"Remembering the Muslim Troops who Fought the Axis" Topic

"One of the frustrations for a world historian is the unyieldingly parochial vision of the North Atlantic common among journalists and even many historians, and consequently among the public. The 17 world leaders gathering for the D-Day commemoration should by all rights include Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Senegalese President Macky Sall, among others from countries whose troops fought the Axis on European soil even if they weren't part of this landing. They in many ways made it possible by their exploits in North Africa, Italy and southern France.

The great literary and cultural critic Edward Said pointed out that although Britain, France, Italy and other European states were multicultural empires in the 19th and early 20th century, many academics and popular writers now project back onto them the narrow framework of the nation-state. Postcolonial states are sometimes touchy and embarrassed about millions of their countrymen having volunteered to serve a now-gone empire…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Or the Muslims that fought for the Nazis (SS Handschar, Goumiers) and the numerous arabs conspiring with the Nazis. It is also blinkered to forget the Indians – Chandra Bose etc that subverted the war effort.

THe majority of the colonial troops that served were dedicated and courageous troops that did their duty well and faithfully.

Don't forget either the Muslim troops that fought in large numbers in the armies of the USSR and those who resisted the Japanese.

After the way the north African natives were treated by the main colonial powers I'm not prepared to be all that critical of the way some of them supported the Germans. Plenty did fight for the Italians too, though why I can't work out.

Yes, many muslim troops fought for a colonial power, i.e. UK, France, etc.

THe majority of the colonial troops that served were dedicated and courageous troops that did their duty well and faithfully.

Very much agree …

And those that fought for Germany were not as numerous that fought for the Allies, it appears.

But many do forget about the Indian troops that fought for and along the IJFs in the CBI. IIRC, @ one or two Division(s) worth … Most were captured by the IJFs and wanted to fight for India's independence from the UK.

After the way the north African natives were treated by the main colonial powers I'm not prepared to be all that critical of the way some of them supported the Germans. Plenty did fight for the Italians too, though why I can't work out.

I also agree …

I'm somewhat annoyed with some of the posts on this thread. Would you jump on a thread praising the Forces Francaises Libres to say, "but what about Vichy?" Or if someone told stories of the Dutch resistance would you point out the 50,000 who joined the SS? In a discussion about Muslims, why mention Bose? Why not Quisling? Forget the 2.5 million who volunteered for the Indian Army, let's focus on the 40,000 in the INA.

Well … were not some of the members of the INA Muslim ? Or Hindu ? Did not the INA fight for their freedom from a colonial power ? At that time India had[and still does have] a number of religions, including muslim, Hindu, etc.
I'd think some/most muslims who fought for the Axis may have been "dedicated and courageous troops that did their duty well and faithfully" ? [ We had a long thread on TMP about the Handschar, and yes, they may not be a good example …]
Albeit those that fought for Axis were on "the wrong side", for a bad cause, etc. ?

Of course IMO, the religion of colonial troops or any troops for that matter, really generally has nothing to do with their abilities, etc. in WWII, etc.

I'm not say anything negative about any of the colonial troops or those that fought for the Axis, etc. Religion is just a part of their description. And in this case there is nothing negative implied AFAIK.

Why are we viewing this through the lens of Muslim troops? It seems to me that even the short list provided in the OP is a pointer at colonial soldiers, not Muslim soldiers.

Senegalese and Indian troops were not, as far as I know, either exclusively or even predominantly Muslim.

Indian troops in the British forces were a mix of Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. And while were at it how about the Gurkhas, who were from Nepal. They were predominantly Hindu as far as I understand, but I think it is a bit of a slight to lump them in with Indian forces, much less putting them in the Muslim bucket.

Maybe the Senegalese had a large portion of Muslims -- I can't say for certain. I don't find much in English about religious affiliations. But the term "Senegalese" used in reference to WW2 is usually a reference to French army colonial infantry, as in "Tirailleurs Senegalais". Regardless of the name, it is best to not actually limited consideration to troops from Senegal alone. In the French forces the term referred to colonial infantry raised in sub-Saharan Africa. These formations included individuals from several countries other than Senegal, including Chad, Mali and even Madagascar. As the first central African formations of colonial troops in the French army were in fact from Senegal, the name was cast and stuck with sub-Saharan colonial infantry formations for more than a century.

Some of the colonial troops raised in North Africa were referred to as Tirailleurs, but not Tirailleurs Senegalais. Colonial troops from Indochina were also referred to as Tirailleurs, but again not Tirailleurs Senegalais. Those forces (the Tirailleurs Tonkinais or Tirailleurs Annamite) probably deserve a place as well. I expect these troops were mostly Buddhist, but that's an assumption on my part with little in specifics to back it up.

I have no intention of belittling or slighting the contribution of Muslim troops. But I don't think it is fair at all to lump all colonial forces together as "Muslim" regardless of the religion of the communities they were raised from.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

It was a major point in the linked article, which complained that the leaders of the former colonial nations were not invited to D Day celebrations, notwithstanding that no troops from those nations participated in the Normandy invasions.

I agree with you Mk.1, totally …

But Jundberg makes a good point, IMO. The Article was the basis for our discussion, it appears. As he posted and again I totally agree :

THe majority of the colonial troops that served were dedicated and courageous troops that did their duty well and faithfully.

And IMO nothing negative is being said about a religion or ethnic group, etc. But again the discussion revolves around the article. So far anyway …

The INA fighting for liberty is utter rubbish. The British had already agreed to independence forIndia after the war was won. The INA men were traitors who preferred serving their Japanese captors to sitting in the Hell that was a Japanese POW camp. They discredit those Indian servicemen of all religions who served faithfully and loyally.

That may be true … but it sounds like some in the INA thought/believed they were fighting for independence. Or may have wanted payback against their former colonial overlords ? I'm no expert on the topic …