The Chinese side of the war has largely been unexplored in video games so far, really hope you guys are able to deliver such fresh content.
Though if we’re counting colonial empires, France was never truly knocked out of the war, seeing as its African auxiliaries kept on fighting for a government which had historically treated them (and would continue to treat them) like second-class citizens.
What little knowledge I possess about colonial holdings of France & the events that followed the annexation of the French homeland comes from RealTimeWWII account on twitter.
That knowledge includes:
De Gaulle telling Brits that he will convince Vichy aligned troops to join the Free French & surrender the ships they possessed & them (Vichy troops) passing up on the offer.
Leading to British Warships sinking the ships anchored at port & French soldiers spilling each others blood for gaining control of the colonies.
Further response from Vichy being the ordering of bombing of British ships & the pilots intentionally dropping the bombs into the sea, not wanting to harm their former comrades.
(My knowledge about these events is rather limited & the account is tweeting events from 1940)
Finally British empire didn’t have to face this problem. At least not at level the French faced. (Again my knowledge in this regard in not up to date. So take it with that thought in mind )
I can pick up from here:
While the vast majority of Metropolitan French troops who remained under arms until the Armistice put down their weapons and went home (seeing the Vichy regime as a “legitimate” continuation of the Third Republic, and feeling understandably miffed at the British for Mers el-Kebir), a lot of troops in the French colonies ended up joining the Free French, and from the time in between 1940, and 1943, when large numbers of Vichy troops began switching sides after Operation Torch, the majority of Free French troops engaged were African.
Moroccan and Senegalese troops remained heavily involved in the Italian Campaign, but were phased out starting in 1943-44 and replaced with white troops both for practical (The US Army didn’t work well with black or brown troops as allies) and racial (French attitudes towards North and Central Africans aren’t generally all that good now, and they were worse in the 40s) reasons. As a lot of these new “whitened” formations had been defectors from the Vichy Regime, there were serious rifts between officers who’d been part of the Free French forces from the start, and those who’d changed sides only when it was clear that the Allies were on the winning side. Notably, Leclerc (2nd French Armoured) and De Lattre (1st French Army) were not on speaking terms, as De Lattre considered Leclerc insubordinate, and Leclerc considered both De Lattre and much of his command (made up of Vichy defectors) to be traitors and opportunists.
The British actually did face some limited problems regarding defections. The IJA recruited British Indian Army PoWs into the Indian National Army (which included the Rani of Jhansi Regiment, one of the very few all-female combat units of the war), and Burmese troops fighting for the British would often defect when things were going badly. Given that the INA and the Burmese were fighting more for freedom from any colonial empire than for the cause of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, I kind of give them the same (more or less) free pass I give the Finns, especially since the INA was the main reason India ended up independent in the end.
There are horror stories of racist US soldiers in WWII deployed to Australia, the UK (in preparation for Normandy), New Zealand, or newly liberated European countries. None of those countries had the de jure, legally enforced segregation that the American south had, but that didn’t stop the US soldiers deployed to those countries from trying to enforce segregation upon the local populace. There are many stories of US soldiers in NZ trying to throw Maori soldiers out of the bars they drunk at, or of US soldiers in Britain asking bartenders and restaurant staff to kick out the African, Caribbean, and Indian colonial troops who were also there.
Fortunately, in many cases, the bartenders refused to go along with the Yanks’ racism and overt bigotry, and reminded them that they weren’t in the US and therefore needed to respect local customs, including the custom of refusing to segregate public facilities by race.
In fact, this might be where the stereotype of rude, obnoxious American travellers might have gotten its start.
Hey thanks for expanding on this. Very informative!
Being an Indian, this I actually knew (as I wrote the post hinting at this very fact. Though not highlighting it). We are taught from a young age about the sacrifices of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose & his INA.
A significant majority of Indians are aware of a famous quote from Bose:
‘तुम मुझे खून दो, मैं तुम्हें आज़ादी दूंगा’
(Roughly translated to: Give me your blood & I shall give you your freedom)
Returning to the role of INA in Indian independence. They definitely played an important role in it & so did the Red Fort trials at the end of war along with the naval mutiny that followed it. But I feel that I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that their’s were not the only contribution to the cause for freedom & the resulting Independence.
Non Violent movements launched by Mahatma Gandhi throughout the war, factor into it as well. I’m tempted to say that it was an indispensable contribution at that.
Further I’m under the assumption (and I may be wrong here. Please correct me if that is the case) that WW2 weakened the Empire quite a bit. That their moral position to justify the continued occupation of their colonies was also weakened along with the weakening of their resources to continue the occupation.
And @Bryce_Kaldwin would murder me in my sleep if I don’t point out here that Roosevelt was sympathetic to the Indian cause & kept kicking Winston in the nuts to do the right thing. So this played a part in our Independence as well.
(I’m sure I’m missing other factors here as well but those are the ones that immediately jump up to me )
So now i am playing through Saber of Infinity… for my opinion, League of Antar was the first aggressor since they started the war , leading to event of King Miguel landing on Antar , in the landing of Narangia, the Terrain force took the castle town easily, with professional soldiers all ran away … but it was the hostile resistance of the town folks which brought massacre to both forces , had the town folks settle down peacefully, the Terrain forces won’t had reason to kill them and according to Lanzareal, 600 men of his regiment was down to 40 too… perhaps the commander leading that assault should had calm the village folks first after taking the town ?
