|
|
Post by John Marston on May 14, 2021 6:16:56 GMT
They did oppose the British Raj. Not being harsh but, on what accounts can you say they did not? Like there were no large scale violent revolts against direct crown rule. What about the Non-cooperation movement? Civil Disobedience Movement? Quit India movement? Gandhi advocated a policy of non-violence and though there was violence carried out by the radicals, it was limited. |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on May 14, 2021 6:20:15 GMT
Like there were no large scale violent revolts against direct crown rule. What about the Non-cooperation movement? Civil Disobedience Movement? Quit India movement? Gandhi advocated a policy of non-violence and though there was violence carried out by the radicals, it was limited. More violence was done by Bandits and criminals than Radicals. Gandhi's movements were for Autonomy and still at start he still wanted India to remain part of Empire. Also most Indians weren't involved in his movement and many supported the empire like the aristocrats who were powerful. |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on May 14, 2021 6:21:52 GMT
Like there were no large scale violent revolts against direct crown rule. What about the Non-cooperation movement? Civil Disobedience Movement? Quit India movement? Gandhi advocated a policy of non-violence and though there was violence carried out by the radicals, it was limited. The base of the British Rule was built on co-operation with natives. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 14, 2021 6:29:00 GMT
What about the Non-cooperation movement? Civil Disobedience Movement? Quit India movement? Gandhi advocated a policy of non-violence and though there was violence carried out by the radicals, it was limited. More violence was done by Bandits and criminals than Radicals. Gandhi's movements were for Autonomy and still at start he still wanted India to remain part of Empire. Also most Indians weren't involved in his movement and many supported the empire like the aristocrats who were powerful. 1. That's what I said - 'limited' and I don't know much about the violence done by any others, except for guerilla groups like Alluri Sita Rama Raju or bands of peasant who would kill their landlords. 2. He did not fight for autonomy. If he did, then he would have accpeted one of the viceroy's (don't know who. Probably Irwin) offer as a dominion status. 3. This is wrong because the Congress itself was an aristocratic party. They never cared for the lower classes because they didn't want to offend the higher castes who supported them. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 14, 2021 6:29:49 GMT
What about the Non-cooperation movement? Civil Disobedience Movement? Quit India movement? Gandhi advocated a policy of non-violence and though there was violence carried out by the radicals, it was limited. The base of the British Rule was built on co-operation with natives. I agree on this. |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on May 14, 2021 6:31:51 GMT
More violence was done by Bandits and criminals than Radicals. Gandhi's movements were for Autonomy and still at start he still wanted India to remain part of Empire. Also most Indians weren't involved in his movement and many supported the empire like the aristocrats who were powerful. 1. That's what I said - 'limited' and I don't know much about the violence done by any others, except for guerilla groups like Alluri Sita Rama Raju or bands of peasant who would kill their landlords. 2. He did not fight for autonomy. If he did, then he would have accpeted one of the viceroy's (don't know who. Probably Irwin) offer as a dominion status. 3. This is wrong because the Congress itself was an aristocratic party. They never cared for the lower classes because they didn't want to offend the higher castes who supported them. 2. At start means till 1922 3. Maybe, but All princely states were loyal to Crown. But most Aristocrats and Middle class was supportive of the British Rule. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 14, 2021 6:35:00 GMT
1. That's what I said - 'limited' and I don't know much about the violence done by any others, except for guerilla groups like Alluri Sita Rama Raju or bands of peasant who would kill their landlords. 2. He did not fight for autonomy. If he did, then he would have accpeted one of the viceroy's (don't know who. Probably Irwin) offer as a dominion status. 3. This is wrong because the Congress itself was an aristocratic party. They never cared for the lower classes because they didn't want to offend the higher castes who supported them. 2. At start means till 1922 3. Maybe, but All princely states were loyal to Crown. But most Aristocrats and Middle class was supportive of the British Rule. 2. Then why was the quit India movement started? 3. That's why I mentioned either by "hook or by crook". They either gained the loyalty of the crown or deposed the ruler or worse, conquer them. Most kingdoms weren't happy with their rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on May 14, 2021 7:21:24 GMT
2. At start means till 1922 3. Maybe, but All princely states were loyal to Crown. But most Aristocrats and Middle class was supportive of the British Rule. 2. Then why was the quit India movement started? 3. That's why I mentioned either by "hook or by crook". They either gained the loyalty of the crown or deposed the ruler or worse, conquer them. Most kingdoms weren't happy with their rule. 3. No, they were loyal to Britain because they feared Congress more. Also, Muslim League and Hindu Mahashaba supported the Raj's war effort in second world war. 2. Wasn't that movement in 40s. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 14, 2021 7:24:03 GMT
2. Then why was the quit India movement started? 3. That's why I mentioned either by "hook or by crook". They either gained the loyalty of the crown or deposed the ruler or worse, conquer them. Most kingdoms weren't happy with their rule. 3. No, they were loyal to Britain because they feared Congress more. Also, Muslim League and Hindu Mahashaba supported the Raj's war effort in second world war. 2. Wasn't that movement in 40s. 2. Yes. 3. Laughable. How can you claim it? |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Stalin on May 14, 2021 7:25:32 GMT
