who remained loyal getting brutally killed. I was referring to crimes committed by Indians to other Indians involving different ethnic groups, Kashmir region and in many places where it’s still used the caste system. They both have dark history in them which I acknowledge yet still respect both of my ancestral lineages.
Britain was lucky they only had to deal with Pacifist Gandhi, as opposed to Warmonger Nuclear Gandhi
Civ 7 Reference 🦅🔥
@@I_lovesushi738it's a Mandela effect, that bug never existed
or God forbid James Bisonette.
Gandhi*
@@billyosullivan3192 while this bug never was in the original game, only being a myth, Civ 5 did have this behavior intensionally put into it.
Either way, the "bug" is well known *and* a Civ reference.
"Preventitive Indefinite Detention" is the most sinister way they could have made that possibly sound
you'd be surprised how often it comes up when a war kicks off, hell Eire was neutral in the Second World War but still rounded up most of the IRA guys to keep the peace after an IRA raid on an Irish armoury and a bombing in the UK. Canada and the USA would intern people suspected of being people who could make problems
Don't worry, we have that in Bavaria too and we're supposed to be a "Free" State.
That's as close as you can get to saying the quiet part out loud without actually saying the quiet part out loud.
Preventative Indefinite Detention...
Life prison sentence, because you might do something.
Show me the difference.
well the Brits were always keen on abbreviating things, so PID worked wonders.
Kind of like "enhanced interrogation" here in the States
one thing that is never brought up in indian independence (and most other colonies) is just how much the world wars basically just made keeping the territories unviable economically. by 1945 britian and most european cultures were bankrupt, bombed out, and manpower depleted. colonialism wasn't fated to end when it was due to moral reasons, economic factors just meant that britian literally just couldn't afford to stay in india.
I'd argue it probably COULD have kept going if it wasn't for the USA and USSR breathing down their neck to decolonize. Britain just sorta gave it up considering the triple whammy of internal pressure, external pressure, and financial strain. In an alternate world where the USA was neutral on the idea, Britain probably wouldn't have given up everything.
Yeah, Britain was totally skint by 1945.
@@adamperdue3178 That may have preserved the smaller colonies, but India was going to become independent whether the US supported it or not.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Oh yeah I'm sure.
I'm pretty sure every historical documentary about the British Empire I've seen, makes it clear that after WW2 Britain was broke and maintaining a colonial empire was seen as no longer economically viable.
"06 days since a milk drowning." I feel like there's a story there...
Right?
That means it at least happened once
I googled it, it's pretty scary
@@BartlomiejDmowskiwhat you google? I tried “british india milk drowning” and all i got was the British discovered a group of Indians would kill their babies by drowning them in milk
I feel like I _might_ not want to know the story behind it...
Its obviously Napoleon
Yes, Hitler read Napoleon’s notes on invading Russia and did the same.
It is always Napoleon
Nah it’s British’s habit of drawing terrible borders
Is it ever not Napoleon?
But fun fact
No
You forgot to mention the millions of Indians who served in the British forces, even Gandhi formed a volunteer ambulance unit in South Africa and was decoared for his service.
We couldn't have won the war without them! Thank you India for your contribution to freedom.
@@bronsonperich9430 On the other hand 43000m of the Indian National Army fought for the Japanese.
@@johnallen7807 you mean 43,000 right?
@@bronsonperich9430 Correct, I missed the "en" as in "men" lol.
@@johnallen7807 Lets emphasise that the Indian National Army (INA) was the name given by India's nationalist/freedom fighter movement in response to the onset of colonialism on their land. The British Indian Army, which contributed to the war effort provided Indian fighters who far eclipsed the numbers that defected to the INA, by the order of 2.5 million (nearly 60x the number of soldiers and personnel).
Tens of thousands of Indians did rebel in the form of joining the 43,000 strong Indian National Army (allied to Japan) and another 4000 ish joining up in German service. It wasn't unusual during WW2 for people to resist their colonial rulers by joining whatever side was fighting against them. Of course, this was a high risk move, as when the Axis lost, any independence movement who had sided with them (even those who had justifiable reasons) found themselves screwed,
Though around 2.5 million joined the allies fight against the axis.
You're assuming that they joined willingly, which is false. Bose forcefully conscripted Indian soldiers who were captured in Malaya to serve in the INA, at threat of being forced to work in the death railway if they refused.
@@ColonialMasterbaseless accusation
@@owenfautley Difference is that one joined army of their colonial overlord for wage, while other fought for their national independence
This is false they were forces by Japan
43K didnt willingly join against british
They were prisonars of war in singapore
Somehow not mentioning the 40,000+ troops of the Indian National Army that fought on the side of the Japanese against the British, led by Chandra Bose. It even had a "Gandhi Brigade". Bose shook hands with both Tojo and Adolf.
