The British Raj and German Reich compared.

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Okay gentleman [ladies all the more if we are so privilaged] this is a thread to compare and contrast two beasts from history. One the British Empire in Asia/Middle East often called the British Raj and the German Empire in Europe/North Africa often called the German Reich.


british raj reich.png



While the major differance is the German Reich was short lived and never got a chance to consolidate it's rule over those it had conquered. The other stark differance being the Reich was militarly unconditinally finished. Whereas the British Raj effectively made a conditional surrender. However the similiarties are telling.
`
Both ruled over vast, diverse geography, from freezing to hot, with population of 100s of millions that covered dozens of languages, ethnic groups, races ranging from European Latvian Nordics, Mediteranean peoples, East European Slavs, North African Berbers, Arabs. With differant religions - Christian, Orthodix Christian, Muslim, Jews etc

The British Raj ruled over dozen ethnic groups, varied races with followers from Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist etc faiths. From Burmans, to Punjabi';s, to Tamils, to Bengalis to Tibeto-Ladakis etc

Both had the White British [British Raj], Germans [German Reich] as the chosen people whose destiny was to rule the others as lesser peoples.

Both the Raj and Reich used superior military power to conquer, to subjugate and to hold onto this vast empire. Being part of the Raj or Reich was not by choice but forced at point of bayonet and gun. Be that a British bayonet or German bayonet. Both empires were held together by force, pure naked force. Be it a British Tommy soldier or a German Wehrmacht soldier.

Both employed the conquered people as soldiers to fight for the British Raj or German Reich. The British employed over million men from the conquered races, Sikh, Punjab Muslim, Pakhtuns, Marattas etc in Raj Armies who would invariably be led by British officers. The German Reich similarly employed conquered races including Bosnian Muslim SS soldiers, Arab SS soldiers, Nordic SS, Flemish SS, Latvian SS etc again led by German officers.

Both used differant administrative tiers to rule their vast conquered lands. The British had provinces, states. The Germans had protectorates, commisariats etc. Both had direct military control or semi-independent states like Romania, Italy, French Vichy etc. The British equivalent of these semi-independent states were the princely states like Kashmir, Rajputana, Hydrabad which got to rule themselves but all foreign policy and dealings were in British Empires hands. We see the same pattern with Vichy France or Romania or Italy which effectively were German subjects only one call away from German military rule.

The German Reich carried out some particularly repugnant acts, foremost which was the Holocaust of the Jews with over 6 million killed. While this was going on in Europe British Raj was not too far behind with over 3 million dead from starvation in what is now India and Bangladesh in early 1940s. This was made all the more a crime when ships laden with food crops were sent to feed the hungry Greeks effectively sentencing the Indians and Bangladeshi's to death by hunger. If Hitler had his final solution Churchill was not too far behind with such comments a -

Famine or no famine, Indians will ‘breed like rabbits.’


After the demise of the German Reich it devolved into dozen countries in Europe [many of which today have elected to confederate into the European Union] and Africa. After the demise of the British Raj it devolved into half a dozen countries in Asia and Middle East like Myanmar, India, Bangladesh, Yemen, UAE, Pakistan etc.


The bayonets and rifles that made the British Raj.


1609783149671.png


The bayonets and rifles that made the German Reich.

1609783392072.png
 
Last edited:

Costin84

Well-known member
Messages
438
Reactions
559
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Romania
The Germans were blamed for wanting to implement the same policies of subjugation in Europe that other European colonial empires allready instituted in their African,Asian domains...racial segregation, ripping off resources, etc.Ofcourse, the Germans went overboard with their plan of systematically obliterate ^inferior races^
Btw, the German Reich map is wrong on so many levels
 
Last edited:

mulj

Experienced member
Messages
1,989
Reactions
3,245
Nation of residence
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Interesting analogy, one more proof how todays world is primarely shaped by anglo saxon centric view.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Interesting analogy, one more proof how todays world is primarely shaped by anglo saxon centric view.
This is a entire subject - 'reification' or how human abstract the world around them, sort it and package it. How we do that varies. The world around you or even the past has no one objective abstraction but in fact is open to so many interpretations. However the interpretation is often monopolized by those with power at any given point in history.

For instance there was no India before 1947 within the meaning of the Indian nationalists peddle. It was as much a country as the German Reich was with all it's enslave peoples. But the modern Indian nationalists delude themselves that the British Raj was them, their India. The fact that it was colony and they along with others were slaves is lost on them.

Then you have the crying on about Muslims but entirely or almost entirely ignore the 3 million of them that were genocided by the British Raj which they think was theirs.

The Germans were blamed for wanting to implement the same policies of subjugation in Europe that other European colonial empires allready instituted in their African,Asian domains...racial segregation, ripping off resources, etc.Ofcourse, the Germans went overboard with their plan of systematically obliterate ^inferior races^
I agree. The idea of superior or inferior although very controversial is part of human history and continues to be a strong impulse. Evereybody thinks they are better than others at so many level. Race, ethnic group, country, gender, religion etc etc This is not just in Europe but across the world. I have talked with Africans who by their tenor suggest that they are superior. This is often in referance to their physical stature, strength and endurance. This does carry some weight. On the flip side is the argumant postulated and termed the Bell Theory which suggest African's have on average lover IQ. This is a vast subject with no real conclusive ending.