Germany had a population of 80 million. USSR had a population of 200 million. You must add populations of Yugoslavia(16 m.), Poland(35 m.)Im more dedicated to these 3 countries because they had the most tenacious resistance and collaboration was very low plus they were the only non-aryan countries the axis-europe invaded. Nazis didnt started the war to just occupy and govern these countries. Their ultimate goal was to exterminate everyone except aryans and people knew this. Controlling a population 3-4X higher than you is an impossible thing. Real life is not a video game and thats why an axis victory was unrealistic. In a moment of weakness or an economic crisis everyone would have revolted, especially against japan whose ground forces were very weak. Why not it is possible to handle such a big empire? Remember the British Empire? It ruled India, either by hook or by crook. India constituted roughly 20% of the world population when she got independence. UK has very less population than India when they ruled it. And all this excluding the other territories - African colonies, Australia, Canada, which would be... I don't know maybe some 20 times her population? And another point is that they were all very distant colonies - Canada, Australia even India for that matter, whereas in this scenario, Germany is near to USSR, Poland and Yugoslavia. I believe that an axis victory was not totally impossible. If USSR fell, that would have spelled doom for the allies. And I actually believe they had a very good chance. Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand were all British or at least had a good British population living there and they never revolted against the Empire. Britain never aimed to kill everyone living in those countries, on the other hand mass killings began on day 1 when Nazis launched their attack. The same goes with japan too whose military rule was extremely unpopular in China where guerilla warfare was causing a big trouble for Japan. India is another case, 98% of the people believed in caste system which was the opium of Indians. Thats why they never rised up effectively until 1942. Britain had a very strict control mechanism and eliminated people who were organizing a rebellion.(eg. bhagat singh) So in India the people were not rebellious and thats why such a huge nation was managed by a tiny island. When Indians just stood up after ww2 britain understood that this could lead to heavy casualties and terrorism, they just fled. Also remember that I said people would have revolted in a crisis, like ww2. I agree that if USSR falls, everything else would have fallen since Germany would reach a full autarky. |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on May 14, 2021 7:27:00 GMT
3. No, they were loyal to Britain because they feared Congress more. Also, Muslim League and Hindu Mahashaba supported the Raj's war effort in second world war. 2. Wasn't that movement in 40s. 2. Yes. 3. Laughable. How can you claim it? 2. So my point was correct. 3. Congress barely existed in Princely states. |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on May 14, 2021 7:31:32 GMT
Why not it is possible to handle such a big empire? Remember the British Empire? It ruled India, either by hook or by crook. India constituted roughly 20% of the world population when she got independence. UK has very less population than India when they ruled it. And all this excluding the other territories - African colonies, Australia, Canada, which would be... I don't know maybe some 20 times her population? And another point is that they were all very distant colonies - Canada, Australia even India for that matter, whereas in this scenario, Germany is near to USSR, Poland and Yugoslavia. I believe that an axis victory was not totally impossible. If USSR fell, that would have spelled doom for the allies. And I actually believe they had a very good chance. Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand were all British or at least had a good British population living there and they never revolted against the Empire. Britain never aimed to kill everyone living in those countries, on the other hand mass killings began on day 1 when Nazis launched their attack. The same goes with japan too whose military rule was extremely unpopular in China where guerilla warfare was causing a big trouble for Japan. India is another case, 98% of the people believed in caste system which was the opium of Indians. Thats why they never rised up effectively until 1942. Britain had a very strict control mechanism and eliminated people who were organizing a rebellion.(eg. bhagat singh) So in India the people were not rebellious and thats why such a huge nation was managed by a tiny island. When Indians just stood up after ww2 britain understood that this could lead to heavy casualties and terrorism, they just fled. Also remember that I said people would have revolted in a crisis, like ww2. I agree that if USSR falls, everything else would have fallen since Germany would reach a full autarky. Also, there were religious conflicts in India. Actually Boers were anti-British and a Boer government in South Africa left the commonwealth, to reaction to it, Natal state threatened to secede. Nazis were extremely unpopular among Yugoslavs except Croats. Soviet partisans were organised and even better equipped than the Germans sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 14, 2021 7:36:14 GMT
2. Yes. 3. Laughable. How can you claim it? 2. So my point was correct. 3. Congress barely existed in Princely states. 2. Your point that Quit India movement was started in 1940's was true 3. If they barely exsisted, how did they fear the Congress? |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on May 14, 2021 7:40:32 GMT
2. So my point was correct. 3. Congress barely existed in Princely states. 2. Your point that Quit India movement was started in 1940's was true 3. If they barely exsisted, how did they fear the Congress? 3. They didn't exist because they didn't let them exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Stalin on May 14, 2021 7:40:41 GMT
Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand were all British or at least had a good British population living there and they never revolted against the Empire. Britain never aimed to kill everyone living in those countries, on the other hand mass killings began on day 1 when Nazis launched their attack. The same goes with japan too whose military rule was extremely unpopular in China where guerilla warfare was causing a big trouble for Japan. India is another case, 98% of the people believed in caste system which was the opium of Indians. Thats why they never rised up effectively until 1942. Britain had a very strict control mechanism and eliminated people who were organizing a rebellion.(eg. bhagat singh) So in India the people were not rebellious and thats why such a huge nation was managed by a tiny island. When Indians just stood up after ww2 britain understood that this could lead to heavy casualties and terrorism, they just fled. Also remember that I said people would have revolted in a crisis, like ww2. I agree that if USSR falls, everything else would have fallen since Germany would reach a full autarky. Also, there were religious conflicts in India. Actually Boers were anti-British and a Boer government in South Africa left the commonwealth, to reaction to it, Natal state threatened to secede. Nazis were extremely unpopular among Yugoslavs except Croats. Soviet partisans were organised and even better equipped than the Germans sometimes. I actually tried to mean that Most of the population British Empire controlled was extremely poor(just like nowadays) and due to this there was a obedience culture but this was not the case in USSR, Poland and Yugoslavia. Big majority of the people liked their government more than Nazis and they did not lived in miserable conditions like Africa and India. When Nazis attacked they realized the value of their governemnt more and Nazis were forced to divert a real Panzer Division to supress partisans. This is no joke, a Panzer division! Also they caused massive damages in communication and supply lines too. |
|