He wasn't all that relevant. The vast majority of Indians at that time had no idea about the INA. They were commonly referred to as the Traitor Army.
@@ColonialMaster Still, good thing to mention!
But also not mentioning the 2,500,000+ that fought for the Brits.
@@ColonialMasterSo the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny was for nothing pa! man read history read the Red Fort INA trials don't whitewash the truth
@@MesaperProductions There 99+ more important points he couldve included rather than to put irelevant topic such as subash chandra bose
It's bewildering to me that 'but fun fact: no' is still hilarious every. Single time. Evergreen
Good thing they had James Bissonette to keep them in line.
As an Indian I can confirm that it was only the divine power of James Bissonette that kept us at bay.
@@thisisadeadmeme Truly.
Don't forget Kelly Moneymaker, who financed the whole shebang!!!
He's a terrific mediator.
I'm not finding anything that looks pertinent to James Bissonette. You have a few words I can add to my search? Thanks.
Now this is why i like history matters because this is something i never thought of until now
This one of those questions that no one this world never thought of asking in the first place
@@Kaybossboi exactly
It's also very handy to understand where "the past" actually takes place.
@@Kaybossboi Not really
Same here! I never thought this
Peak content (And just to clarify, I'm not the actual James Bissonette, we just have the same name).
We found him
The legend himself?? No way
Joined 5 months ago 🤔
@@jamesbissonette8002 THE ACTUAL James bisonette?
Don’t worry reported them for misleading. Can’t have any impersonators of our Lord Bisonette
The largest ever volunteer army was the Indian army during WW2.
Volunteer 😂😂😂😂😂
@dharmani_youtube yes, what do think happened?
@@davidhouseman4328 when you’re impoverished because all your food grains and wealth is taken to support Britain, it is hardly volunteering if you fight just so you can provide 2 square meals to your family. They weren’t any less skilled, but volunteering is a term used extremely loosely by western historians
@@dharmani_youtube that's what volunteering has meant through history.
@@davidhouseman4328 I would bet most people even in this comment section wouldn’t know the euphemism. You seem to be knowledgeable and weren’t ignorant luckily. God bless
A part of India based in the Andaman and Nicobar Island province did technically rebel! Mainly due to Japan taking it though and establishing the Azad (free) Hind government but it was done with after a while.
An Indian friend explained it differently. He said that India as country did not exist until the British took over, it was a collection of states with different leaders, aims, and even languages. Then according to him, we all learnt English, could unite and kick you out, he said with a smile.
Nationalism is a pathway to many abilities.
It's better to compare India with Europe not nation states
Makes sense.
I'm Indian and I can tell you that the part where he said that we all learnt english is wrong, although it is correct that there were lots of different nations with their own interests, Hindi/Urdu was the lingua franca of the subcontinent due to the trade during pre-colonial era, only the top elites, scholars, and very well educated people in India spoke english during the time, this was also during a time when most people did not go to school and a big portion were illiterate. The British did unite us as we saw a common enemy and wanted a nation for ourselves.
The ancient and medieval world perceived nations vastly differently to how we do today. Borders were much more fluid back then. Indians from time to time, were unified under the control of one empire, but often underwent fragmentation. However, there was a sense of one civilization, through multiple leaderships. This was backed by the religious ethos of the nation. A nation cannot be defined purely from the lens of modern-day political entities.
0:38 "Split Bengal into two, to separate the Indian and muslim populations, the Indians reacted poorly". They were all Indians, this is an extremely grave error to confuse hindu with Indian. It's far before the 2 state option, and makes no sense.
Yea it had to be a slip
@@rohannair9945 it's not a slip, if you want good information this is not the right channel (in fact, no animated TH-cam channel will be the right channel for learning anything)
The exact same mistake was repeated when India was granted independence. Bengal got split *again,* with half of it being assigned to Pakistan solely on the basis of being Muslim-majority.
And on a larger scale, the entirety of India was divided up along those lines. (And ignoring that any religions *other* than Hinduism and Islam existed in the region.) The partition was a mistake. There should've either been one united India, or multiple Indian states based on shared cultural history rather than just religion.
@@RedXlV I get why it was done, the British feared a bloody civil war if it wasn't. Unfortunately there kinda was one anyway, though would it have been worse without partition, who knows. Generally it's been argued partition could have been done a lot better, but the consequences if it wasn't done at all are hard to know.
@@RedXlV We see what happens when an empire is broken up into "multiple states based on shared cultural history" in the Balkans and the Caucasus. The leading group in each new ethnostate proceeds to persecute its own minorities. A similar situation after Austria-Hungary broke up was dealt with by ethnic cleansing and genocide, which nobody talks about now because it was overshadowed by what the Nazis did.
