We have had enough threads asking how Hitler could still win. How could the British empire still win?How could you prevent it from collapsing? How could Britain keep India forever? Most indians actually loved British colonialism that's why they never tried to stop it. Why didn't the British kill Gandhi to keep the colonies?
>>17305933Make peace with Hitler
Every single bit of the "Empire" was unique. It didn't all go down at once.People mistakenly believe that the British Empire, or rather the "2nd Empire" (as some historians call British colonialism post loss of the Thirteen Colonies) was divided into;>settler colonialismAustralia a good example, Canada, etc. British nation building, mostly using British (or other people from the British isles) to populate it.>Merchant/exploitation colonialismThe British population mostly being a small entrenched mercantile, political dna military elite, with the systems set up not for nation building but instead for exploitation of resources.People look at>the British Rajand see a single entity, but forget that even after the 8 gorillion reforms to try make it less clusterfucked it was still a trillion problems in one. The idea that indians "loved" British colonialism is overstated; sure, a lot of them benefitted directly from it, especially the more powerful groups, but for most indians they went from being subjects to subjects. The vast majority of India's population would have little if any contact or context of British rule. Remember that the earliest mass movements toward self government in India began not after muh world wars but in the 19th Century. Britain didn't so much "lose" any decisive moment, it was a slow loosening of control that they were more or less powerless to stop.Most "muh Empire" Britons look at the Raj as this grand treasure of the Empire that they'd like to have, but they do so because they look at video game maps and see it painted red for British. The actual reality of Britain's control over these areas varied wildly, and it was often more a case of Britain simply being the strongest power/the guys the local rulers worked with rather than it actually being a real integrated imperial province. It was a fucking mess.
>>17305933Gandhi was controlled opposition btw
>>17305950/thread
>>17305954And yet it became independent as a single entity
>>17305968Yes, but not without an absolutely massive shitshow. Indian Nationalism and the decline of Britiah colonialism are two related topics but which often developed independently of one another.The latter influenced the former and vice versa at various times, but the idea of>how does Britain WIN and KEEP INDIAis a question that just can't be simply answered. The time in which all of India was united and stable under British rule was ultimately very brief, and for the vast majority of the land and people there was very little interfacing with Britain whatsoever.Look at the situation with Ireland, a much smaller and simpler situation with a tinier population. Look how much of a headache it caused Britain between 1912 and 1922 when they lost most of it. Any notion of Britain "keeping the raj" in the 20th Century is mostly fantasy.
>>17305977The British could have kept it if they wanted to though.The indians who wanted independence at all costs were few and far in between. They didn't have the guts for an armed struggle. So if Britain had said, no means no, Gandhi would have sat back and said ok.
>>17305968Indian nationalism had been taking form for a century before 1947, even then your comment is wrong because Pakistan and India emerged separate - not to mention the separate states of Kashmir, Hyderabad, Sikkim, etc. which were flashpoints.>A little after the inaugural meeting of the Indian National Congress on 28 December 1885, the Bombay Gazette carried a report on the event, expressing genuine wonder at the spectacle that had unfolded before its correspondent’s eyes. To begin with, it was noted, the very fact that Indians ‘representing the various races and communities, castes and sub-divisions of castes, religions and sub-divisions of religions, met together in one place to form themselves, if possible, into one political whole’, was ‘most unique and interesting’. Then there was fascination born from the sheer visual extravaganza that the opening meeting of the Congress appeared to be: ‘There were men from Madras,’ announced the Gazette (throwing political correctness to the wind) ‘the blackness of whose complexion seemed to be made blacker by spotless white turbans.’ Standing beside them was the cream of colonial Bengal society, many of whom ‘appeared in entirely European costume’. There were ‘bearded, bulky and large-limbed’ Pathans from the north- west, just as there were ‘Banyas from Gujarat’ and ‘Sindhees from Kurrachee’. The Marathi delegates came flaunting their ‘cart-wheel’ turbans while the fire-worshipping Parsis displayed, in the Gazette ’s opinion, a ‘not very elegant head-dress’. To add to this, there were many delegates from the south who appeared bare-chested, but for loose shawls, just as there were some who saw no reason to use footwear. ‘All these men assembled in the same hall,’ concluded the report, ‘presented such a variety of costumes and complexions, that a similar scene can scarcely be witnessed anywhere’—except perhaps, it offered, ‘at a fancy [dress] ball’.
>>17306012You sound like Curzon dismissing the Indian National Congress as a bunch of lawyers. With the new generation of Indian nationalists starting in the 1910s and 20s, they transformed the movement firmly into mass politics
>>17306012>could have kept that if they wanted it toHistory isn't like a video game, they didn't have buttons to press that made them more/less able to do stuff.If Britain had, for example, gone full balls to the wall military occupation in Ireland, that would have had such insane ramifications that it could have destabilised the entire island forever. British political and military leaders knew this.So when you look at history and see a large and powerful Empire like Britain's, that doesn't equate to being able to just send a gorillion troops into somewhere to endlessly slaughter rebels until it magically becomes stable.The notion that Britain saying>sorry India, but no!would have had literally any affect but continue widespread revolts against British rule which Britain was increasingly powerless to check is absolute insanity.Do you think Britain passed the Statute of Westminster in 1931 because they just wanted to be nice? Constant rebellions, political disasters, governmental crises and other serious situations in the 19th and early 20th Century influenced Britain's decisions to slowly decolonise.If you are looking for the timeline where Britain "won", you're literally in it. The vast majority of Britain's settler colonies remained tied to the United Kingdom in some form indefinitely, with a lot of them retaining the British monarch as head of state today.Like I said, it isn't like in a video game where you can just magically throw resources and troops at something endlessly with zero ramifications. That isn't how it works, and Britain refusing to do so is why it's Empire did well where others didn't.
>>17306031Not the anon you're talking to, but I think that Britain could have kept India under the Commonwealth if it had honored its promise to give dominion status and home rule after WWI. The backstab is what really started the final descent of the independence movement into its decisive moments because the old guard of the INC were totally discredited and called collaborationist when the British reneged
>>17305933>How could the British empire still win?if the gave them proper toilets
It's pretty understated how much the common man couldn't care less about colonies The very moment that keeping them affected the common man negatively the royalty told to get fucked or get the Bolsheviked.com
>>17306031>would have had literally any affect but continue widespread revolts against British rule which Britain was increasingly powerless to check is absolute insanity. those revolts were very weak and peaceful because of Gandhi. A few indians already tried to get independence in 1856 and they failed because nobody had the stomach for actually getting rid of colonialism. It wouldn't have been different.
>>17306090>All the violent political agitation and assassinations in the early 20th century didn't happen because 1857 o algoWhen Viceroy Curzon tried splitting the Bengal Presidency into East and West in 1905 the riots literally went on for weeks
Britain was already preparing to give India indepedence prior to the war and the majority of the British populace was in favour of it.If the British Empire can be said to have an ideology (beyond making as much money as cheaply as possible) it would be the Whiggish idea that nations slowly progress from backwards autocracies to enlightened and developed liberal democracies. British rule in India was justified as Britain guiding India along this path, always intending to give India independance once it had reached the right level of civilisation, and just 2 more weeks until that would be the case (pic related). While some had used this just as an excuse to justify making money, by the turn of the century plenty believed it in wholeheartedly (at least for "Aryan" India) and thought that India was close to reaching the stage when it could be granted independance. In 1919 India was granted it's own parliament with limited powers. In 1935 this Parliament was strengthened and India granted basically full internal self government. It was only a matter of time before India was given equity with the other Imperial dominions. From then on I see no reason why they wouldn't declare a republic like they did historically. The British empire was in decline from the 1880s, if not earlier. Thinking it could have survived until today as anything other than loose organisation is pure fantasy.
>>17306213The fact that they had to sign a peace with cowfucking hillbillies and essentially sign away the Cape to them shows that 1900-1901 already had the Empire's power projection in deep decline
>>17305933Churchill was just a colossal retard who fucked everything up. He should've just let Hitler grind down his own country on the Soviets, nothing would've changed and he wouldn't need to sell all the military bases across the globe to america for some outdated war ships.
>>17305950>just let Krautland dominate continental Europe, I am sure they will just stay there forever and ever
>>17305933You can't, the age of empires was over. If I could, I'd direct Britain to maintain their hold on small strategic lands which are easier to defend and cheaper to maintain, so they can retain a global presence and preserve international relevancy, I'm thinking of keeping the Suez Canal, Singapore, Hong Kong, Khasab, Heligoland, Nauru, current British Overseas Territories etc.
>>17305933Squash the germs in 1935 already as the Frenchmen wanted to do. They naively thought that power-drunk painters and wine sellers can be reasoned with.
>Most indians actually loved British colonialism that's why they never tried to stop it.no they did not and thats simply a fact they didnt "try to stop it" beacause they simply didnt have a leadership strong enough to fight off the brittish their leaders were always bought by the british with riches and protection and if the leaders stopped doing what the brittish said then they wouldnt be able to lead anymore as the people never liked their leadear and the brittish made sure of that the brittish never wante India to prospere as it would lead to their inevitable demise a leader like Gandhi who didnt care about worldy possesions was needed or else the fight wouldve always been a losing one for the indians > Why didn't the British kill Gandhi to keep the colonies?that wouldve made Gandhi a martyr which would still lead to their demise and probably faster too By the time Gandhi came along anti collonial sentiment was already growing throught the empire Gandhi simply united it
>>17306066The evil anglo british is still doing evil things like using the trains that they left in India to kill hundreds of Indians even in these years. The metal horse is killing so many Indians because the brits did not tell them how to use them. Evil anglo tactics even decades after they left.
>>17305933By not entering or preventing WW1 from happening, or something. But that ain't easy, because without brits Germany would have crushed France/Russia and dominated all continental Europe without opposition. This scenario sooner or latter would have come to bite brits in their asses.And how do you prevent great European powers with warmongering attitudes, expansionist ambitions, full of economic/nationalistic tensions and with the global balance of power completely broken from beating each other up? Hard question.>>17305950>just leave the bloodthirsty megalomaniac dictator that broke every fucking previous peace treaty invade everything bro! This time he’ll totally keep his word!Detente strategy was the reason shit got so bad in the first place. France and the UK should have invaded Germany the moment Hitler started remilitarizing.
>>17305933Stand firm on the Suez crisis intervention. Yes it would be financially disastrous and a lot of colonies would still have to be let go but that was the last moment they could've affirmed themselves as a world power and frankly speaking some of the "losses" were losses in name only - India was net exporter to Britain and upkeep cost them more than it brought in contributions so why bother let them live in misery(as they have done since), lots of African colonies were also black holes and if necessary you could get the same results by just having your investors build infrastructure for resource extraction, Malaya was defended from falling into communist hands making some strategic resources of it safe, enough naval bases could be kept for the navy to operate globally. All that would have happened was the fat would be cut off, important resources would be kept firm. However by showing weakness and losing more direct control over a canal that was as important for the empire as Panama is for the Americans it was simply over.
It's kinda on you OP to explain why the empire would survive even if Britain stays out of ww2>More moneySo Britain is just going to shoot into crowds of Indians if they stop going to working?Britain wasnt a fascist state. During the Amritsar massacre in 1919, the British parlament voted overwhelmingly against the action (247 to 37 against), and it also led to even more protests that became more violent.The Indian National Congress was founded already in the late 20th century which demanded greater autonomy for India under British rule, and Britain already then did not know how to stop them and instead could only try to limit its popularity. Eventually Britain signed the Government of India Act in 1919 which created a dual-rule system that both surpressed the ongoing escalating nationalism, but also created further breeding ground for it.Britain then tried to partitioned Bengal in 1905 specifically to isolate nationalist movements but it only gave it more steam.The Swadeshi movement began also in the early 1900 which eroded British influence on Indian society as part of national awakening.Half of Indias National Congress was led by Tilak who advocated for civil agitation and direct revolution to overthrow the British rule. Arresting Tilak then (as a result of Indian media outrage) resulted in even more nationalist movement leaders emerging, such as Jinnah.The British strategy was to adopt a similar Austria-Hungary model of appeasing nationalist movements with gradual autonomy.The policy was described as:"increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."Again, OP implies that the solution is for Britain to go full fascist-mode and fire at people to preserve some sort of 'Thousand-Year-Reich' empire just because they're banked from not entering ww2.
>>17307637India was net negative on the empire, at worst the only mistake the British had made was not forcing Hyderabad independence.
>>17307648India's surplus propped up the British Scramble for Africa, even local British-Indian intellectuals lamented that the Indian tax base was the paypig for the Raj army's expansion into Burma, Tibet, and Afghanistan - not to mention the random nowhere colonies like Aden that mainly existed as coaling stations on the route to India.
Long term, most colonial regions couldn’t be kept even if Britain didn’t get devastated by two world wars.The issues are economic, societal, and technological.A) the model British colonialism was built around had become increasingly pointless, free trade had rendered many colonies as cash sinks rather than benefits. Canada and Australia for example ended up integrating their economies with the US even before they actually were given dominion status and later independence because it just made more senseThe pro empire tariffs were a very late attempt to reverse this but didn’t work and were just before WW2 and thus pointless.B) the geopolitical reality of the US and Soviet Union becoming the contesting world powers meant many British colonies were inevitably going to have rebels be supplied with modern guns by one side or another, both of whom ideologically opposed colonial empires. Even if the UK sided with America for ideological reasons around capitalism, the Soviets still supply the colonies, and the US is not going to prop up colonies.C) the aforementioned development of widespread manufacturing of guns, bombs and all manner of weapons made the previous domination of regions like India impossible once the people just decided they no longer wanted this. The sheer outnumbering of the natives plus guns will overwhelm any colonial regiments no matter if they’re technically better trained and armed. It’s the basic fundamental reason classical colonialism cannot exist into the modern age, why France could not keep Algeria. Portugal it’s African or Indian possessions. The only modern ones possible were either places with tiny friendly populations like France and Britain’s overseas regions. Spains microstates in Morocco. Etc.
>>17307663I’ll add. This is an example of how Hitler fundamentally was out of touch with reality in a way that somehow an upper class British aristocrat wasn’t.>When British diplomat Lord Halifax arrived at The Berghof in the Bavarian Alps on Nov. 19, 1937, he mistook German Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler for a footman and was about to hand him his coat and hat when Foreign Minister Baron Constantin von Neurath hissed, “The Fuhrer! The Fuhrer!”>Following a dismal luncheon, Hitler told his guest that his favorite film was Lives of a Bengal Lancer, and that the movie was compulsory viewing for his SS as “This was how a superior race must behave.”>Then he launched into a tirade for the benefit of the former British Viceroy of India about what to about Great Britain’s current problems in that unhappy land: “Shoot Gandhi! If that does not suffice to reduce them to submission, shoot a dozen leading members of Congress, and if that does not suffice, shoot 200 and so on until order is established.”>That night, Lord Halifax---called the “Holy Fox” by his peers---confided to his diary, “He struck me as very sincere, and as believing everything that he said…We had a different set of values and were speaking a different language.”
>>17307666>Earlier, on page 657 of Mein Kampf (My Battle)---a mere 37 from the very end---author Hitler finally turned his attention to the subject of British India thus: “I still remember the hopes, childish as they were incomprehensible…to the effect that British power was on the verge of collapse in India.>“Some Asiatic jugglers…real ‘fighters for Indian freedom’…had…(been) expecting the end of the British Empire to follow from a collapse of British rule in India. If anyone imagines that England would let India go without staking her last drop of blood, it is only a sorry sign of absolute failure to learn from the World War…and ignorance on the score of Anglo-Saxon determination….>“England will lose India either if her own administrative…machinery falls a prey to racial decomposition…or if she is bested by the sword of a powerful enemy. Indian agitators, however, will never achieve this…I, as man of Germanic blood, would…rather see India under English rule than under any other.”>So he concluded in 1925, but was proven to be dead wrong on Aug. 15, 1947, when, in fact, Great Britain did grant independence to such “Indian agitators” as Mohandas K. Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose, the last name being virtually unknown in the rest of the world outside India to this very day.Sure it’s easy to assume you can subjugate a subcontinent with a population more than ten times your own with sheer willpower if you believe you’re an Aryan superman and the natives are untermensch who will just follow orders. But in the real world shooting a bunch of rebel leaders tend to just galvanise support for them as martyrs and make the problem worse
>>17306031>>17306213>>17307637These are the correct answers.The British public also wanted to square away colonialism. It was a major point for the Labour party, since the expense of the empire limited more funds for a British welfare state.The idea that the British empire would have survived to 2024 if Britain just kissed Hitlers ring is so nonsensical.It's such a moronic argument that never holds as soon as you begin to put it into debate. The argument is entirely based on propaganda by Hitler-apologists with very little logical afterthought to the statement.
>>17307332>>17307093It’s better than being America's bitch and getting replaced, pretty sure the Anglos would’ve been able to keep their empire like that, especially that the Germans didn’t have a lot of interest in places outside of Europe
>>17305933Okay, OP. Define what "win" means for the British Empire and at what point in time are you talking about? 1870? 1900? 1914? 1939? Retain all the territory it had at its peak? No chance. Not possible for a litany of reasons. What does a realistic, "better" outcome even look like for the British Empire compared to what happened given the legacy of the empire has been strong and Britain retained significant (albeit diminished from its peak) influence around the world? 70 years later and India with x10 the population has barely caught up. Africa is still useless and would be a drag. Canada was always going to economically integrate with its neighbour. Australia is too fucking far away. All that red on the map looks great, but most of it isn't much fucking use, really.The one place Britain should have held onto is Ireland, but they spent centuries fucking up their chances there.
>>17307857the British called themselves superior and Aryan, why didn't they just kill anybody that tried to take away the colonies the same way they conquered them in the first place.sure they couldn't conquer Australia and America again but even so
>>17307954You literally have autism.>>17307752Maybe the Germans shouldnt have suicided the continent and their own country despite knowing it would trigger a world war.
>>17306104>When Viceroy Curzon tried splitting the Bengal Presidency into East and West in 1905 the riots literally went on for weeksLiterally cordon off the riots and machine gun them all down and bury them in unmarked graves.The fact that this couldn't be done due to civil rights, parliamentary inquiries, judicial liberalism, common law etc. is why the empire fell. Had they just crushed shit like that hard the empire would be around today. Look at what Germany did in ww2, when you execute everyone who resists you win. The warsaw uprising, for example, was only able to take place because the Germans were stretched to breaking point and the Soviets were a few kilometers away.
>>17308993>YEAH KILL EM ALLyou need to be over 18 to post here
>>17309024I'm being serious, the politics are separate from the immediate military issues providing the military can effectively suppress news of what happens. Literally gather up a penal battalion or two, cordon off 10 or so city blocks with machine guns and armored cars and go to work accompanied by poison gas. Once the riot has been dealt with, simply dump the bodies in an unmarked mass grave and that'll be the end of that. For extra secrecy the penal battalions can be disposed of by disarming them and shipping them to Aden to be executed and dumped in a mass grave in the desert without their knowledge.
>>17308993>Look at what Germany did in ww2, when you execute everyone who resists you win.You might want to pay more attention in history class Timmy
>>17309082>I'm being seriousso was I>Murder everyone within 10 city blocks without anyone noticingUnderage and retarded
>>17309024what have I said that's incorrect? 30 armoured cars with machine guns would easily be able to dispatch 100000 rioters. Casualty numbers, death certificates, autopsies etc. are all in the hands of the government so what stops, for example, the military or police from simply not reporting the deaths at all and just dumping bodies in a grave quietly or better yet just burning them?Would the government have done this? Obviously not, even Churchill was opposed to what he believed to be excessive violence in the maintenance of the empire due to his own moral opposition.
>>17309098>if you don't publish death certificates no one would realise they're dead
>>17305933Partitioning germany after ww1. If possible genocide the whole race
>>17309096>You might want to pay more attention in history class TimmyGermany managed to keep a lid on things until near the very end and that was in the midst of a world war with the allies aiding partisans on every front. The rules and calculations they operated under were different due to their situation, for example had they used poison gas in the USSR against partisans they would've had it used against them. These rules and calculations wouldn't have applied to India, if the Raj cuts off all communications from some district, seals it off and sets up cordons to keep everyone there separated from the outside world what stops them from just gassing the entire place and dumping the bodies in a mass grave? I'm asking sincerely, the only issues I can see are moreso political than practical. For example, look at secrecy, if secrecy were maintained in an operation like that then it'd provide no fodder for sedition since nobody other some soldiers would know and it'd appear as if everyone there just fell off the face of the earth.Likewise, if secrecy weren't maintained then it'd cause sedition, riots and problems however generally only if the true nature of the events were uncovered. If no specifics could be established, leaks identified and news effectively suppressed then not much would come of it.
>>17309113>>if you don't publish death certificates no one would realise they're deadSomewhat, if the state refuses to acknowledged anything untoward and simply refuses to deal with anything they become just "disappearances" like in many countries, for example in Chile or Argentina during their dictatorships, and nobody gives a shit.Tell me, providing secrecy were maintained, what's the issue with just gunning them down/gassing them, burning them and dumping the ashes in a ditch somewhere? I fail to see an issue from a practical standpoint providing secrecy is maintained
>>17309141>>17309156>Hmmm today I think I shall visit my cousin Rajesh who lives in the neighbouring village. There was lots of screams and large bangs coming from there last night, probably nothing but I better check >Wait a minute... why is his village a burnt out ruin with bullet casings littered all over the ground?>What organisation could have the resources and ability to do such a thing and why are the British authorities claiming there was never any village? >Oh well, guess we'll never know. Nevermind. Reread >>17309097
>>17309190>Hmmm today I think I shall visit my cousin Rajesh who lives in the neighbouring village. There was lots of screams and large bangs coming from there last night, probably nothing but I better check Riots are noisy to begin with. However I can see noise only being an issue in a densely populated urban area. In a rural village it'd be much easier to cordon it off and gun everyone down.>Wait a minute... why is his village a burnt out ruin with bullet casings littered all over the ground?I never said burn the village, I said gas which leaves the buildings intact and while I acknowledge residue would still be there the place can be cordoned off for a few days while everything is being taken care of.>What organisation could have the resources and ability to do such a thing and why are the British authorities claiming there was never any village? I never said claim there was never a village, I said simply don't respond to their requests other than basic administrative shit like issuing death certificates for insurance claims after a certain time period has passed.You're not actually arguing against secretly killing them all, just that it'd be hard/impossible to keep it secret in your view.
>>17308993Possibly the most retarded thing I have ever read. Literally every single country they invaded ended up developing highly organized and violent resistance movements that chipped away at their internal stability and forced them to compromise in their external stability as they fought a war. The British totally lost the support of Iraqis after Churchill tried the KILLEMALL tactic in 1920>>17309082This only works if nobody is expecting these people at home. Incels weren't a thing in mid-20th century India, so basically impossible lolYou are a literal teenager without basic critical thinking skills, a failure of the American school system
>>17308993>The fact that this couldn't be done due to civil rights, parliamentary inquiries, judicial liberalism, common law etc. is why the empire fell. What's the point of maintaining the empire if its just a economic dump and breeding ground for indefinet insurgency.Also, the British people were bound to find out eventually that their government slaughter crowds on a daily basis. A turbo-fascist state like that wouldnt survive for long, not domestically, and not diplomatically.This whole "lul if Britain had just kissed Hitlers ring and made the ultimate BFF alliance the empire would have lasted a thousand years to this day" is probably the most moronic argument in the entire stormfaggot narrative. The failed painter was unfortunately an uneducated hobo and did not understand the benefits of a free market vs romanticized map painting.Now kindly shut the fuck up and read a real book on why decolonialism happened and already had set an irreverisble trend long before the failed art student decided to chimp out.
>>17309246Look, every teenage boy goes through a phase in his life where they try to be as dark and edgy as possible, I get it. But believe me, in a couple years you'll think back to this and cringe at yourself. What you're suggusting is the alt history version of coldsteel the hedgehog. You keep talking about maintaining secrecy, but it is impossible to keep something like this on this sort of scale a secret. Do you think neighbours aren't going to notice now suddenly empty city blocks or people the sudden disappeance of their relatives and not at least ask some questions? The Indian people aren't exactly completely favourable to the British and even if there's (somehow) no evidience (all it takes is one tattletale from the army, one escaped witness) someone will start a rumour anyway that's close enough to the truth. If people believe that at any moment the British army is going to swoop in and gas their entire community because a handful of people got a bit uppity they'll get scared and they'll get angry. The British army might have all the bombs, bullets and poison gas in the world, but they aren't killing half a billion scared people. Not in an economically sustainable way anywayIn short you're being a retard
>>17309295>The British totally lost the support of Iraqis after Churchill tried the KILLEMALL tactic in 1920Fake news, they didn't try the KILLEMALL tactic. Churchill opposed wanton violence, for example he condemned the Jalingwalah massacare.Had the British gone full KILLEMALL mode, set up camps, crematoria and just gassed whole cities and towns of people them yea they would've won, this is a no brainer.Unlike vietnam there was nobody to stop the British from doing that in 1920 and the media was much, much easier to control. There were no nukes, no satellites, no television cameras everywhere etc. >This only works if nobody is expecting these people at home. Incels weren't a thing in mid-20th century India, so basically impossible lolIt works providing everything is done clandestinely. Whether people know someone is missing or not is irrelevant to the fact that the missing person is no longer an issue anymore.
>>17309303>You keep talking about maintaining secrecy, but it is impossible to keep something like this on this sort of scale a secret.On a wide scale it'd be hard to keep it secret however literally cordoning off a town and gassing it is pretty easy to do without alerting too many people. Gas is silent and human screams only travel so far.On a large scale the government would have to conceede that some unrest and seditious rebellion was being put down and release some fake numbers of casualties with many being listed as rebels and a tiny proportion as civilians. An example>A small town, about 20,000 people>riot occurs>army comes in and cordons off town>kills 95% of the population>6 weeks later the government puts out a statement saying that a rebellion occurred around [area where town is] and a few hundred people died, mostly rebels, and many police and soldiers were injured and many died with no numbers givenKeep in mind things like this can only work before spy planes and satellites, after that it's over.
>>17309338There isnt a single person on this planet that would have stomached a "kill-all" policy.And even if there was, he wouldnt have lived for long.Closest man would be Stalin, and once Stalin died, all the problems he tried to suppress with genocide suddenly became problems again. Ukraine nationalism is a good example.
>>17309303>The British army might have all the bombs, bullets and poison gas in the world, but they aren't killing half a billion scared people.They wouldn't need to, just enough people to keep a tight lid on the security situation.The long term solution would inevitably have to be political, the short to medium term solution would be military. The British interned millions of Africans in protected villages and camps during the Mau Mau rebellion. The British could've won had they just poisoned the water in those places with typhus, malaria, cholera etc. and let the population rapidly decline without sufficient aid.Already the British were getting away with concentration camps, forced labor, torture and war crimes there so why not just use disease to wipe them out? Unlike gas, disease has an element of deniability to it.After the rebellion the British took many documents with them and destroyed the rest so even today we don't necessarily know the full story.Eric Griffith-Jones said it best when he wrote to the Governor during the Mau Mau rebellion: "If we are going to sin", he wrote, "we must sin quietly."These things (biological warfare, mass gassings, mass graves etc.) are all possible to one degree or another if done competently and quietly.
>>17309353>Keep in mind things like this can only work before spy planes and satellites, after that it's over.uh huhRemind me, what year was the Casement report published?5% of 20,000 people is 1000. That's 1000 witnesses, and they aren't likely to forget any time soon. Plus you really think the soldiers will keep quiet? People may not have satelites but they have mouths and newspapers.
>>17309370>Remind me, what year was the Casement report published?Britain wanted the Congo, specifically Katanga, for the copper and resources while the French also wanted it for themselves. Also the Congo Free State had terrible relations with the British due do the Lado exclave fiasco, also the CFS literally betrayed the promise of free trade that got them the land in the first place. Leopold also misled the United States.While there were undoubtedly moral dimensions to all of it if you genuinely believe that great powers were legitimately concerned with "muh natives" you might as well believe that the US is in Ukraine for freedom and democracy, lmao.
>>17309401Your points are irrelevantWord got out despite all the attempts to keep it concealed, even without satelites and spy planes. And one end of India to the other is a far shorter distance than darkest Africa to London
Saar
>>17309370>5% of 20,000 people is 1000. That's 1000 witnesses, and they aren't likely to forget any time soon. Doesn't matter, 1000 people talking is a lot less dangerous than a town full of sedition. Besides, they'd be separated from the massacre beforehand so they wouldn't necessarily see the killing or much of it anyways.>Plus you really think the soldiers will keep quiet? This can be reduced with the use of penal battalions that can be used repeatedly and kept in near total isolation from all other units. Once their job is done they can be disarmed, packed onto ships and dumped in a mass grave in the south Arabian desert.>People may not have satelites but they have mouths and newspapers.Mouths can be silenced with laws prohibiting the slandering of public institutions and newspapers can be censored, suppressed, controlled and bought.
>>17309416>Word got out despite all the attempts to keep it concealedThere wasn't really some grand conspiracy of silence though, it was all very open in comparison to what I've said. For example a missionary asked a CFS lieutenant about cannibalism and he readily offered his knowledge of the subject, this was while they were both in the CFS.Also the roads, railways, communications etc. were lackluster and underdeveloped. The entire place was run as a moneymaking venture, not much thought was given to state security for it's own sake which, while making sense from a monetary point of view, is terrible for any kind of mass killing.
>>17309416>And one end of India to the other is a far shorter distance than darkest Africa to LondonYes, however the incentives would be different. The incentive structure of mass killings in India would be political in nature, the goal would be to kill your way to a lasting pro-British peaceful state of affairs while the mass killings in Congo were purely mercenary.
>>17309361>There isnt a single person on this planet that would have stomached a "kill-all" policy.You're very right, however that's not an issue with the practicality of it.I've never argued that these things would've been done or that people would've stomached it, just that it would've been feasible to do with some success.
>>17309361>Closest man would be Stalin, and once Stalin died, all the problems he tried to suppress with genocide suddenly became problems again. Ukraine nationalism is a good example.Genocide only works if you kill enough of them, if you just decimate them a bit it just makes them angry.
>>17305933>We have had enough threads asking how Hitler could still winWW2 topic should get ban
>>17307674Coped again, angloid
>>17309369am I wrong here? I don't think I am.
>>17305950Although there is some actual merit to this, then the question becomes how to defender the empire from the USA. I think the British were screwed either way. Maybe just stay neutral in WW2 somehow
>>17309453>You're very right, however that's not an issue with the practicality of it.That's is an extremely big issue with the practicality of it, lmao. Nobody willing to implement it means...nobody can implement it. A policy isn't feasible if it's impossible to actually enact.
>>17309704>lmaoNobody willing to do X for moral reasons doesn't mean that X would not be practically feasible if done, just that people refuse to do X. If X is done it would achieve Y, people don't want to do X therefore Y isn't achieved not because X wouldn't achieve it but because people don't want to do X to achieve Y.Divorcing the morality from the practicality for a moment, I assume we both agree that if you just mass kill everyone who opposes you then you win, right? Getting people to do it would be pretty easy, just find white British criminals, train them up in the specifics of what you want them to do and have them officer a few penal battalions of Indians under close watch. Getting politicians to approve of it would've be the hardest task.>A policy isn't feasible if it's impossible to actually enact.It's possible once you remove moral constraints, otherwise it's just like many other things that are technically feasible but too morally odious to pursue.
>>17308993What you fail to understand is how few actual Brits were in India. The empire worked because ordinary Indians collaborated with them and the state depended on Indians in the army and bureaucracy to function. Britain didn't have the population base to do otherwise, and had no realistic way to rule an India united against them; when the empire lasted it was because they paid well and important people preferred them to the Mughals, or the Marathas, or a different local rival.
>>17309927>The empire worked because ordinary Indians collaborated with them and the state depended on Indians in the army and bureaucracy to function.Yes, however the princes could always be relied on.Realistically the only way, long term, to keep India aligned to Britain would be to restore the kingdom of Burma as a princely state within India, recreate the Sikh Empire as a kingdom of the Punjab encompassing only the Sikh areas of the Punjab led by the Sikh royal family and use the fact that princely states would then be over 50% of the land of the Raj to allocate over 50% of the seats in the lower house of the legislature to the princes to appoint as they wish and have a house made up only of princes be the upper house (or at a push a minority of seats being allocated to the states to be elected indirectly). Constitutional reforms would be allowed only by an insanely difficult process in order to practically prevent any changing of the constitution upon Britain's departure.Communal awards would be given to dalits and other minorities and separate voter rolls would be maintained, the defense and foreign policy portfolios would be under British control until dominion status, the currency would be controlled by Britain akin to the CFA Franc and the new country would be given dominion status at the end of an agreement lasting 25 years during which time loyal Indians from the Anglo-Indian community and the nobility of the princely states would be given positions throughout the state with the British in India being granted Indian citizenship alongside their British and allowed to stay in their positions. A way to bind India to Britain would be by having them sign a treaty of alliance modelled on the Anglo-Iraqi treaties which essentially commits India to follow Britain's lead internationally by promising to align eachothers foreign policy and not take actions that injure eachother.
>>17309945>Realistically the only way, long term, to keep India I can promise you that your casual mental gymnastic on 4chan is not the "only realistic way", so stop presenting your autistic opinions as facts moron.
>>17305933>How could the British empire still win?Unite with the French during ww2 and create a post war Imperial commonwealth along the lines of irl France's "French Union" with a central council consisting of France and Britain (sitting separately but still being one country), Canada, India, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. A general assembly of Franco-British colonies (not protectorates, they wouldn't be included in this framework at all and be ran as they were before) would be composed of delegations picked by the governor of the colony consisting of loyal pro-Imperial members to an Imperial conference every 4 years in order to pass resolutions which would be screened beforehand with only pro-imperial ones allowed to be voted on with resolutions having to be submitted in secret to a committee made up of members from the central council countries who'd scrutinize proposals, suggest amendments and veto resolutions before they're submitted to be voted on. Resolutions that are voted on would be approved by all members of the central council and passed. The central council would also be able to make unilateral decisions after unanimous agreement of the central council without consulting the general assembly.The Suez Canal would be made a union territory with it being managed by the central council directly and permanently annexed from Egypt. The Siani would be annexed to the Palestine mandate after being secretly bought from Egypt in a coerced sale with Sudan being made a separate monarchy in personal union with Egypt with actual power not changing except that King Farouk would get 2 crowns instead of one.Essentially imagine the united nations but for the empire. Also Britain should've given up the mandate for Palestine and the Siani to the US 1000% and propped up the Hashemites in Iraq even more. Also Lebanon should've been annexed directly into France with the Sunni border areas given to Syria.
>>17307752> especially that the Germans didn’t have a lot of interest in places outside of EuropeNot yet. What’s stopping a gigaGermany from bullying Britain when it’s all alone? Why should gigaGermany put up with Britain controlling all kinds of valuable resources? I know you have Nazi sympathies, but put yourself in the role of a Brit trying to maintain global primacy for Britain. Letting Germany dominate the whole continent is a guaranteed loss for you. And I’m sick of pretending there’s only two options: roll over for Germany or face ethnic replacement in the future. No, we didn’t have to let any of this shit happen in the past 50 years. WW2 and later replacement immigration policies are separate happenings. The west still could have done something.
>>17309964Relying on the princes were the only way the British were going to keep India long term, essentially pawning off India into the hands of the princes while keeping the currency and de facto the finance ministry (if the British controlled central bank is invested with huge powers to oversee, advise, correct and direct the finance ministry with broad, sweeping and vaguely defined powers) in British hands and the ministries of India staffed by either Britons, Anglo-Indians or princely state nobility is the best I can see for Britain long term.The British would be able to keep Ceylon though, if necessary they could recreate the kingdom of kandy for the island and introduce it into India as a princely state to further tip the balance in favor of the princes.I've been looking for this book for ages but it's apparently very good:Holding India to the Empire: The British Conservative Party and the 1935 ConstitutionThis one is available on annas archive and is pretty good, you should read it:Empire, Politics and the Creation of the 1935 India Act
>>17309973I meant to reply to this >>17309960 , my bad
>>17309964Syria would be made a decentralized federation with a monarchy in order to cement Anglo-French rule. Certain disparate minorities should've also been given guaranteed non-territorial seats in the lower house of the legislature with the upper house being entirely appointed by the monarch (on Anglo-British advice) and the voting franchise restricted by literacy tests, poll tax requirements and felony disenfranchisement as well as regular voter roll purges in areas that vote against imperial interests in the country.
>>17309964>>17309986The Raj, before the agreement and handing over of dominion status on a set timetable, would be made to deploy troops to Indochina and Malaysia as well as Tibet in order to secure Tibet's independence from China and thus put India at staunch odds with whatever Chinese government exists and ensure a tense rivalry between the two that'd naturally draw India to the western camp and alienate China from it. Indochina would be built along the lines of Modern day malaysia with the mountian people in the south given their own monarchical state within Indochina. Indochina would essentially become a large protectorate with an upper house consisting of appointees made by the various monarchs with each monarch getting 1/4 of the seats of the upper house and the lower house becoming elected based on a restricted franchise as described here >>17309986. Communism, defined very broadly, would be banned and candidates for office would have to be of "good moral character and of a patriotic disposition" among other vague requirements such as not inciting public strife or racial hatred which would enable candidates outside a certain overtone window to be kept out of the political system and force parties within it to moderate their message.Monarch of Indochina would be a rotating office between the monarchs of Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Montagnard. The highest court of Indochina would be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as in many commonwealth countries today. The federation, should it get independence from protectorate status, would get it on terms akin to the Anglo-Iraqi treaties in which it'd remain de facto a protectorate however the currency (and through it the finances) would be Franco-British controlled akin to what I described with India here >>17309945 and security of imperial communications, the protection of foreign interests and the protection of minorities would be reserved until relinquished in another agreement akin to Egypt.
>>17310014Also the Anglo-French would keep Hong Kong, the straits settlements, singapore, French India and all the pacific, Caribbean and Indian ocean islands and territories directly and forever.I can see Kenya, if more Indian and especially White settlement occurs, becoming the 9th member of the central council and Indian mass migration into Africa with no sterilization program in India due to the traditionalist reactionaries having sway instead of the technocratic socialists. India would consistently push for Kenya to become the 9th member while the white members of the central council would always veto it unless there were a significant white population.Ireland should've never been given independence and instead got home rule akin to what exists today with Scotland or at the very, very maximum a status akin to the isle of man or one of the other crown dependencies in order to further the chance that the empire lives.Also the Anglo-French would keep Malta and Cyprus as integral parts of the United Kingdom with the UK becoming "The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus".
>>17310109>>17310014>>17309986>>17309973>>17309964>>17309945The Anglo-French should never give up their concessions in China or their sphere of influence either until the very end and should've kept Hong Kong, Weiheiwei and Guangzhouwan and if push comes to shove they should make them territories of the imperial commonwealth like Suez in order to permanently ward off any Chinese threats or aggression since attacking them would automatically bring the whole imperial commonwealth into war with China which is something they'd obviously not want and would be even more wary of with the collapse of the USSR.Essentially they'd become accepted and something like Gibraltar, an issue to be invoked when taxes are too high or some celebrity says something stupid but with no actual effort spent on retaking them.
>>17310157The rationale for keeping the treaty ports in China would be that they're important to global shipping, trade and strategic reasons which is why they're needed, the same reasoning that'd be used for the Suez.
>>17305933>How could you prevent it from collapsing?1. Don't get involved in World War I.2. Stop antagonizing the Irish.3. Give the colonies their own legislatures on equal footing with Westminster.4. Create an Imperial Parliament above all others and don't stack it so only Englishmen have a say.It probably still wouldn't work. Afrikans would be upset they can't be racist and the Indians and Irish would be upset they can't be independent.
>>17310157>>17310158Settlement would be an integral part of keeping the empire alive and there were plenty of opportunities for it, for example opening up Africa to poor whites from Europe instead of allowing colonies to pursue restrictionist policies like in Kenya.After ww2 there were millions of displaced persons who were white in Europe, it'd have been an easy task to send these millions to Africa instead of to the US and elsewhere. Instead of Polish refugees ending up in India and Iran they could've been sent to Africa, Instead of the UK integrating thousands of Poles after ww2 they could've sent them to Africa. Instead of setting up an independent Libya they could've handed Libya back to the Italian monarchists during ww2 and let them decolonize it into a settler state akin to South Africa with the same for Eritrea and Somalia which also had large Italian populations that would've rapidly expanded after post ww2 migration from ruined Italy.The presence of independent settler states in Africa would secure the imperial commonwealth since these places would have a stake in continuing imperial domination. France achieving it's natural borders along the Rhine isn't unthinkable if the Franco-British Union is formed in ww2, had it achieved those borders and taken the Congo it'd have made the Anglo-French empire surviving have a higher likelihood however the Congo had too small of a white population to hold onto forever so I imagine Congo being given independence along the lines of a federal state in the hands of traditional African nobility with whites running the government in the background and a currency controlled by the Anglo-French.
>>17310172this is retarded, >>17309964 what I described here would work though since seats on the central council are given by country not by population