For instance the land that saw the birth of civilization, of cities Mesopotamia today is mostly Iraq. We all know what Iraq conjures in 2020. So nothing is fixed in time and it all depends who is doing the shouting and most importantly when. You support a Roman mural. We all know Nazi Germani touted itself as harbinger of European civilization and placed itself rung or two above Italy. But you also know that it was German tribes who were described as 'barbarians' and instrumental in fall of the Roman Empire.
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,759
Reactions
1 1,583
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
If you read Mein Kampf, Hitler professed great admiration for the British rule and wanted to use it as a blueprint for the Reich.

Also, you need to distinguish between Company Raj (1757-1857) and British Raj (1857-1947).

Most of conquest was done by the Company, not the Crown.
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,759
Reactions
1 1,583
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Also, one needs to look at all British colonial possessions which became independent after WW2.

India is an exception. All the the other colonial possessions in Asia and Africa which became independent had at least 1 of the following -

1. Civil War
2. Military coups / rule
3. Splitting of the country

There is only one reason why India did not have any of the 3 — Nehru.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
US founding principles
For a guy who harps on about the founding raison d'etre of Pakistan and how that hounds Pakistan today and according to you [implicit or otherwise] is doomed and will not be able to get over it I am surprised you cite the "US founding principles". Care to mention here what exactly they were or are? Asides from not wanting to pay tax on tea ....
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,765
Reactions
119 19,787
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
For a guy who harps on about the founding raison d'etre of Pakistan and how that hounds Pakistan today and according to you [implicit or otherwise] is doomed and will not be able to get over it I am surprised you cite the "US founding principles". Care to mention here what exactly they were or are? Asides from not wanting to pay tax on tea ....

You can read the declaration of independence for starters.

Then the articles and original bill of rights.

Then the works of Locke and Burke at the very least to understand why the framing was done as such (here and nowhere else till lot later).

The first principle approach is that we exist as individuals and have existed as such before govts (and structures of power). Thus the fundamental rights are to be embodied by default at the individual level and cannot be taken away by something that formed and came into existence a lot later.

It is the exact antithesis to collectivist statism that asserts all rights come from the state and the state was the original preceptor of everything (even when it itself didn't exist physically).
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,765
Reactions
119 19,787
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
founding raison d'etre of Pakistan and how that hounds Pakistan today and according to you [implicit or otherwise] is doomed and will not be able to get over it

The 1st issue (religion being an asserted basis of nationhood, especially asserting it further historically) inserts a collectivist statist notion from the onset and thus is heavily flawed.

It is especially compromised because the majority of the religion's members reside outside the borders of the nation asserting it.

Yes its a yoke on your country....I have never said it is "doomed" and "unable to get over it"....but it will be extremely hard given basic numbers (the manifested trust of the people, the half it still has from original formation) being stuck since about the 80s/90s...and stuck as low as it is.

We can simply observe this decade for it too.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Then the works of Locke and Burke at the very least to understand why the framing was done as such (here and nowhere else till lot later).
Yes, I have read them. Thank you.

The first principle approach is that we exist as individuals and have existed as such before govts (and structures of power). Thus the fundamental rights are to be embodied by default at the individual level and cannot be taken away by something that formed and came into existence a lot later.
That is lot of dried up bollocks. Tell me, when did the Blacks who made perhaps 15% of US population at that time figure in this? And then tell me exactly how many centuries did it take this grand sounding "fundamentral rights" to cover the African Americans who still had to stand up in a bus to make way for a white person as recent as 1960s. Tell me was this not a flaw big enough for Titanic to sail through?

The 1st issue (religion being an asserted basis of nationhood, especially asserting it further historically) inserts a collectivist statist notion from the onset and thus is heavily flawed.

It is especially compromised because the majority of the religion's members reside outside the borders of the nation asserting it.
As much, if not less this is flaw in the Pakistani context and just like US evolved out of it's Titanic sized flaw so shall Pakistan. Those flaws you touched on recieve my attention almost every day. I think you know that. But as much as USA could sail along for two centuries while leaving the African American relegated to sub-human category [something akin to untouchables in India - you should read how Martin Luther saw similiarities on his visit to India] so shall Pakistan.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,765
Reactions
119 19,787
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Yes, I have read them. Thank you.

OK. So the answer lies there.

That is lot of dried up bollocks. Tell me, when did the Blacks who made perhaps 15% of US population at that time figure in this? And then tell me exactly how many centuries did it take this grand sounding "fundamentral rights" to cover the African Americans who still had to stand up in a bus to make way for a white person as recent as 1960s. Tell me was this not a flaw big enough for Titanic to sail through?

It is matter of setting up the principles as best as can be so that however flawed the interpretation of them may be at their formation, they offer the widest latitude for correction downstream.