In India only Communists vote according to ideology and not religion, caste, tribe, etc. Letting the leading caste in each state hold all the levers of power would be a disaster. The effect of reorganizing the states within India according to language is mitigated by having the state governors appointed by the central government (and always being senior civil servants from outside the state) and their being in charge of the administration counterbalances any tyranny of the majority that the elected state legislature may feel inclined to show.
France has that with its Prefects, and Putin has done the same in Russia. Unfortunately the EU has no mechanism for parachuting a Eurocrat in to supervise the venal politicians in the national capitals. The nearest the Western European countries have is their constitutional monarchs, but they are no match for a determined populist or ideologue.
Completely failed to mentioned that more than one-million Indians volunteered to fight on behalf of Britain during WW2, making it the largest volunteer army in history.
It was something like 2.5 million volunteers by the end of the war
Wow, that’s actually quite a big oversight from the video as it at least hints at another angle to the situation. Very interesting.
The term volunteer is very deceptive in this context, and I would request you to go through works on India's experience during WW2- like Yasmin Khan and Srinath Raghavan. Recruitment was often done through Princely states and Zamindars, who used their economic and political power over peasants to mobilize them as soldiers for the British Govt. That doesn't mean that there weren't Indians willingly joining the army for bread and butter- but the reality was more complex and nuanced. Many people actively resisted war recruitment.
Whats 2.5 million as a percentage of its population?
this was actually because of 3 reason 1) they promised food, cloths and income, and with all the famines(caused by british only), they did not had many options. 2) due to gandhi, he supported indians to take part in war which simply proves that he was a british stoog and nothing else, 3) many battalions came from the princly states whose people were loyal to the state not the british , but those states were loyal to british.
India: pardon me sir, is this a good time to rebel?
British: no, not really.
India: very good sir. have a nice day.
There's an important factor in this which is worth considering. For most of the British Raj, the Indian Army (which mainly consisted of Indian soldiers with British officers) was funded out of taxes levied in India. Typically, the army was no larger than 200,000 men, which is surprisingly small for a country the size of India.
But the World Wars changed this. The British government needed more men. In WW1 the Indian army expanded to around 600,000 men. After 1918 it dropped back down to 200,000 again, but in WW2 it expanded to around 2.5 million men - the largest volunteer army in history. During these wartime periods of rapid expansion, the government in London wound up having to fund most of the costs of the expansion, both in wages and in equipment and supplies.
Also it overlooks the disunity of Indian regions and populations for centuries. It was easier to hold such a nation when there wasn't a unified populace or even leadership for so long.
Was ment as an internal army to keep the population in ckeck
Plus every Indian unit had British soldiers to keep them in check
@@JeffEbe-te2xs Apart from the two World Wars (where it fought in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South East Asia and the Pacific) the British Indian Army fought three times in Afghanistan, three in Burma, three in China, once in Persia and once in Nepal. The “Great Game” between the British and Russian Empires was a major factor in many of these conflicts.
The unexpected Parks and Recreation "right to jail, right away" reference at 1:44 made me laugh hard.
The magic of this channel is in the little things.
And the Venezuelan presidential sash.
1:44 "We have the best citizens in the world....because of jail."
You undercook fish - jail
Jay walk, believe it or not, jail. Straight away.
Parks and Rec reference
I like how even the "No" at 1:50 sounds surprised.
I know, right?!
That has to be the absolute first time!
@@MesaperProductionsGuys, I'm pretty sure his 'no' sounds like most if not all other no's I've heard the History Matters TH-cam channel narrator say.... Are you sure you can detect a sizable difference in tone, I'm talking a higher tone to indicate that no sounding unsure surprised etc?
Are you sure? I swear it sounds normal
@@FillupMan I am willing to swear that this "No" sounds completely different from his normal ones.
This one DOES sound surprised.
2:47 _Glass not so quietly crashing in the background_
What
@@cruel-intention9592 I think he's referring to partition after Independence as glass shattering, because it was still very messy.
@@samarthjain5015 ohhh
My great-grandfather Aladeen Mirza Mughal was British-Indian Officer (8th British Army, V. Corps, 4th Indian Infantry Division, 43rd Indian Lorried Brigade) from Punjab in Ww2 (He fought in Egypt, Libya, Tunesia and Italy). He loves the British and after the British left, he stayed with them and went to London. He was scared that the Indians hate him after the partition because his family was in the British-Indian Army (Punjab Regiment) since 1858 and fought every war for them (Mahdist War, 1st and 2nd Anglo-Afghan War, Boxer Rebellion, Tibetian Expedition, World War I, British Expedition Force in the Russian civil war and WW2)
That’s a grand legacy.
Great man.
Oh that is very interesting. We're a weird group of people aren't we 😅?
fairly funny, as punjab was one of the last states to fall under East India company rule before Britain took over
Something that's been forgotten now - is the British required all their colonial officers to speak the local language and understand local customs.
