Why did Anglos give up India without a fight? What happened to 'never surrender' and the 'sun never sets on the British Empire'?
>>17995909spend 5 minutes in India and tell me if you don’t immediately kill yourself
>>17995909The Soviet chads told Anglos to leave India and they obeyed. Slavic Russia is strong and resilient unlike England
>>17995909>No money after WW2 and 1 >Colonies (especially the asians) not to keen on their White Overlords after watching them lose to Yellows>USA, their former colony, was now the global dominant power, and championed self determination
>>17995914Then why did the anglos spend 190 years there
>>17995909It's way harder to hold on to a colony that you thinkIndians definitely outnumbered the British colonial troops there 1,000 to 1 AT LEAST
>>17995917You have a creative imagination. Anyways, I don't see the point of occupying a country that refuses to improve. So the point is moot. I mean look at India today. Would you want that? The Soviets can have them.
>>17995909The indian looks like shit even on this idealized poster kek
>>17995909No choice, a fight would always be a losing one given the manpower advantage of India and the lack of support for another war both in Britain itself and the international community. Better to give India independence in a peaceful way that allows you to still retain a decent amount of influence and corporate ownership over the country than fight a war and get nothing.
>>17996369Manpower advantage means fuck all if one side has tanks and planes, and the other cow dung. It would just cost way too much to surpress indians especially in reality of the post war UK
>>17995909They were broke and the independence movement within India had gained considerable support as well as the British government and public had become somewhat indifferent to the empire or even sympathetic to independence. Really it was just untenable to hold post ww2 and without India a lot of the empire served less purpose.
>>17995909Same as the rest of the non-setller parts of the British Empire. It stopped being more profitable than it was troublesome, so they cut their losses and bailed.The British Empire was>settler areasAustralia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.>the restHaphazard resource and wealth extraction. The Raj was not some great British state, it was a clumsily cobbled together shitshow that lasted approximately 50 years.Prior to that, it was mostly either isolated pockets of industry or the East India Company nominally ruling over more and more land. It all went to shit in the 1850s, so Britain stepped in.
>>17995909I barely studied the Russian alphabet. How bad is my transcription. Indinachi e rooskeye bratya
the civilizing mission was complete
>>17995909It's because Britain had no idea what to do with India and was honestly uncomfortable and self-contractory with the rationale it held it in the first place.Britain conquered India, plain and simple. That's fine, India have been conquered countless times and conquest itself was always seen as a reason good enough to hold onto some territory. After all "right of conquest" was an actual legal institution back in the day. But the problem is that from the very start Britain was self-contradictory and hypocritical about it. They claimed it wasn't conquest, but something done for the benefit of Indians themselves. Sort of early manifestation of the SF trope of aliens coming in and uplifting the natives.So Britain at the same time exploited India like the right of conquest entitled them to do so. But at the same time they did some gestures towards improving the lot of Indians like producing some reforms or granting a narrow group of Indian elites Western education. But this contradiction created resentment. The newly educated elites were painfully conscious that they aren't British and that they are subjugated people. And so they started their own movement for independence. Had Britain kept India in the dark, none of that would happen. Had Britain simply hanged the nationalists like all conquerors do, they would also have no problem with keeping India. But because of the veneer of benevolent uplifters, they were unable to do so. Finally, you had ww1 and ww2 which caused the financial ruin of Britain. It also gave the British population an insane amount of war wariness. British population had no stomach to fight to keep India in. So when it turned out that the Indian Nationalists successfully ingrained themselves in the Indian Army, the British just let India go rather than risking another bloody war to keep the jewel of their empire.
>>17995909Because, my dear retard aka Redditor, Anglos wanted India to be ruled by pagan street shitters hostile to Islam.
Sorry to disappoint, but the phrase about the sun never setting on the Empire was an idealized slogan, not a literal policy guarantee.
>>17996535Why can’t she married white or Korean/Japanese lonely man?
>>17996528>>17996369Why didn’t UK and NATO intervene during invasion of Goa?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance
>>17996098They mistakenly thought they could civilize you
