Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: david who wrote (94147)	4/17/2003 3:54:02 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you really belive they ever planned any withdrawal? I think they HAD to witraw from every single Colony True,they had to withdraw, but they put effort into an orderly withdrawal, as best they could. I still feel that their final exit strategy from India (partition and what followed) was flawed, but then I was not around in those days, and 20/20 hindsight is great! It is my understanding that in the early 1900's, the Brits knew that India had to be relinquished. India got its independance in 1947. By which time, there was an infrastructure that was functioning, there was a class of educated people that could enable a government to function, as well as Industry to function. There was also military groups trained to provide security, and police force to provide internal law-and-order.

To: david who wrote (94147)	4/17/2003 5:26:14 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you really belive they ever planned any withdrawal? I think they HAD to witraw from every single Colony The British withdrawal or relinquishment of their colonies began in 1867 with the British North America Act creating the Dominion of Canada. The British attitude to colonization was ambivalent. After the American Revolution it was clear colonies were not always permanently colonies. The Upper Canada Revolt in 1837 reminded them of this (some of those involved in the revolt were exiled to Australia). Certainly colonies which were mostly populated by folk from Britain could not be regarded as permanent possessions. On the other hand, mid and late 19th century the British were still actively undertaking colonization in India, China and Africa. Certainly in India and Africa the object was modernization and the development of markets for British industry, investment, etc. At a certain point in this process it becomes quite irrelevant, from point of view of trade and investment and cultural connections, whether the colony remains a colony or is a country. At least, that was the theory as I understand it. From about 1900 onward the British were letting some Indians know that sooner or later independence was inevitable. The whole process was disrupted by the two World Wars. After WW2 the antipathy of Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower to colonialism and the spread of Marxist-communist movements sped up the divestiture of the colonies. This was disastrous for some of the African colonies which were not in shape to deal with the modern world because they didn't yet have institutions and traditions leading to social and political robustness. I don't want to paint the British as angels. Their 19th and 20th century empire was regarded by them with a confused mixture of greed, national pride, noble intentions and careerism. Its great virtue and advantage over the empires of its European competitors is that it exported its class system which inevitably led to social mobility and liberty (much as we see in the US) and of course development and prosperity in the colonial region. All the above is vastly oversimplified but the outline is correct.