You wouldn't have gotten that from most empires in history.
Its also the bribing of Indian princes. The British Empire would provide luxury goods to the princes/nobles of India, in exchange for their cooperation.
A classic method. The English did the same in Ireland with "surrender and re-grant" - Irish nobles would give up their Irish titles in exchange for English-given ones ... and keeping their land and wealth.
2:38 Is there a V2 rocket in the background?
Yeah🤣
The World Wars also played a major role in creating a more unified sense of national identity in India. Among other things, Britain had to expand the Indian Army to a size where they had to recruit people of all races & religions, compared to the prior (racist) policy of recruiting mostly Punjabi Sikhs & Nepali Gurkhas. This undermined Britain’s “divide & rule” strategy, & as Indians of all backgrounds fought together, they developed a stronger sense of camaraderie & unity.
It wasn't racist. It was a security issue. The Brits were reasonably certain (after going through the Sepoy Revolt), that those guys would not try and shoot them in the back or massacre/rape/torture British civilians if left as guards.
@@MM22966 oh okay só the British weren’t racist; they just felt some ethnic groups were safer than others. Umm…
@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Yeah the Sihks and Muslims are very equal on the grounds of terroristic violent acts, oh wait.
@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Do you know what racism is?
@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Show me one single group in all of history that has no preference whatever for one group of outsiders over another.
I'll wait.
Subhash Chandra Bose rebelled and fought alongside the Japanese against the British with his forces. Westerners see him as a mere puppet but he's well respected in India.
I was hoping he was gonna talk about him but nope he didn't
He was the puppet of Japanese 🇯🇵
@@utkarshsoni3300 Yeah, but you could say the same thing about De Gaulle and the Free French during WW2. It's what happens in the decades afterwards that decides how they are viewed.
@@utkarshsoni3300 So was Sukarno
That's because Bose was indeed a puppet.
Look up the death railway in Burma that the Japanese built, with Bose's support, using slave labour. Some estimates rank the death toll all the way to 350k, many of them being Indians, btw.
Bose then used this railway in order to invade British India, which failed, badly.
Great video! Thank you!!
Hey man! I loved the video, but you left out a few important bits
1. The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
2. The Indian National Army, the story of which that would inspire revolts in 1946, a full year after its failure to liberate India (it did after its disbanding)
3. Government of India Act, 1935 guaranteeing (some) autonomy, like 10% autonomy but it was a big relief after decades of riots and brutal arrests
4. Brutal suppression of the Quit India Movement
If India had made a move in World War I or II, do you think they could have won?
1? No. 2? Yes. Britain was basically incapable of projecting power overseas after France fell and the amount of manpower, equipment and importantly planes it would take to suppress an Indian revolt would have left the home islands and more strategically important holdings like Egypt and Gibraltar vulnerable. Especially in the event of Axis or Soviet support for the revolutionaries.
I mean, economically speaking at the time, probably not. They had manpower, but I don't think they could have sustained a large force through a war of that scale at that time.
Today, though? Yikes.
Well the British needed Indian soldiers to fight in Burma and had many in Egypt. So I don't see how the Brits could have won.
The economics afterwards would be crap, but that's a tomorrow problem.
@@andrewstepanek8933 even one is a yes because compared to the British army the Raj's army (which would later show signs of mutiny) was way larger and armed.
@@andrewstepanek8933 they cracked the Enigma code and rendered German U-boats obsolete. I'd hardly call that a lack of overseas power 😂
Something, something, James Bizonett.
Bissonnette
Don’t forget “Spinning Three Plates”
@@ESPLTD322 Whatever happened to Kelly Moneymaker? Made enough money I guess
Indians fought for Britain in WWII, against both the Nazis and the Japanese. In 2000 I met an Indian veteran who had fought for Britain in Italy, and was wounded in Foggia.
You do know there was a faction known as the Indian national army who fought for independence with Japanese support. Not to mention there was a naval mutiny in 1946 .
1946 isn't during WW2 though.
@@gimmethegepgun lol
I imagine that another reason was probably the ethnic diversity of the region... it's hard to unite hundreds of millions behind a cause when many of them were never close to each other, not to mention the challenge of deciding who's gonna be in charge, religion and stuff like that.
But look at India. For most of its history people of all religions did work together until well the Hindutva came or am i mistaken?
@@dukeblunder
You can say until the Islamic Invaders came in
@@dukeblunder ha Hindutva wasn't that popular among Indians up until the 1980s.
"Let's ruin everything" is a pretty accurate way of describing the Axis' plans
Videos need to be longer. We want more,
He used to do 10 minutes but his popularity really took off when he started doing 4 minutes.
