Why did Adolf Hitler dislike Indians? How Does Bhakt Love of Hitler Make Sense?

[Bilal9]

The joke's on us as well.

The point of the thread was that Hindutva outfits like RSS and Shivsena adore Hitler in spite of Hitler hating Indians to the core.

I don't think WE adore Hitler....

 

[LeGenD]

In fact Hitler was supremacist and didn't like anyone else that includes Hindus and Muslims as well. Pakistani and Indians who praise Hitler would have been sent to gas chambers as well if they were in Germany.

Absolutely.

Accomplishments of Hitler and the Wehrmacht in the battlefield can be independently acknowledged and appreciated (credit where due), but this was a racist force of oppression as a whole.

If they had reached British India, their contempt for locals would have been amplified by scenes of poverty and cultural practices. They would have opened many gas chambers in the region for the "needful."

WE should be glad that the Allied Powers managed to stop this deadly force in its tracks.

 

[Adonis]

Well count me or our ancestors out in Bangladesh. Indian Army at that time was mainly North Indian Hindustani folks.

I don't think I know a whole lot of East Bengalis at that time who joined British Indian Army. Other than maybe very senior educated officers.

Most East Bengalis were farmers, crafts people and govt. servants. The British did not consider us "Martial" enough which was of course disprove in conflicts past British Raj.

Google Bengal Native Infantry.....it is one of the first raised by East India Company in 1757 (for battle of Plassey) that had local Indian soldiers (Bengali). It was also known as Red Battalion or Galliez battalion. Your ancestors in East Bengal, could be ones that fought with Indians from British side....and played part in colonising India.

Till 1857 there were 74 regiments of Bengal native infantry in Bengal army.... all of these 74 either mutinied and were disarmed or disbanded....after the Mutiny.

** As you must be aware, British came from the East into India....Calcutta was India's capital...and one of the first colonial state was Bengal Presidency.

 

[Bilal9]

Google Bengal Native Infantry.....it is one of the first raised by East India Company in 1757 (for battle of Plassey) that had local Indian soldiers (Bengali). It was also known as Red Battalion or Galliez battalion. Your ancestors in East Bengal, could be ones that fought with Indians from British side....and played part in colonising India.

Till 1857 there were 74 regiments of Bengal native infantry in Bengal army.... all of these 74 either mutinied and were disarmed or disbanded....after the Mutiny.

** As you must be aware, British came from the East into India....Calcutta was India's capital...and one of the first colonial state was Bengal Presidency.

Hmmm good to know. I guess I need to look into this... Thanks.

 

[Pak Nationalist]

The point of the thread was that Hindutva outfits like RSS and Shivsena adore Hitler in spite of Hitler hating Indians to the core.

I don't think WE adore Hitler....

Many in Pakistan do adore him for what he did to the Jews.

 

[LeGenD]

wrong. We were citizens of British India. Not citizens of Republic of India. There is quite a difference.

Distant observers looked at British India as a whole in pre-partition times. Muslims and Hindu used to be co-existing neighbors on a much greater scale prior to post-WW2 partition.

Historical context should not be ignored in modern discourses. It would be an excercise in intellectual dishonesty.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Distant observers looked at British India as a whole in pre-partition times. Muslims and Hindu used to be co-existing neighbors on a much greater scale prior to post-WW2 partition.

Historical context should not be ignored in modern discourses. It would be an excercise in intellectual dishonesty.

Using India as a geographical term and then as a political term is intellectual dishonesty.

It is South Asia, not India. Nehru was being dishonest by using geographical India as a political name for Bharat or Republic of India.

 

[Bilal9]

Google Bengal Native Infantry.....it is one of the first raised by East India Company in 1757 (for battle of Plassey) that had local Indian soldiers (Bengali). It was also known as Red Battalion or Galliez battalion. Your ancestors in East Bengal, could be ones that fought with Indians from British side....and played part in colonising India.

Till 1857 there were 74 regiments of Bengal native infantry in Bengal army.... all of these 74 either mutinied and were disarmed or disbanded....after the Mutiny.

** As you must be aware, British came from the East into India....Calcutta was India's capital...and one of the first colonial state was Bengal Presidency.

The only one I knew which may have contained Bengali soldiers is the much-decorated Bengal Lancers or Probyn's horse. Pugree was standard issue for soldiers of any Indian ethnicity though colors varied.

