dontsuspendme
BANNED
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/Lieutenant.jpg)
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
- Messages
- 594
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Nehru is a liar and gay...Nehru is a lier.
![laughing-dog-smiley-emoticon.gif](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femo%2Flaughing%2Flaughing-dog-smiley-emoticon.gif&hash=9364a86eefd3bf21dded9914901567f0)
The whole Gandhi family is a joke and they made india a joke...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nehru is a liar and gay...Nehru is a lier.
Have a look at this post. Sums it up nicely. Britain depended heavily on the Indian Armed Forces. If they had revolted, the brits knew they had no chance. The Congress they could deal with, because they were largely non- violent.Bhai, I would rather not read too much into a Politician from Bengal supposedly quoting Clement Attlee over a conversation that he alone was privy to. Moreover, in 1976, Clement Attlee was no more to confirm or deny if he ever made such a quote. There is this popular rumour that Indira Gandhi said something like we'd taken revenge for 1000 years of Muslim rule in 1971. But unless such statements are expressly endorsed by the speakers themselves or corroborated by multiple accounts of eyewitnesses, they cannot be and must not be propogated as authentic quotes.
Your points are very valid ---
Netaji became convinced that only a military solution was the way to drive out the British since after India had co-operated whole-heartedly with the British in the WW1 with millions of soldiers , arms , food and money , we ended up without anything---without even Dominion Status.
So he took the only path left , that was to ally himself with Britain's Enemies to liberate India. It is well documented that he in no way ever supported the Nazis in extermination of jewish people. To him , even if he had to shake his hands with the devil he would do it.
Netaji's battlefield command and grasp of strategy was poor -- This was noted in the journals of many Japanese Commanding Officers. A Japanese Commander said " He was constantly arguing to give greater operational roles to the INA without understanding its operational capabilities" ---Perhaps this was because the INA did not achieve much success directly.
However the impact of the INA CANNOT be measured solely by its military capabilities. The INA instilled fear in the minds of the British Administration, Fear about the loyalty of their Indian Troopers and this fact was documented in a secret cable sent by the then Viceroy To Clement Atlee--" That if a revolt broke out on the scale of 1857 , then England would not be able to control it without the help of a very large number of Troops"
Again the INA actions inspired the Royal Navy mutiny in Bombay which left 300 casualties on both the British and the Indian Side in the city of Mumbai alone.
The Red Fort Trials were equally historic in galvanizing the Mainstream Indian Population into giving the soldiers who served in the INA the epithet of real heroes . This prevented even a single execution of these officers on charges of treason, war crimes etc.
So to conclude the INA had a tremendous impact in hastening our Independence , even if like the First Indian War of Independence , its effect was indirect rather than direct.
.
Have a look at this post. Sums it up nicely. Britain depended heavily on the Indian Armed Forces. If they had revolted, the brits knew they had no chance. The Congree they could deal with, because they were largely non- violent.
I never said Netaji or AHF did not have any impact on our freedom movement. I'm saying they weren't greater than those of Gandhiji or INC. If all the Indian troops fighting alongside the British in WW2 gave up their loyalty and started a mutiny, the British would surely have been decimated on many fronts in the War. But question is, did it happen?? It didn't, and hence we cannot overestimate/overemphasize the contributions of certain individuals over scenarios with IFs which did not take place.
Since everything IS propoganda, how can one state with any confidence that ANY of the stories about Netaji, Nehru and what they did are true?It's not about naivete, but about objectivity.
The INA did not win anything during the War, nor did it inspire the Indians to take the law into their own hands and abandon Gandhian ways of protest. In the end, the people protested only to stay the execution of INA commanders, and for the pardon of all INA jawans.
The British had won a phyrric victory and it willfully elected Clement Attlee over Churchill in 1945. Attlee's Labour Party had earmarked independence for India as an Election manifesto! With Netaji out of the picture and most of INA in custody after WW2, it was the sustained and vociferous protests of India's mainstream parties that brought us Independece.
This is sort of exaggeration, as far as facts are concerned. The British had huge amount of debt to pay the Americans and Roosevelt despised British colonialist policies and advocating freeing the colonies since long.
@Manvantaratruti I forgot to tell you this, but it was slightly amusing to see you warn me about Propaganda while having a fake photo of Modiji sweeping the floor as your avatar.![]()
Some even claim that India got independence because of World War 2. Since the British fought the Nazis to preserve their freedom, many British felt that they have no moral right to deny freedom to others. Britain lost all moral justification for holding on to its colonies after WW2. So, in a sense India got freedom due to Hitler.
Also, the Americans forced UK to give up its colonies in return for its support with war efforts.
Sorry mate, can't reveal it here.I've revealed too much about myself as it is here
![]()
Some even claim that India got independence because of World War 2. Since the British fought the Nazis to preserve their freedom, many British felt that they have no moral right to deny freedom to others. Britain lost all moral justification for holding on to its colonies after WW2. So, in a sense India got freedom due to Hitler.
Also, the Americans forced UK to give up its colonies in return for its support with war efforts.
Such ignorance!!! If Britain had such sense of morals, they would have never occupied any country!! When you are holding on to someone else's land, what MORAL JUSTIFICATION can you give??
Are you stupid? Oh yes! you are...Are you a Flase Falgger...............
Are you aware that by the end of the war Britain owed 1.25 billion pounds of its total 3 billion pounds war debt to India, but also much more that could not be quantified.
Safe to say this was never paid back. Contrary to what people choose to believe, there is no relationship or principle greater than MONEY. Especially for an American. Remember this the next time you propose that the US advocated freedom to colonies over repayment of debts.
The Brits left us after the war BECAUSE of Netaji's effort. Without the INA and INA inspired rebellion, Brits would have no problems is bleeding out India to recover from their war efforts and make us pay for rebuilding UK and pay off their debts.
India DID get independence because of WW2. There is no doubt about it.