@@michaelmicekhe also said that demonetisation issues led to him shortening the videos, since YT is his only job; although he said that he would make 10 minute history again if YT fixed the demonetisation issues and that if he ever had a "last video" then it would be a ten minute history
Thank you so much for continuing to make such great content!
I've learned that no matter how obvious or familiar the answer to a History Matters title seems to me, I will likely still learn something interesting if I watch it!
As an Indian myself, I can tell you this thing. Although the British did have control over India, the Indian administrators dealt with the majority of the population(and I am not talking about the princely states here). Majority of India’s population was rural. Most rural Indians never saw a foreign, let alone British person except when they roamed around the country. Among the urban population, they did support independence overwhelmingly but the majority of the population that was rural had never heard of the British and their lives barely changed before, during and after few decades after British rule.
Up until states were able to consolidate their power more firmly via technology, this was really the pattern of life. When a new king etc. got in it was pretty much "oh okay, wonder how the harvest is going?" because for the most part the state was unable to project their power on rural areas and instead someone like a village elder or local lord was the de-facto king in this territory. And yeah you see this as late as even modern day Afghanistan where a lot of these villages didn't even know that the USA invaded Afghanistan and thought they were the Soviets.
What a ridiculous statement. Apparently they forgot about the famines
@@peelsherrif0995 that's so dumb
@@QuentinofVirginia And then there was Siberian Russia, where a lot of people didn't even know they were part of Russia, and the government didn't know how many people were there until a Soviet census.
Meanwhile today, we still don't actually know how many people are in the interior of Papua New Guinea. Estimates range up to about double the number of people that we DO know are there.
@@Bruteforce765 There weren't famines all over India, only in Bengal and some other places but Indians were mostly not concerned en masse they saw it as a result of world war and not the local administration.
Some of the biggest backers of the British east India company were Indian bankers and financiers.
India did rebel during WWII under Subhash Chandra Bose who lead revolts in Bengal and North Eastern India.
He also collaborated with Germany and Japan militarily against the allies.
Not 'India'. soldiers from INA recruited from Axis POWs
Indians also tried to rebel against British in 1915 with help of germans ,ottomans, and Irish nationalist .gadhar party ,indian independence committee and ansulan samithi were all part of it .but british intelligence found it and crush it .
The Indian National Army he created was one important reason why Britain had to leave India whole Gandhi was there to calm down the Indians and not fight what a puppet funny even today people don't believe he was an agent
Off topic question but, when did Burma become separate from India, before its independence or during?
Well when the British Raj was formalized it was made up of 3 identities. The Indian Subcontinent I.E India Pakistan and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka (and Maldives), and Burma. This was because those 3 groups were wildly different in Culture. The Indian Subcontinent had the same culture while Burma was much different. Thats why many Indians proposed borders of India only excluding Burma Sri Lanka and Maldives (and technically Afghanistan if that even counts).
So to answer Burma was always separate. Unlike India Pakistan and Bangladesh who were basically forced to separate due to the British creating tensions and divisions among religious groups by forcing them to only vote for their religious political leader aside from Sikhs who were lumped into the same category as Hindus
Love your work 💕 But can you make 10 minutes videos once in a while?
he mentioned its not as a viable for the algorithim or something
They take vast amounts of time and money to make; if someone complains, they get demonetised. Fun fact: not everyone agrees about history.
@@simonohara9617 Oh got it
This is truly a common W upload from History Matters
Therapist: It’s ok, square headed Gandhi isn’t real, he can’t hurt you.
Square headed Gandhi:
Video idea: Why didnt the Soviet Union invade Yugoslavia?
Tito was too strong
To drastically oversimplify a fairly long story, Yugoslavia would have been pretty hard to invade and also the Soviets hope that Tito would be overthrown from all the pressure they were putting on Yugoslavia.
"India" didn't rebel but Indians sure did. While the leaders of Quit India advocated for nonviolence, many of their followers around the country took action on their own to destroy government buildings, police stations etc, and kill British policemen and soldiers. This required Britain to redeploy thousands of troops that could have been sent to North Africa or Burma.
I absolutely love the little Parks & Rec reference " Right to Jail"
Hello. I love your videos, and I wanted to know whether you'll ever consider making more 10 minute videos about Spanish, French, Greek, Roman or Persian history.
As well as Bose's army, there were also anti-British riots. The channel World War Two covered these about a couple of years ago.
I'm a historian but also a teacher of the subject. I've often and loudly pointed my students to this channel but this video was way too fast paced to engage most people. Your videos are usually fast paced sure, but this felt incredibly rushed. Just some honest feedback from a loyal subscriber.
Because even according to Indian separatists statistics , only about 10% of Indians wanted independence straight away. Many ether didn’t want it or understood it would come in time.
Most were kept extremely illiteby the great British to prevent any idea of independence from the extremely large population the agitations had large role of gandhi skills as a mass mobilizer
Imagine if Napolean revolutionaries ideas reach india before the British arrived, Indian subcontinent will be divided by 10+ countries
Source?
