raharris1973
Well-known member
What if Britain raised an Army of 4 million infantrymen from India from 1917-1918 for fighting in Europe, and mobilized Indian resources to support it as much as possible with cargo shipping, small arms, pack animals and supplies sourced from India?
[Please don't educate me on the 10s or 100s of thousands of Indians and other colonial troops that actually were used by Britain in the Great War, I am talking about a hypothetical 4 million *more*. Mentioning real history in this context as if it is brilliant insight adds nothing but pedantry.]
The round figure of 4 million, and 1917-1918 is deliberately chosen, to provide an Army that numerically and materially can substitute for the historical American Expeditionary Forces en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Forces#Casualties , if need be.
How is it done? What does it cost? What are the postwar consequences?
In the "how is done?" category, how much of it can be recruited from India's population of 259 million (1914) through volunteers and incentives of pay, benefits, and bonuses? Would conscription be required to get to the numbers I am discussing?
Could the Indian economy be mobilized to manufacture adequate small arms and ammunition for this number of men? What about cargo shipping? What about the agricultural surplus to feed them? At what cost to other sectors of Indian economy?
Strictly speaking, the British wouldn't have to limit recruiting/conscription supply for this massive host the Imperial Expeditionary Force, from only India, I just went after India first because it is the biggest manpower pot at 259 million. The British can draw from all non-white colonies if they wish - British Africa had another 52 million, other British Asian colonies had 26 million, and British West Indies contributed a modest 1.6 million.
What social and political changes would such a massive mobilization effort cause to the internal structure of the individual colonies and empire?
I expect they would create demands, irresistible by the 20s or early 30s at latest, for an imperial federation of equal self-governing units, independence of major colonies, or create a major class division in the colonies between a praetorian caste with imperial service records and certain rights and privileges and natives without any. That's if the whole scheme does not just blow up in wartime itself, or immediately upon armistice - which I suppose we cannot rule out.
Since any such imperial policy would be decided and guided by the British Cabinet, it does not really have to wait until 1917. Could the British Empire harness its colonial manpower once it can really tell what it's in for (1915, with the Gallipoli fail and Russia fails; 1916, with Verdun, the Somme, and Kut) to achieve the win in the Great War within an 18 or 20 month span from go-time?
And what about the French with their colonial manpower?
Their colonial empire had about 65 million people in it as of 1914. In OTL, about 500,000, mostly Algerians, Moroccans, and Senegalese fought in WWI. But by the end of the war they were planning on drastic expansion in use of Sub-Saharan African troops?
What if the French had done mass voluntary or incentivized recruitment drives, or conscription from its nonwhite colonies a bit earlier in the war? Perhaps in reaction to the casualty shocks of the battles of 1914, or the failed Champagne offensive of 1915, or Verdun 1916? And if they stereotyped their colonial subjects less by nationality, and so freely recruited Sub-Saharan Africans besides Senegalese, and Indochinese troops, from an early point? I would imagine that would manifest in new strains on the French Colonial Empire by the 1920s.
[Please don't educate me on the 10s or 100s of thousands of Indians and other colonial troops that actually were used by Britain in the Great War, I am talking about a hypothetical 4 million *more*. Mentioning real history in this context as if it is brilliant insight adds nothing but pedantry.]
The round figure of 4 million, and 1917-1918 is deliberately chosen, to provide an Army that numerically and materially can substitute for the historical American Expeditionary Forces en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Forces#Casualties , if need be.
How is it done? What does it cost? What are the postwar consequences?
In the "how is done?" category, how much of it can be recruited from India's population of 259 million (1914) through volunteers and incentives of pay, benefits, and bonuses? Would conscription be required to get to the numbers I am discussing?
Could the Indian economy be mobilized to manufacture adequate small arms and ammunition for this number of men? What about cargo shipping? What about the agricultural surplus to feed them? At what cost to other sectors of Indian economy?
Strictly speaking, the British wouldn't have to limit recruiting/conscription supply for this massive host the Imperial Expeditionary Force, from only India, I just went after India first because it is the biggest manpower pot at 259 million. The British can draw from all non-white colonies if they wish - British Africa had another 52 million, other British Asian colonies had 26 million, and British West Indies contributed a modest 1.6 million.
What social and political changes would such a massive mobilization effort cause to the internal structure of the individual colonies and empire?
I expect they would create demands, irresistible by the 20s or early 30s at latest, for an imperial federation of equal self-governing units, independence of major colonies, or create a major class division in the colonies between a praetorian caste with imperial service records and certain rights and privileges and natives without any. That's if the whole scheme does not just blow up in wartime itself, or immediately upon armistice - which I suppose we cannot rule out.
Since any such imperial policy would be decided and guided by the British Cabinet, it does not really have to wait until 1917. Could the British Empire harness its colonial manpower once it can really tell what it's in for (1915, with the Gallipoli fail and Russia fails; 1916, with Verdun, the Somme, and Kut) to achieve the win in the Great War within an 18 or 20 month span from go-time?
And what about the French with their colonial manpower?
Their colonial empire had about 65 million people in it as of 1914. In OTL, about 500,000, mostly Algerians, Moroccans, and Senegalese fought in WWI. But by the end of the war they were planning on drastic expansion in use of Sub-Saharan African troops?
What if the French had done mass voluntary or incentivized recruitment drives, or conscription from its nonwhite colonies a bit earlier in the war? Perhaps in reaction to the casualty shocks of the battles of 1914, or the failed Champagne offensive of 1915, or Verdun 1916? And if they stereotyped their colonial subjects less by nationality, and so freely recruited Sub-Saharan Africans besides Senegalese, and Indochinese troops, from an early point? I would imagine that would manifest in new strains on the French Colonial Empire by the 1920s.