 

[Adonis]

The only one I knew which may have contained Bengali soldiers is the much-decorated Bengal Lancers or Probyn's horse. Pugree was standard issue for soldiers of any Indian ethnicity though colors varied.

 

[LeGenD]

Using India as a geographical term and then as a political term is intellectual dishonesty.

It is South Asia, not India. Nehru was being dishonest by using geographical India as a political name for Bharat or Republic of India.

Do you really think that British India as a political system and reference was a myth?

British India was an independent political entity and identity (i.e. Kingdom) created by the British Empire in the subcontinent. It spanned across Pakistan, India and Bangladesh respectively. This region is/was collectively declared the "Indian Subcontinent."

Map of British India in 1914

Map of British India at the time it entered the First World War

nzhistory.govt.nz

South Asia is a much broader reference and relatively recent in its conception (post WW2 construct).

The Idea of South Asia

South Asia, another name for the Indian Subcontinent, is a recent concept (only about six decades old), forged outside the region in the wake of the establishment of area studies by American univer...

calenda.org

South Asia | Geography, Countries, History, & Facts

South Asia, subregion of Asia, consisting of the Indo-Gangetic Plain and peninsular India. It includes the countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka; Afghanistan and the Maldives are often considered part of South Asia as well. The term is often used synonymously...

www.britannica.com

Introduction. Imaginations and Constructions of South Asia: An Ench...

Introduction The idea for this special issue of SAMAJ came up in 2010 when the Directorial Committee in charge of France’s largest research centre on South Asian studies tried to change its name fr...

journals.openedition.org

If I have to explain these concepts to a fellow Pakistani, then this is absolute failure of our education system.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Do you really think that British India as a political system and reference was a myth?

British India was an independent political entity and identity (i.e. Kingdom) created by the British Empire in the subcontinent. It spanned across Pakistan, India and Bangladesh respectively. This region is/was collectively declared the "Indian Subcontinent."

Map of British India in 1914

Map of British India at the time it entered the First World War

nzhistory.govt.nz

South Asia is a much broader reference and relatively recent in its conception (post WW2 construct).

The Idea of South Asia

South Asia, another name for the Indian Subcontinent, is a recent concept (only about six decades old), forged outside the region in the wake of the establishment of area studies by American univer...

calenda.org

South Asia | Geography, Countries, History, & Facts

South Asia, subregion of Asia, consisting of the Indo-Gangetic Plain and peninsular India. It includes the countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka; Afghanistan and the Maldives are often considered part of South Asia as well. The term is often used synonymously...

www.britannica.com

Introduction. Imaginations and Constructions of South Asia: An Ench...

Introduction The idea for this special issue of SAMAJ came up in 2010 when the Directorial Committee in charge of France’s largest research centre on South Asian studies tried to change its name fr...

journals.openedition.org

If I have to explain these concepts to a fellow Pakistani, then this is absolute failure of our education system.

I wonder why Burma isn't in SAARC?..

 

[AViet]

Why do the opinions of a German barbarian bastard still matter today to Indian (and South Asians)?.

I do not care what he said. Same with White Nationalist in the US, who I consider barbarian and primitive.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

World
Why Adolf Hitler hated Indians? What was Hitler's attitude towards India? Modern World History UPSC
September 13, 20211 min readTeam

Here's an interesting post from Quora,



"Kevin Oliver

I've studied Nazi history, and I still agree with Hellboy.

Updated 3 years ago · Author has 8.5K answers and 13.3M answer views

Hitler’s attitude towards Indians was complex and changed during the course of the war. He was a great admirer of the British Empire, and expressed no sympathy for any of the subject people's, including the Indians. Hitler was impressed with the way the British in India were able to control a population of tens of millions, with only a, comparative, handful of white civil servants and soldiers. He regarded this as a role model for German subjugation of the Slavs, and other “inferior" races.

However, Hitler also thought Indian Nationalism was a potential weapon against the British Empire. So in April 1941, Hitler personally received Subhas Chandra Bose, and his Austrian wife Emilie Schenkl Bose, and authorised Bose to establish the Free India Committee in Berlin, under the sponsorship of the German Foreign Office.

Shortly afterwards 3rd (Indian) Motorised Brigade was captured, almost intact, in Libya. They, and other Indian prisoners, were brought to a special POW camp in Germany. Here, Bose and other members of the Free India Committee spent 6 months trying to convert the prisoners to their cause. In January 1942 the existence of the Indian National Army was formally announced and 3,000 of the Indian Prisoners were transferred, as Arbeitskommando Frankenburg, to a new camp where military training commenced. In July, 300 of the Indians were moved to another camp. There they were issued with German Army uniforms. Together with some Hindi speaking German NCOs, they formed the cadre of the Indian National Army.