To add to that the concept of a united India in the modern sense wasn’t really thought of by the native inhabitants. India is often called the subcontinent for how many different ethnic groups and differing communities were there and throughout history had conflicts with each other. It’s the reason why the east India company was able to dominate as they played off Indian princes against one another to eventually achieve their goal and I remember that I believe that some sikhs actually went to the British to get rid of leaders or people they were in opposition to. The British empire didn’t have a massive army but one that was ever well trained and would often get locals to aid in their efforts. Regardless of the moral implications of their actions they knew how to play the game even when they have hiccups like the mutiny in India or the siege of Kabul.
@@LiberTeaBag It did enter Revolutionary Tipu sultan becoming Citizen Tipu. The entire Sikh empire was created on the basis of French army and had many commanders from Napoleonic army.
the bomb in the backgroud just chilling in the ground is kinda funny
Great video as allways
0:03 Britain: “I’m afraid to inform you that Europe wishes the same thing to me”
Information on this video is incomplete. Critical events such as the foundation and military actions of the Azad Hind Fauz led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and the naval revolt of 1946 have been omitted. Fact of the matter is Britain didn't leave India it fled from India before it got violently kicked out.
A few things that remained unmentioned-
There were attempts at revolution during both WW1 and WW2-both involving German support. In WW1, a revolutionary (the same person who tried to assassinate the Viceroy)-Rash Behari Bose-would ship weapons from Germany to incite armed rebellion, the “Ghadar Uprising”. This would fail as the British would quickly learn of their plans and Bose would flee to Japan. In WW2, Rash Behari allied with the Japanese to invade India-and formed the Indian Independence League (in 1942). Another Bose-not related to Rash Behari-Subhas Chandra Bose-would lead the IIL and re-organise it into the Indian National Army-its sole goal was to invade India with Japanese assistance and liberate it. It is worth nothing that after Bose’s death and the Red Fort Trials-where his soldiers were tried for treason-a major mutiny broke out across the Royal Indian Navy when the sailors discovered Bose’s activities. Attlee has cited this mutiny as one of the main reasons British presence in India became unfeasible.
I hope one day you make a video about Burma (Myanmar). Like, what happened to their monarchy when neighboring Thailand has one.
Suggestion: If you find the narration too fast to clearly comprehend, then you may want to go to the gear sprocket symbol and adjust the playback speed to .75. The narration may be too slow for your liking, but the words are fully comprehended.
Because james bissonette told them to be patient
2:01 fun fact though there was a regiment of Indians in the German Army, formed as a way to fight the British in another front i think but it didn't last long
They were Hitler’s top guys
@@comrade_commissar3794 yeah pretty much....in the end they had different goals, the germans had theirs and wouldn't have gone well for India if the Germans ruled the world
@@comrade_commissar3794 also cool profile
@@comrade_commissar3794 "top guys"
LOL.
Read what he said about them during the Battle of Berlin.
@@ColonialMaster Nah youre a racist. Many Indians view Bose and the INA as National Heroes, and the Indian Legion and the INA are noted to have commited virtually no war crimes compared to all other powers.
Also, The 1946 trials saw mass support from hindus to muslims to sikhs, including the navy and pressured the brtiish to release all ina soldiers
"Right to jail" was peak reference
ive just started my A-Levels on history, i can use these videos instead of just enjoying them lol (I will continue to enjoy them)
Most of the people from lower castes didn't rebel much to firangi masters for certain reasons. A local saint from Malabar district naned Sri Narayana guru, claimed during ww1 that " The British were his masters because they gave him Sanyasa(Sainthood) so they should be thankful to Britishers."
0:55 *Next video idea: Why did the Brits Partition 🇲🇲Burma (now Myanmar) out of India in 1937?*
- especially given that it was British Raj’s largest province, 90% follow Buddhism which begun in India itself (unlike the later Islamic Partitions) & very few people have even discussed this on TH-cam so far…
Cultural difference north east and south atleast had trade and historical connections to other parts of the Indian Subcontinent but Burma its a whole another area detached through the mountains and forests and Banaras were too big of a group to ignore and be joint with India
@@lordlegendian0287It’s not that easy or distinct, as you think, as over half of the ethnic groups in the Indian northeast and Burma are the same. They probably wanted to appease the people in the valley. Clearly was a terrible decision in hindsight as Myanmar is in eternal civil war from its inception and the Indian north east is eternally destabilized.
Suggestion: A video on why doesnt Pashtunistan exist
Hello everyone, welcome back to another episode of "Things I never once thought to ask but am now immensely curious about"
Shortt answer: Gandhi told us peaceful indian slavery is morally better than violent american independence
This is a question I've had in mind. Glad to see it got answered.
