Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Was there no way for the French or British to use their colonial manpower?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Sunforged General

Sunforged General

Major
26 Badges
Nov 8, 2017
642
252
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron 4: Arms Against Tyranny
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Victoria 2
  • Darkest Hour
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
In 1939 the British Empire numbered 551,419,825. The French Colonial Empire numbered 114,386,572. Germany numbered 86,755,281, including 7,380,000 Czechs who wouldn't fight for them. Was there simply no way for the British or French to bring this manpower superiority to bear? The British and French did use Colonial troops, but in relatively limited numbers. Would it not have been possible to use far more of them in 1940?
 
Large scale conscription would be hard to enforce and unpopular. Since the colonies were mostly agrarian economies there is also an issue with withdrawing manpower causing food shortage. All in all it risks revolts at a time when there is little available to put it down.
 
In 1939, following Britain’s declaration of war on Germany without consulting the Indian political leaders, neither the elected provincial representatives Britain also declared India as a belligerent state on the side of Britain. In India this produced demands for an immediate transfer of power, giving raise for political disorder and public revolts against Britain’s rule in India.

A major public revolt - the Quit India Movement was organized by Gandhi and the Indian National Congress demanding an immediate British withdrawal from India. The British response to this was to jail most of the Congress leadership. However, the British government realized that due to the cost of the WWII to maintain the The British Raj or the Colonial India was almost impossible and after the war it was just a question how to withdraw from India peacefully and still not losing dignity.
 
you're assuming that the local colonial population would be loyal to their overlords, I think in reality that the situation between them and the czechs would be about the same (there where even some czechs who fought for the germans)
 
Count Blue said:
AFAIK there were Sikhs fighting for UK, in WW I [Westfront] and WWII in Burma, Malaya and Italy, not huge numbers but some.
-->
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhs_in_the_British_Indian_Army

and dont forget the Gurkhas from Nepal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha

Again maybe few in numbers but efficient.
Click to expand...

They are few because they are "volunteered" (paid troops), like the Korean in Japanese army.

Those Indian troops is from the minor peoples that has some privileges from the British. In the case of Korean, they are very few and the Japanese can check their background and make sure of their loyal.
 
Last edited:
It definitely depends on what we consider being a part of the British Empire at that time. Do the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa factor in to that number?
If they do they certainly those dominions by and large did contribute considerably. Canada had at it's peak around 10% of the total population in uniform during WW2, with a little under half of them actually seeing overseas service.

One must also bear in mind that even though a nation may govern a certain area, that does not mean that area wants to be governed by that particular nation. In the case of many of Britain's colonies there was great resentment towards British rule and they wanted independence. The aforementioned Quit India movement is a good example. They were promised independence if they helped win WW1. Well they helped and independence never came.

Look at it from the point of view of someone living in a British colony in Africa. Your ancestors were essentially conquered and now you live under the rule of a government that seeks to exploit your resources and manpower for their sole gain. Typically any improvements to your infrastructure and local area is done with those goals primarily in mind, NOT improving the lives of you and your neighbors. You get no real representation in government, your language and culture are discouraged and you are forced to speak English and adopt British ways of doing things. You may also have personally seen the brutal way British troops can behave towards "colonials" who don't obey.

Now this is an oversimplified way of looking at a British colony in Africa (or really anywhere) during the interwar years. But if you were a native resident of one of those colonies, there is a very strong chance you'd feel this way. The history of colonialism is ugly. I certainly wouldn't feel any great loyalty or desire to help the nation that keeps my people in shackles. In fact I'd use the opportunity to gain freedom.
 
There could also be other reasons such as logistic that could limit how many recruits would be optimal and the empire I don't think was that industralized, like India which would limit how many Soldiers these areas could provide, also transporting these soldiers to Europé would be costly.

A larger army mean more toll upon the supply line and maybe even more so for an massive oversea empire, it was difficult to even make the supply line in the normandy invasion to work.

Even on the Eastern front the axis never reached more than about 3.5 million and the Soviet stayed around 6-7 million Soldiers at most and that probably have something to do with supply line limitations and the more one sided advanced from its industrial base the more difficulty their supply lines became and the easier it became for their opponent to supply their forces.

And maybe the western allies had even more problematic supply lines than what was seen on the Eastern front given the Reliance on oversea transportation and need for habours.

So a conclusion is maybe that more Soldiers was not necessarily something that would be that helpful and with all problems it could cause to recruit from Colonial areas it may not be Worth the trouble for probably quite limited gains if any.

WW2 I have heard that artillery stod for as much as 70% of the casulties so maybe you rather want to supply more artillery than more Soldiers if you have the choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Denkt said:
Even on the Eastern front the axis never reached more than about 3.5 million a.
Click to expand...

It is more than that, about 5.5mil at the start of Barbarosa (depend on sources, the current Russian quote it is 7 mil). And if it is not more not because of supply but because someone think that is enough to win in 6 months.

The British did have much more Indian troops near the end of the WW2, but they can only use them on easy jobs.

Supply line limits is only apply to some sector of the Front, not the whole world. British may not need troops in India but they need every troop on other front.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the US mobilization of well educated individuals all speaking the same language, it took a year from the start of hostilities (and a great deal of quiet, confidential, preparation work over the preceeding few years to build the camps and prepare the training programs) to assemble an army and train it to the point of beginning offensive operations, and still there was a learning curve.

Now, assume you are Colonial power. If the enemy threatens you, you are motivated to fight. If it is a far away place, there will be much foot dragging to even begin recruiting and training.

Certainly not enough to mobilize and get into France before the German avalanche began.
 
Cavalry said:
It was not a choice between shells vs soldiers. They need both. The men become soldiers and and the women make shells.
Click to expand...

Yes but there is still a trade-off. If fewer men become soldiers, more of them can make shells.
 
Sunforged General said:
Thats dependent on how many factories your country has. In the case of the British colonies, they were relatively lacking in industry, so most of the men would not be needed at home, but rather at the front.
Click to expand...

Well obviously they can’t all be making shells but unless they are unemployed, they are likely to be contributing in some manner. As I wrote in the first post, most of the colonial subjects were farmers. In non-mechanized farms, taking away the young able bodied men will lead to famine.
 
Sunforged General said:
Thats dependent on how many factories your country has. In the case of the British colonies, they were relatively lacking in industry, so most of the men would not be needed at home, but rather at the front.
Click to expand...
what front? how do you get them there? how do you train them? what do you equip them with? how do you guarantee their loyalty? what happens if they start shooting their officers?

India was never going to save the British Empire.
 
They didnt trust Indian soldiers, this trust increaed over the war tho.
 
The British Raj raised the largest volunteer army in history to fight the Axis in world war 2. There where 2,5 million indians under arms in 1945. Not to mention all the civilian Manpower supporting them behind the lines.
 
Cavalry said:
They are few because they are "volunteered" (paid troops), like the Korean in Japanese army.

Those Indian troops is from the minor peoples that has some privileges from the British. In the case of Korean, they are very few and the Japanese can check their background and make sure of their loyal.
Click to expand...

They were most certainly not few. The British Indian Army was the largest all volunteer army in history with over 2.5M volunteering in WW2 (and 1.75M in WW1).

The general answer was that colonial troops were not really needed in either case. Any additional troops would have come with a necessity to feed, cloth, equip and control them. Something that wouldn't have given better returns. What the allies needed more of in both world wars was landing craft and port/logistical facilities to support the troops they already had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back