By Spring 1943 the INA (aka the Free India Legion, aka Infantry Regiment 950) had 2,000 men in three battalions. By then, Bose’s hopes of leading the INA into his homeland had been thwarted by events on the Eastern Front and in North Africa. In March, Bose left for the Far East, to raise a new branch of the INA, leaving the Free India Legion without a clear role.

In May 1943 the Legion was sent to the Netherlands to build coastal defences. In August they were sent to France on similar duties. They stayed their for a year, during which time they gained a reputation for indiscipline and internal conflict. Some of the troops had been press-ganged into joining the legion and others were bored and disillusioned. There were clashes between them and loyal Nationalists, and also conflict between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. At least one Legion NCO, a Muslim and an Indian Nationalist, was murdered by his own men. When D-Day came the Legion was thought not ready for combat and was ordered to return to Germany, in August 1944. During this retreat, there were several clashes with the French Resistance, the INA’s only combat in Europe. These firefights left three of the Legion dead and several wounded.

In September 1944 the Legion was transferred to the Waffen-SS, although this was largely a paper exercise. The new Waffen-SS commander also had other duties, and left the day to day running of the Legion in the hands of it’s army commander, Oberstleutnant Krappe. A few Indians formally became officers of the Waffen-SS, but the rest of the Legion remained in Army uniforms. The INA took no further part in the War in Europe.

In March 1945 Hitler gave his opinion of the Free India Legion:

“The Indian Legion is a joke. There are Indians that can’t kill a louse and would be prepared to allow themselves to be devoured. They certainly aren’t going to kill any Englishmen…I imagine that if one was to use the Indians to turn prayer wheels or something like that, they would be the most indefatigable soldiers in the world. But it would be useless to commit to a real blood struggle…the whole business is nonsense. If one has a surplus of weapons, one can permit oneself such amusements for propaganda purposes. But if one has no such surplus it is simply not justifiable.” [George H. Stein “The Waffen SS” Cornell University Press, 1966]

tl;dr Hitler had no love for the Indians but was willing to accept them as allies against the British. When the INA proved wanting, his attitude turned to Indians became openly contemptuous."

Considering the love of Hitler among fascist outfits like RSS and Shiv Sena among others, and them trying to model themselves after Hitler's Brown Shirts, is this not a joke itself??

Yeah hitler hated indians sooo much that Ghandi wrote him dear friend letters.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Do you really think that British India as a political system and reference was a myth?

British India was an independent political entity and identity (i.e. Kingdom) created by the British Empire in the subcontinent. It spanned across Pakistan, India and Bangladesh respectively. This region is/was collectively declared the "Indian Subcontinent."

Map of British India in 1914

Map of British India at the time it entered the First World War

nzhistory.govt.nz

South Asia is a much broader reference and relatively recent in its conception (post WW2 construct).

The Idea of South Asia

South Asia, another name for the Indian Subcontinent, is a recent concept (only about six decades old), forged outside the region in the wake of the establishment of area studies by American univer...

calenda.org

South Asia | Geography, Countries, History, & Facts

South Asia, subregion of Asia, consisting of the Indo-Gangetic Plain and peninsular India. It includes the countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka; Afghanistan and the Maldives are often considered part of South Asia as well. The term is often used synonymously...

www.britannica.com

Introduction. Imaginations and Constructions of South Asia: An Ench...

Introduction The idea for this special issue of SAMAJ came up in 2010 when the Directorial Committee in charge of France’s largest research centre on South Asian studies tried to change its name fr...

journals.openedition.org

If I have to explain these concepts to a fellow Pakistani, then this is absolute failure of our education system.

What are you trying to say? I am not an Indian. I am a Pakistani from South Asia.

 

[LeGenD]

What are you trying to say? I am not an Indian. I am a Pakistani from South Asia.

This discussion is not about your identity; and not about Pakistan (a post WW2 political construct).

This topic have historical context and focused on Hitler's perception of what used to be the Indian Continent (British India) in pre WW2 times. To him, people of the Indian subcontinent were all the same (blanket Indians). There was no such thing as Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi in his vocabulary.

Clear enough?

You misread a post and I addressed yours in response. Nothing to worry about.

Let us stick to the topic on hand.