If the "Indian people" (as if there was the modern conception of an united Indian identity and nation state at the time) wanted them gone right away, it's kind of strange how local lords and nawabs kept willingly working with the British against their fellow "Indians." There was no race war for control of India. Plenty of Indian rulers supported the British over their rivals and former conquerers. People extrapolate modern nationalism to the past where it didn't exist in the same way.
Partly true, there was a tipping point around 1945 when every Indian wanted them gone. They had enough and that’s when an Independent India was born
@@theskycavedin the kings supported the British because the nationalist movements were left leaning and India would have abolished all forms of monarchy upon independence (like it did in out timeline, those kings lost all lands and influence)
can you make a video about how likely was the swedish-polish union ?
Had India rebelled during WWII, Japan would almost certainly have invaded.
1:44 parks and recreation mentioned!!!! rahhhhhhh 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥
Fascinating!
2.5 million Indians fought with the British against the Germans
2:47 again wrong map.. why can't the western media show a proper map of India for once? Atleast in historical content show it correctly
Brutal fact: Million Indians fought for the Allies in both wars and millions starved to death, their grown crops were taken away to feed the British and allied soldiers
Don't know how that can be fun
@@alexandrugheorghe5610 Well, if it's fun for the west, then they should have acknowledged it for the best I mean Indians not only just forced to participate but also were sent in the frontlines to fight the axis. But, they didn't it's just fun at least for the west
@@வாழ்கதமிழ்-ல8ந I meant "fun fact"
@@alexandrugheorghe5610 I understand that, but...ok here we go.
@@வாழ்கதமிழ்-ல8ந I live in Ireland. Irish and Indians both share a disdain with regards to the British when it comes to the past
The "two years later" hides a crucial pain...
There were some attempts though, Subhas Chandra Bose, who aligned with Nazis and Japan in WWII to fight the Brits.
Because James Bisonette
He was spinning three plates and India knew that if he started spinning a fourth they couldnt handle it
Kelly moneymaker
@@jaxonhopkins2691words about books podcast
Never forget Party Boyco. He was always second.
Nah
Why did the southern German states unite with Prussia after the Franco-Prussian War?
He actually answered that in the Franco-Prussian war video
@@Naviamold People are so lazy, shallow and uneducated...
" then the british passed the rowlatt act which allowed the british to jail any Indian for 2 years for literally any reason they could think of"
1:44 Damn, as a venezuelan i understand the joke.
Pretty good video BTW!
Plus Roosevelt (and then Truman) told the British that the US wasn't fighting to preserve the British Empire.
James Bisonette promised India financial aid if they stayed loyal
It’s obviously because of James bisonette
james bissonette funded and taught gandhi
I admire your writing ability features wit with fact.
That "RIght to Jail!" at 1:45 was brilliant. This is what I'm here for (aside from the niche history facts noone asked about)
You are such a good youtuber i pray please dont turn out bad 😭😭
Britain's choice to leave India was wise.
Why
@@ryandanngetich2524well because a lot of colonial power declear war own colonies for asking indipendence like french algerian war , french indo china , dutch indonesia war and portugese declear war any colony in africa and asia they consider their province by portugese dictator until carnation revolution come dictator remove and next leader accept colonies indipendence
@@ryandanngetich2524Cause they had nothing left to loot, they had made it a third world country full of illiteracy and disease.
Indeed a few years later Britain had to deal with the, Malayan emergency.
Imagine that but India, being the most populated state, and a very angry one, on top of that you would have Chinese support through direct land border, for the communists. It probably would have turned like Algeria.
What a lot of people doesn’t know was how quickly the communists would have gained power, as they literally they were the major power even in the 90s, despite a socialist government, actively appeasing them throughout.
They did grant independence but only after a (very) bloody partition.
I love the "Right to Jail" parks and rec reference
Actually, in WW2, Chandrashekhar Azad joined the Japanese to defeat British India. But Gandhi knew that freedom through violence would bring more violence later. So he opposed it.
India rebelled in 1857 which was crushed, but the East India co. was removed from administering India. During WW1, India was offered self-rule post the war, if Indians cooperated during the war. Indians cooperated but self-rule didnt come.
In WW2, Indians rebelled. Together with German & Japanese destruction of British power & prodding by US - Britain had no choice but to let go!
Funnily both times it was crushed by Indians or Hindus or Buddhists from Nepal. In case of 1857 it was crushed by Sikhs, Rajput, Pashtun and Gorkhas and in WW2 Marathas, Gorkhas, Sikhs fought to stop Japanese and INA. If Indians cooperated back in 1857 or in 1944-1945 just simply by putting down their arms like "nah! we are not fighting on your side" then it would be a story of few days or at most few months.
@@Tathagata-eo5tzya that's why it's called divide and rule.