By inserting religious majoritarianism as the cassus-belli right from the get go, is tantamount to hewing on one leg of the country (thats expected to run a marathon) imo. The result on map did not take long for it to come.

As much, if not less this is flaw in the Pakistani context and just like US evolved out of it's Titanic sized flaw so shall Pakistan. Those flaws you touched on recieve my attention almost every day. I think you know that. But as much as USA could sail along for two centuries while leaving the African American relegated to sub-human category [something akin to untouchables in India - you should read how Martin Luther saw similiarities on his visit to India] so shall Pakistan.

The US fought a protracted bloody war on the matter, and then had a regression after Grant for nearly a century (just like the French did after their bloody revolution)

But the point is there is a first principle ideal....it is not coloured by 2nd or 3rd principle ones from get go that hem in the potential and application grossly.

It is something Pakistan can ill-afford in the past, present and future. It needs a complete revolution on the raison-d'etre of its founding to set it right. That happening is something that cannot be predicted at this moment of time....given no one really seems to have the will or capacity for it en masse....as there is an overriding fear forcing entrenched status-quo. So it is what it is.

I can also launch into the many imperfections I see w.r.t Indian constitution too btw....given it is certainly not a pure 1st principle one by any stretch, having aligned its structure largely with the British and european mold that very much do not use Locke and Burke in how govt scope is limited (where inherent rights reside).
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,765
Reactions
119 19,787
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
  • provide us the cassus belli for British colony that was dissolved in 1947 known as the 'Raj'?
  • if you ascribe the Bangla 71 to the flawed idea of 'religious majoritarianism' what was the recipe that kept the British Raj alive in South Asia for over 250 years? Longer then Pakistan or Indian Republics thus far?
What you conveniently ignore is the entity that existed before birth of India and Pakistan was nothing but a empire built by British bayonets. You somehow regard that entity holy. To me British Raj was not that indifferant to the German Reich. Indeed I opened a thread on this -

It is going off topic (I mean cassus belli only when there is an actual revolution that sets up the nationstate).

I don't see how that goes towards British colonisation (colonies were not independent nationstates) nor the Reich's racist-driven expansion paradigm (which was broken up just like the one Pakistan ver 1.0 did when it's govt ventured that way with what it had inherited by its stated nationstate goal).

I already addressed your conflation here:


and am waiting for Joe's reply (further down that thread he hints he will give one) before I proceed anymore. You can continue discussing there if you please.

But it is clear that Pakistan conflated itself (forget you or I) by not going by 1st principle as I mention here (2nd part of reply):


This is precisely what hems Pakistan in at an extreme level. Sorry to say, but it is what it is.

The 7% savings rate speaks volumes more than anything else can....to the sustained impact of the psyche deficit.

As much as you all can say this and that about needing this and that investment in distribution systems for power plants to prevent blackouts (nation wide blackout thread)...it is again missing the huge gorilla of a problem in the room of your own doing....that has eroded basic manifested trust in your country to this level at this stage. If its all a matter of investment, where is the collateral going to come from (that the Chinese are already getting quite stern on)?
The 7% transmission of it from GDP? For 220 million people?
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
actual revolution that sets up the nationstate
1947 was not a revolution. Is this what they are now teaching in Indian history lessons? August 1947 was about a political process that was about exactly how to dissolve the British Raj and what form it's successor/s would look like. It was a constitutional and legal process. India and Pakistan were born from a act in Houses of Parliamant. You can access this 'birth certificate' for both countries. Read below.


1610485245816.png


The 1947 Indian Independence Act (1947 c. 30 (10 & 11. Geo. 6.)) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that partitioned British India into the two new independent dominions of India and Pakistan. The Act received the Royal Assent on 18 July 1947 and thus India and Pakistan, comprising West (modern day Pakistan) and East (modern day Bangladesh) regions, came into being on 15 August.[1][a]

This is precisely what hems Pakistan in at an extreme level. Sorry to say, but it is what it is.
Does it? Pasting some terrorist act here will do nothing to advance your argumant but merely shows your desperation to disparage Pakistan at every step. I mean can find dozens of such 'rocks' to through back. But does it serve any purpose? I could easily trip off about the fact that India not only has terrorism [only it's Indian on Indian] as opposed to the variety Pakistan has which fits in the the wider War on Terror that America began thus making it attention of global media. Killing of a poor Dalit or some Aborginal in Chattisgarh jungles rarely makes it to CNN. Or that India actually has more exteme poor than all of Sub-Saharan Africa combined.

And do me a favour please as this is the wrong thread why not knock over to the thread I opened on 'British Raj German Reich' and let us know why you think that analogy I drew does not fit instead of oiffering bird droppings here.

Do let me know again how you think 1947 was revolution. Curious how that figures in your logic.

 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
I also find it disturbing that you seem to be addicted to Bangla 71 and Pakistan's alleged infamy but ignore or choose to sleep on the FACT that the British just two decades before that in 1942 starved to death 4 million of your people? Is genocide by British less startling to your conscience?


@Nilgiri
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom