![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Indian Legion is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
|
Tiger Legion and Indische Freiwilligen-Legion Regiment 950 discussess the same unit. Indische Freiwilligen-Legion Regiment 950 is a more detailed and objective article and therefore should be merged into this. 137.73.86.113 15:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The very last paragraph is very much made up of opinion & lacking in fact or sources. I'll remove it in a few weeks time unless anyone has objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.248.225 ( talk) 09:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The article says they surrendered to or were handed over to the British to face treason charges, but then doesn't say what happened to them after that. Richard75 ( talk) 11:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
What is the reason this article isn't at "Indian Legion of the Waffen SS"? A Google Books search for "Indische Legion" gives 81 hits here, and "Indian Legion" comes up with 108 hits here. Not only that, but highly regarded books on the Waffen SS (such as Stein) refer to it as "Indian Legion". This is en WP after all. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 10:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Indische Legion → Indian Legion – Most commonly used name in English-language literature. This name (+"Wehrmacht" or +"SS" to avoid irrelevant results) gets more results on Google Books than the German version or the other commonly used name "Free India Legion", and is also used in respected sources such as Stein's works on the SS, see above conversation for details. — innotata 17:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
'In considering the history of the Free India Legion, the most controversial aspect is its integral link to the Nazi Germany, with a widespread perception that they were collaborators of Nazi Germany by the virtue of their uniform, oath, and field of operation.'
Whatever the motives and we can probably assume resistance to British rule as the primary motive, there can't be much more of a clear cut definition of collaboration than joining the enemy forces, wearing their colours, promising to obey their orders and operating in a war zone on their side. If we couple this with hints at atrocities committed by the Indian forces there doesn't seem to be much controversy. The point surely is that the Indians who fought in this regiment were operating on a means to an end basis, probably they did not like Nazi Germany and simply wanted freedom but that should be clarified with sources. Millions of German soldiers could probably say the same but then where do we draw the line? The use of 'controversy' in this is only in how we perceive their actions retrospectively Tarzanlordofthejungle ( talk) 08:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The use of "controversy" in this is in how historians and reliable sources see and analyse this organisation. We offer description (not analyse, not by ourselves) all the broad standing viewpoints on this organisation so that no one feels that an organisation of people are unjustly or unfairly described as heroes or traitors (which is PoV). We do not, and I repeat, DO NOT "couple a hint of" something with a whiff of something else and add to garnish a sumptious juicy maincourse. We draw the line where referenced reliable sources agree and disagree and we dont introduce POV of our own to promote unreferenced or unpublished viewpoints and bias. I hope that answers your angst? rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you need to repeat that DO NOT ? In case there is any doubt, I understand the general principles behind wikipedia and try to adhere to them. My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of the Free Indian Legion and its not an attempt to offer some simplistic fresh views. It's about the use of language in the article and particularly the header. To make my self clearer I'm suggesting the sub -heading should be changed to 'collaboration' as the use of the word 'perception' in the heading seems to defy the fact that a section of the Indian people joined the Nazi regime. Collaboration defined 'is working with others to do a task and to achieve shared goals'. The fact that the goal they wished to achieve was independence (and I'm pretty sure it was not much else)is beside the point. The fact they may not have shared other goals is beside the point. I'm fully comfortable with the following arguments about why they collaborated and the extent of that collaboration. I'm suggesting an amendment on the lines of
==collaboration== 'Although the Free India Legion collaborated with Nazi Germany by virtue of accepting their uniform, oath, and field of operation....'
In case there is any doubt about my motives I am entirely happy that India succeeded in regaining its independence and I hate the Nazi regime but I wouldn't for a second let these biases creep into anything like an objective article and I'm suggesting that == Perceptions of Collaboration== is doing just that. Tarzanlordofthejungle ( talk) 13:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the section as it stands is absolutely fine. Your proposal changes the statement to a definitiv " they were collaborators", from as it stands now which is a descriptive "they were perceived as collaborators by some and freedom fighters by others". Your emphasis here is the verb of collaboration which is different from the adjective of being a collaborator which all will see it as. This reminds me of a discussion I had on the talk page of what was then Collaborator page. Essentially, what you are suggesting seems to me to play with words to slide in the implication that these people were collaborators, with all the negative connotations of being quislings etc. A bit like saying a female dog is a bitch by the virtue of english language. With all the good faith in the world, I think this an unneccessary step. As it stands the viewpoint is adequately described and the opposing viewpoint is also adequately described. I see no reason why this should be changed. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 19:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd still disagree as equally 'Perception as Collaborators' as a heading slides into the implication that the Indian legion did not collaborate but were only perceived as collaborating which surely is why there is a discussion. Still to me like a heading in denial. But never mind.
I'll happily let it drop Tarzanlordofthejungle ( talk) 20:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
As an aside as a Philosophy/Sociology teacher I met a similar form of this argument where men were presented as aggressive and violent as opposed to women being passive and non violent: infanticide statistics showed that women were more likely to kill their babies than men. This was presented as a female reaction to male violence rather than simply female violence. I felt this was the kind of argument that weakened rather than strengthened the feminist case (which showed overwhelmingly that men tended towards violence anyway) so maybe I have a tendency to leap on these things Tarzanlordofthejungle ( talk) 20:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There are some strange part in the picture with General Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the 3rth of the article. It could well be, that it is manipulated. Do you know something about that? -- 2.71.254.79 ( talk) 09:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Curious. The goal of the SS was to kill anyone without blond hair and blue eyes. How did they allow this? Seems like like the article is confusing something. HeinrichMueller ( talk) 02:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Sitush: you seem to have a problem with me removing the tag of Indian far-right from this article. I see no relation between Indian far right the Azad Hind force/Indian Legion. They were indeed supported by Imperialist Nippon, but calling them Indian far-right is too far fetched. In fact, the entire categorization of all right wing organization as far-right it too ridiculous, which is why I was removing articles from that categorization, including Uma Bharati's party. Crawford88 ( talk) 04:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
When a military unit is labelled as belonging to a country, that means it served that country. This is speaking in terms of both practice on Wikipedia and in how it will be understood by the reader. The Indian Legion was obviously in opposition to the British government in India (or on the opposite side in a war at least). Even if you take "country" in a different sense, like where they operated - which you shouldn't - this doesn't make sense. It utterly confused me to see that this page had been edited to put the link and flag of British India up there, it's nonsensical.
The only questions are whether a provisional government counts as a sovereign government for purposes of the template, and whether this unit actually was under that government and Bose's control - it effectively operated only under German command. — innotata 01:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
[Copied from an editor's Talk Page] @ Soumyapatra13:
Hi, You recently reverted my edit on Indian Legion. From your edit summary it seems to me you misunderstood the reason I had mentioned in my edit summary. I removed the part as the text precisely because the film is not at all well known, and regardless of films being made on the subject, or the lack thereof, Azad Hind Fauz (AFH) is quite well known in India and widely mentioned in literature and elsewhere. It didn't seem to me that the text in question therefore didn't fit there, and possibly a seperate section could be created to list such mentions in media. I'd be glad if you could restore my edit. Thanks Soumyapatra13 ( talk) 19:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@ WikiLinuz I added the words missing in the Text. Which are Provided in the Source. You cannot undo the Edit without Proof. https://salute.co.in/a-forgotten-army-the-legion-freies-indien/ The Text says:- Organisation of the Legion Freies Indien The British Indian Army, possibly as an extension of their ‘divide and rule’ policy, had organised Indian Army units on the basis of regional identities. Bose from the inception of the Legion, sought to eradicate any semblance of divisive factors and built a force on a unified Indian identity. Consequently, the Legion Freies Indien was organised as mixed units comprising of all religions, states and class. Approximately two-thirds of the Legion’s members were Muslims and one third Hindu and other religions, including a large number of Sikhs. This was the first time a modern professional Indian Army was created where Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims all served together in close-knit units and this set a precedent for Indian Army of the post-Independent era. After the end of the war, when the British investigators interrogated the soldiers and commanders of the Free Indian Legion they found “the morale, discipline and indo German relations were excellent”. SikkaSingh ( talk) 10:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)