Currently I am reading a book about one of my favorite wars, WWI. I just read a short passage about people from India fighting in the war. Why would they fight for England, the country that has bruitally colonised their country. I could understand it if they faught against the British. They have no political motives to fight, I mean most of them didn't even no who ferdinand was. They couldn't have had any intrest in any of the politicall aspects of the war. what made them sign up?

The same reason a lot of Irish did. If you are poor and have nothing else better to do, why not? Anyways, a lot of them hoped that it would help the British recognize their desire for freedom (it took another war for that unfortunately).

It is fairly common throughout history; sometimes the empire's best warriors are those who are most oppressed. Look at the Buffalo Soldiers or the 442nd Regiment in the US.

And no one cared about Franz Ferdinand. Even the Austrio-Hungarian emperor didn't like him.

there were indian regiments (eg bengal lancers, punjab infantry, many others) that had existed for many years before ww1. they were simply part of the british army.

I don't think it would be accurate to describe the Indian troops who fought for the British as part of the British Army. Prior to the Mutiny the Indian troops used by the British were part of the East India Company's forces and totally seperate from the British Army. To my understanding even after the mutiny the British Army regular units serving in India were a completely seperate body from the Indian Army units raised locally for service in the sub continent and further afield.

As to the topic I highly doubt that before he was shot most of the soldiers fighting in WW1 had the foggiest idea who Ferdinand was either. What was it Private S Baldrick said?

"I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry"

:lol:

I once explained to my daughter why Australia fought Turkey during WW1.

An Austrian emperor was shot by a Serb so Austria declared war on Serbia, because Russia was friends with Serbia they declared war on Austria. Because Germany was friends with Austria they declared war on Russia. Because France was friends with Russia they declared war on Germany and because Britian was friends with France so they too declared war on Germany. Australia was friends with Britian, Turkey was friends with Germany, and thats why we attacked them.

Stupidest war ever!

Currently I am reading a book about one of my favorite wars, WWI. I just read a short passage about people from India fighting in the war. Why would they fight for England, the country that has bruitally colonised their country. I could understand it if they faught against the British. They have no political motives to fight, I mean most of them didn't even no who ferdinand was. They couldn't have had any intrest in any of the politicall aspects of the war. what made them sign up?
"Because the Regiment is your Mother and your Father."

The British recruited professional soldiers from what was presumed to be "martial" castes and nations among the Indians. Just like with the Irish, soldiering was very much a hereditary profession in the Indian army. (And after the 1857 Sepoy uprising the British also made damn sure to throw in as many obstacles to political awareness and cooperation between ethnicities and religions among the troops as possible too.)

Really, if you want to understand the Indian army in WWI you have to get to grips with the structure of the British army. They have a unique regiment system which has produced absolutely amazing ésprit de corps. Basically the Indians would have fought for their mates and the honour of the regiment. That's the beauty of having an army of highly professional soldiers, you really don't have to persuade them by talking politics. You might as well ask why the French Foreign Legion fights.

I still find it srange that they faught on the British side, they should have faught with the Germans against the British opressors.

I still find it srange that they faught on the British side, they should have faught with the Germans against the British opressors.
Well that's a modern political sentiment.:)

A carefully cultivated warrior-caste rather tends to stick with "The Regiment is your Mother and your Father"-line. Especially if it's a family tradition, where the Lance Naik's father held the rank of Havildar, while gran'dad was a Daffadar in the same regiment. They tend to have nothing but contempt for most things civilian surrounding them, politics included.

Especially as the British were carefully cultivating all kinds of interesting subdivisions and privileges based on origin, faith etc. It's all part of the "divide and conquer"-principle. As someone put it, the only Indian institution the British truly respected was the caste-system.

After all Adolf Hitler had nothing but the highest respect for what the British had accomplished in India; to set at most 250.000 men, women and children to rule a nation of 360.000.000. Something along those lines was what he had in mind for a Nazi-German eastern Europe. (Otoh the sheer brainlessness of the Nazi ideology would have prevented them from accomplishing what the British did in India, which was to have the natives chip in to maintain the Raj themselves for a very long time.)

I still find it srange that they faught on the British side, they should have faught with the Germans against the British opressors.

Because
a) There are lots of different kinds of 'oppression', the Raj certainly being better than some other instances of conquest and colonial (Especially as the EIC didn't conquer india, they bought and stole it bit by bit from the native oppressors - the lot of the average indian didn't worsen).
b) It certianly wasn't bad for all indians, like Verbose said some of the groups were treated well (as part of a divide and rule or just due to contingency).
c) It was the Indian soldiers jobs - the british didn't round up the soldiers before WW1 and force them to fight you know; they established regiments and hired troops. You're going to fight for your regiment and the guys who pay you. Outsourcing!