Because James Bisonette funded Indian resistance on the condition it would be peaceful.
India has potential to Balkanize, if not near but far future, it's not off the table. I read this fascinating book '- India after Gandhi' which covers formation of India as we know it, in more detail with annotated articles and first person accounts. Everyone knows Pakistan went their way and there is also a standing question of parts of Kashmir, but very few would know that erstwhile Kingdom of Travancore covering most of the southern 'India' wanted an independent country and both Pakistan and UK supported it (For each uniquely different reasons) before the CM of the kingdom had a mysterious assassination attempt, similarly very far east and very far west and north and even a part of central India wanted to part ways with India. The linguistic separation of states later in 1950s only adds more credence to this division.
We were never taught such things in school. I will not ever apologise for the actions of previous governments, over which I had no control, but I am certainly disgusted with their treatment of the "Empire". It is no wonder that so many countries wanted independence. What is really strange is why they are still in the Commonwealth- Perhaps it is the overseas aid that goes towards buying up British companies and also supporting their space and nuclear programs?
The famine in India because of Churchill's decisions might have played a role as well?
That is a myth, sorry. It was popularised by a random Indian author (not a historian, might I add) who created an outlandish theory about Churchill being responsible for it all. It then gained popularity online.
@@ColonialMaster so youre telling me the only good thing churchill did he didnt actually do?
@@coloniser.- Lol. Good one.
@@ColonialMaster Well your name suggests that i cant trust you
@@ColonialMasterit isnt a myth. The bengal famine really happened. For starters yes the bengal famine didnt directly start from churchill, it started because of natural reasons, but churchills neglence made those deaths larger. If britan actually focused on bengal those death couldve been minimilised. So the bengal famine isnt a myth, and churchill didnt cause all of it, hes js a factor which is still bad. In all fairness people didnt care if any famine happened anywhere but western europe. The holodomor a famine happening in europe which at maximum killed 2 million people was neglected in europe. Or the armenian genocide. What i wany to say is that unless it happens in western europe, like 2 world wars, the west will not care.
No one has mentioned that the number of Indians who volunteered to fight for the commonwealth was the largest volunteer number in any country at any time in history. At the height of the empire there were less than 1000 actually British people administrating the whole indian sub continent. The video and comments have not recognised a large community of indian people who actually supported the British. India was a very important part of the allies and in the defeat of the axis.
Coming from an Anglo Indian myself it has to do I believe with modern Indian nationalism and the role that being anti British unites them. My ancestors were sepoys who fought in the 1880s and would eventually move to Guyana however they only married fellow Indians and maintain their identity from the sub continent. My Indian family isn’t anglophiles however at the same time they respect the British to an extent for the role they shaped indias administration in later years and their military which is why I believe you had lots of Sikhs in the military. The issue stems of modern Indian nationalist which by all means I understand the importance of nationalistic sentiments but they go beyond the pale. They often state things that never occurred in history or exaggerate crimes the British committed to of absurdity. They deny that Alexander won his most famous battle, claim of great Indian empire that spanned across the globe bigger than Britain and various other falsities. I take both my pride for my Anglo and Indian heritage’s seriously and understand that both committed monstrous actions in history but the Indian nationalists don’t.
@@williamfrank962 cool, thanks
@@williamfrank962lol you respect both but criticised only Indian nationalists. Also enough with both sides bad nonsense as one was a coloniser and other was a victim of colonisation.
@@Garuda_31 I criticized them for their mindset in which they ether deny outright of any wrongdoing by India in its history or not acknowledge the values that exist in India thanks to the British or even how there were Indians who willing would aid them in their wars. I didn’t say it was bad for them to be proud of their nation but the issue is the fact they deny any possibilities of positive results brought by the British to India. Also, during the conquest of India many Indian princes sided with the British willingly to take out their rivals and that many Indians received some level of autonomy in compensation for their allegiance showing that this conquest was more a great game rather than a conquest like that of westward expansion or the aztecs vs conquistadors and even then they were aided by natives as well.
Further I fully acknowledge the British of wrongdoing during their history when discussing my indian ancestors and how they viewed their overlords but still admired aspects of them. The issue is that you seem to not understand that history isn’t a black and white affair that is the result of multitudes of people, beliefs and previous conflicts that result in events that have multi levels of complexity to them which makes it impossible for someone to completely make one side black and one side white.
The criminal actions I was referring by India weren’t concerning anything against the British even though there’s stories of sepoys who remained loyal getting brutally killed. I was referring to crimes committed by Indians to other Indians involving different ethnic groups, Kashmir region and in many places where it’s still used the caste system.
They both have dark history in them which I acknowledge yet still respect both of my ancestral lineages.
@@williamfrank962I'm sorry, you're an Anglo Indian, your opinion literally doesn't matter given that the Anglo part means you come from the British.