Julien
>As I view things
> (this is of course controversial), the British succeded in
> neutralizing leadership,
> crushing popular revolts, etc. and despite that did leave India.
> This raises
> interesting questions and is relevant to the issue of what is to be
> done. What I
> conclude is notably a)that there are limits to comparisons between struggle
> against imperialism and struggle against capitalism, one beign
> apparently less
> staunchly defended than the other b)protests, chaos, etc. can scare
> oppressors
> into backing down eventhough they could go on and commit genocide.
The Brits left India, despite Winston Churchill's bitter last-ditch defence of
the Raj (a) because Roosevelt told them to, and in 1943 the British were in no
position to argue. The US position was very simple: after the War was won, the
old European colonial empires would have to be dismantled, and the Pax
Americana would take their place. And (b) in 1945 a leftwing Labour government
came to power in a huge landslide. The British people themselves were no
longer interested in defending Britain's Asian empire; no govenrment could
have hung on to the Raj in those circumstances.
Mark>
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