While in the scenes in guns of infinity , the Antari villagers seem more receptive of Terrain troops , because i could easily bought food from them and their village heads were all.smiling with my money…
If only the siege of Narangia could be settle like the siege of Hartfleur by Henry V … then that old woman who plead for donation from me won’t had to lose her whole family … that’s the main reason why i always admire King Henry V , for a king in medieval time had the wisdom of being civilised …
Because those guys are serfs. To them, anything is better than the guys who can stake them just to show that they can.
As for money, serfs are forbidden to handle money and it was the freeholders who you buy grain from. They aren’t friendly to tierrans, but they probably won’t tell that to 200 armed men
I don’t think that’s an option.
If a mob is charging at you, there’s not much you can do to open a conversation. In fact, Lanzeral seems to imply that some men died specifically because they didn’t want to fight the townspeople. The townspeople also have every reason to believe that their town is going to be pillaged, and they turned out to be correct.
And it’s also hard to settle the village in the aftermath after your men just committed countless atrocities against them.
True, though his reasons are a bit more justifiable than just wanting to keep the Germans out of France.
Every week of war was a week were French production was equipping divisions that were still missing radios, anti-tank guns or making up for the sudden lack of fighter aircraft in France after the RAF was kept in Britain.
It was more a set of swoops. Though anglophone popular media and WW2 historiography has had an overwhelming focus on the Battle of France only up until Dunkirk (Strange Victories doesn’t even mention Case Red except maybe in passing, IIRC). Popular history also plays into this (unfortunately) and it will probably take a lot of time to subvert. Just look at how Guns of August is still considered a defining WW1 book even after being academically revealed in its shoddy historical work.
Will BoC deal with the issue of US relations towards European colonial troops?
“It seems we hit a hitch at Sedan.” -Huntzinger
Then the French cohesion snapped and when Reynaud fired Gamelin as he was prepping a crucial counter attack by the time Waygard relieved him, the Germans had Aerial Supremacy and broke up the French attacks and troop concentrations.
I am sorry to interfere between you 2. I just want to tell you something. You seem to miss.
“Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does,” . “Particularly the decisions that he personally signed off during the Bengal Famine when 4.3 million people died because of the decisions he took or endorsed."
at least hitler did not made them starve to death and eat trees and few times peoples.people were selling there kids forget about sex.For killing so many in Bengal without any bullet Churchill was called Bengal Tiger.
"Not only did the British pursue its own policy of not helping the victims of this famine which was created by their policies. Churchill persisted in exporting grain to Europe, not to feed actual ‘Sturdy Tommies’, to use his phrase, but add to the buffer stocks that were being piled up in the event of a future invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia”.
“Ships laden with wheat were coming in from Australia docking in Calcutta and were instructed by Churchill not to disembark their cargo but sail on to Europe,” he added. “And when conscience-stricken British officials wrote to the Prime Minister in London pointing out that his policies were causing needless loss of life all he could do was write peevishly in the margin of the report, ‘Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?’"
Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, the Prime Minister who led Britain to victory in World War Two, said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
India’s share of the world economy when Britain arrived on it shores was 23 per cent. By the time the British left it was down to below four per cent. Why? Simply because India had been governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India."
“In fact, Britain’s industrial revolution was actually premised upon the de-industrialisation of India.”
I just said fact for castellen. I’m not trying to start a argument or anything else with anyone else
Castellan is from India, Punjab in fact, you know, the place where all those massacres erupted because of a half thought out partition plan?
The whole concept of British Rule in India is completely f’d up.
Some but not all. About winston i saw a whole video and remembered the guy who explained it.
About that massacre actually punjab was not supposed to split. It was hyderabad. There were mostly muslim .but breaking punjab took lott of great warriors out of india. Also started a religions anger from sikh against there own hindus. Great idea whoever thought of it.
So called Gandhi said only way india would split up is on his death. But when all indian officials Diclined the partition GANDHI SIGNED it.
I have spent lott of my childhood reading books.my grand father loved reading.let us say he had more books then normal library
Also lott of British feel bad for what was done in Bengal. But they couldn’t have found out about it at that time. That is how it always happens. We always talk about past while someone is doing the same
@Studwick, what I find to be very telling was that when the OKH was left to its own devices to plan and handle their own strategies, while they had the normal hiccups that men do, they tended to be decent.
For instance what finally convinced the Heer to commit to the “Manstein Plan” was a series of wargames that the head of “Foreign Armies West” acting as the OPFOR conducted using all the parameters that they believed the Allies would act on against German generals.
Of course they still had misgivings, but- the simulations at least proved that it could work.
This is interesting - please remember to take a break once you state your position on a topic.
Carry on everyone.
@Cataphrak can I post a map of fictional Balkan Union I made? I want your and the regular Dragoons opinion on it.
Mostly for the lols but you know.
“The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash’d to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,”
Doesn’t sound all that civilised to me.