On naother note there were uprisings in India during WW1, though by tribesmen and not a nationalist struggle.

The guys have it right; people fight for loyalty to their comrades, sport and currency.

About 135,000 Chinese also fought in WW1 for the French and British. It doesn't need to be said that they weren't treated very well.

After the War of 1857 the mainstay of the British Indian Army was made up of the so called "martial races" of India, the Sikhs, the Jatts, the Gurkhas, and others who had proved their loyalty to the British during the war. They were given special status and treatment and as such were exceptionally loyal to the British.

After the War of 1857 the mainstay of the British Indian Army was made up of the so called "martial races" of India, the Sikhs, the Jatts, the Gurkhas, and others who had proved their loyalty to the British during the war. They were given special status and treatment and as such were exceptionally loyal to the British.
And those Indians no longer considered sufficiently "reliable" were formed into ethnically and religiously mixed regiments, to make sure there were enough divisions between the men outside the regimental identity to reduce any likelyhood of them collectively cooking somthing up.

It's been said that the British might well have been booted out of India in 1857 if the Sikhs alone had just thrown in with the rebels.

^ What other people said.

True, a lot of Indians are hostile towards Britain, but there's still those who are either indifferent or loyal to Britain.

Remember, for most of history most people have cared very little whether or not those oppressing them spoke the same language and had the same skin color as they did.

And no one cared about Franz Ferdinand. Even the Austrio-Hungarian emperor didn't like him.

And the Austrian-Hungarian Emperor was his UNCLE!!
:)

And the Austrian-Hungarian Emperor was his UNCLE!!

Who was thrilled that he got the chance to put the Serbians in their place, and choose a more suitable heir, in one act. That's what we call win-win, except for the part about losing his throne and his empire falling apart and the 20-odd million deaths.

I don't know that he chose a more suitable heir. Surely Karl was the next in line through primogeniture.

And no one cared about Franz Ferdinand. Even the Austrio-Hungarian emperor didn't like him.

Berlin-Baghdad railway, anyone? The first British regiments deployed in WWI were sent to...... *drum roll*

BASRA, IRAQ.

The British had a monopoly on mid-east oil due to their control of the sea-lanes of Egypt and the Mediterranean. A railway from Iraq to Europe would have broken their monopoly. Also, England had just completed refitting their navy from coal-burning ships, to oil, before the war began, making English control of oil supplies even more crucial. Germany already had struck a deal with the Ottomans, and had laid rail across the whole of Anatolia before the outbreak of hostilities. All that was needed was to finish the final stretch to Northern Iraq. England could not allow this to happen if she was to retain her pre-eminence among colonial powers. Franz Ferdinand was an excuse.

For more than half of it's history since independence from the Ottoman Empire, Iraq has either been at war with, or occupied by, the English.

For more on this, I recommend an enlightening and highly entertaining video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159&q=history+of+oil%2Bnewman&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
I believe the kids call it "infotainment"

As for the topic at hand, in India, the British had the money, and theres never a shortage of strong young men looking for adventure abroad, especially in a populous country like India.

They still wanted to stay out of it until Belgium happened. Then they really, really wanted Turkey to stay out.

Eran, every interesting thread I've found today, you're there. Coincidence? I think not.

Anyway, interesting comment. I just finished Lord Kinross' The Ottoman Centuries which corroborates your statement. Up until the 1900's, the Ottomans had been closely allied with the English, even to the point of personal friendship between the sultan and the English Ambassador (I forget the names) around the time of the Crimean war. However, the lure of fabulous wealth offered by the Germans with their railway fundamentally altered the geopolitical balance of power when "the sick man of Europe" i.e. the Ottoman empire forsook it's historic alliance with the English for the upstart Germans, provoking the English to war.

Here is the point from which all modern conflicts flow: the need for oil; energy. The society which we call "industrialized" was baptized in oil and blood, and all military conflicts which followed, while appearing to be separate and individual conflicts, are in actuality merely a continuation of this singular western policy: That is OUR oil/*insert strategic resource here*. The fact that it is buried under your people's feet is merely a historical anomaly to be rectified.

Eran, every interesting thread I've found today, you're there. Coincidence? I think not.

I'm just an interesting guy . . .

Eran, every interesting thread I've found today, you're there. Coincidence? I think not.

Anyway, interesting comment. I just finished Lord Kinross' The Ottoman Centuries which corroborates your statement. Up until the 1900's, the Ottomans had been closely allied with the English, even to the point of personal friendship between the sultan and the English Ambassador (I forget the names) around the time of the Crimean war. However, the lure of fabulous wealth offered by the Germans with their railway fundamentally altered the geopolitical balance of power when "the sick man of Europe" i.e. the Ottoman empire forsook it's historic alliance with the English for the upstart Germans, provoking the English to war.

Here is the point from which all modern conflicts flow: the need for oil; energy. The society which we call "industrialized" was baptized in oil and blood, and all military conflicts which followed, while appearing to be separate and individual conflicts, are in actuality merely a continuation of this singular western policy: That is OUR oil/*insert strategic resource here*. The fact that it is buried under your people's feet is merely a historical anomaly to be rectified.
The implications of the Berlin-Baghdad railway is usually not pointed out as a major reason for WWI, probably because the war would have been on with or without the British (if the Russians move, the Germans move, also against the French etc.), it would just have been a major conflict in accordance with German hopes and aspirations.

Possibly there's also a residual form of negligence of things colonial in the military and political history. It would seem Berlin-Baghdad gets rolled into the general "tension" between the established British empire and the "streber" fledgeling German one. As such its importance is rather as one more factor indicating the German leadership had lost touch with political reality when the expected the British to stay out of the war.

An Austrian emperor was shot by a Serb so Austria declared war on Serbia, because Russia was friends with Serbia they declared war on Austria. Because Germany was friends with Austria they declared war on Russia. Because France was friends with Russia they declared war on Germany and because Britian was friends with France so they too declared war on Germany. Australia was friends with Britian, Turkey was friends with Germany, and thats why we attacked them.

Stupidest war ever!
That's quite innacurate. Germany declared war on France because France was friends with Russia, and Britain declare war on Germany because they were friend with Belgium.

About the only of the dozen-odd European countries who declared or entered after being provoked were Belgium and Serbia. The others could have stayed out if they really wanted.

I'm not sure I undertsand. Are you saying that Belgium is the only country with Serbia that entered the war after it has been provoked?

Or do I have difficulty reading your English today?

I mean that Belgium and Serbia were attacked, to the best of my knowledge no one else had that much provocation and could have stayed out of it if they really wanted to.

But as long as country A declare war on country B, can country B stay out?

Then France had no real choice once Germany declared war on France.

Sure, but Germany wouldn't have declared war on France except that they knew France wanted to fight. They allied with Russia seeing it as their best chance to get Alsace and Lorraine back.

Come on! The French are nice guys, we would have not attacked Germany if they didn't attack first. :mischief:

You did in 1870, didn't you? And that worked out so well . . .

Exactly, France declared war first and lose. So, you see? We would not have repeated it, the Germans had nothing to fear.

hence the alliance with Russia . . .

Perhaps they thought that the war in Europe would spread to the colonies worldwide. Though it did somewhat.

Exactly, France declared war first and lose. So, you see? We would not have repeated it, the Germans had nothing to fear.
I probably missed something, as I've only read the last 3 posts or so. But didn't you declare war on Germany during/beginning World War II?

Yes, I know it was due to mutual "protection" pact of sorts with Poland, but still. I could be wrong, if so, oh well.

Did that Archie Duke fellow really had to kill that poor ostrich?

I probably missed something, as I've only read the last 3 posts or so. But didn't you declare war on Germany during/beginning World War II?

We are speaking of the war of 1870 and WWI here. You are one war late.

what i dont understand, is why new zealands soliders tried to invade turkey, because some austrian got shot by a serb.

Did that Archie Duke fellow really had to kill that poor ostrich?
That miniseries has already been mentioned. :p
what i dont understand, is why new zealands soliders tried to invade turkey, because some austrian got shot by a serb.
The UK had this fun idea of wiping out the Ottoman Empire, and you guys were closer to Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Gallipoli than to northern France. Besides, the Turks could have threatened one of the major British lifelines to India and Australia - the Suez Canal - and that would have been a no-no. As for why the Ottoman Empire and Britain were at war at all...has to do with Kaiser Wilhelm and the CUP being "best buds", so much that German ships running from the Royal Navy were given away to the Ottomans for free, crew and all, and later turned up in the Black Sea fighting the Russians...

We are speaking of the war of 1870 and WWI here. You are one war late.
I knew of what you were speaking. As it is clearly mentioned that you were speaking about the the war in 1870. One would assume you meant the next war (WWI), so I merely extended history a bit further, as it did somewhat apply to the topic at hand.

About the only of the dozen-odd European countries who declared or entered after being provoked were Belgium and Serbia. The others could have stayed out if they really wanted.

Breaking a treaty isn't very honrable.

Maybe not, but it wouldn't have been the first time it was done.

Maybe not, but it wouldn't have been the first time it was done.

Ah, but everything is much more interconnected by this time - break your word (though bending happened a lot) and people will remember, good luck settling trade and border issues, getting loans etc.

Plus if you don't stand up for yourself the other nations will think you're a wuss and walk all over you - see France after their problems in Mexico.