Yes, but the movement for independence became more vocal and militant as a directly result of the war. The promises of some sort of autonomy, or even Dominion status had been promised in return for the vast Indian contributions to the the war effort. However, not only was this then withdrawn (London was for it but the VIceroy and the British in India were totally opposed to any further Indian encroachment into the seats of power), but British rule became more oppressive with the Rowlatt Act, and culminating in the Amritsar massacre. So Britain had lost India as a direct consequence of WW1 and its immediate aftermath - they just didn't know it. Fair point. The Rowlatt Act was passed in 1919. The idea was to indefinitely extend wartime "emergency measures" in order to control public unrest and root out conspiracy. In effect, the act authorised the government to imprison without trial any person suspected of terrorism living within the Raj. (Can anyone see the parrallels with today's climate?) However, it was Indian idignation at the act that led the British Government to such repressive measures as culminated in the Amritsar Massacre of 1919. Most vociferous of the protestors among the Indian leadership was Mahatma Ghandi, who - not unreasonably - argued that not everyone should be punished in response to isolated political crimes. However, were the seeds of Indiant dissent and eventual independence sewn by promises made in WW1? Even had WW1 never happened, might the British Government still have tried to maintain its control over the Raj by whatever measures were necessary? It is my contention that the Indian population would have fought hard for their independence regardless of World War and that Britain was always destined to lose its "Jewel in the Crown". Dissent had emanated from India long before WW1, the voices of a people tired of colonialism and foreign rule by an oppressive government. WW1 may have escalated the process, but I cannot believe it was direcly responsible for it, however insidiously.
Fair point. The Rowlatt Act was passed in 1919. The idea was to indefinitely extend wartime "emergency measures" in order to control public unrest and root out conspiracy. In effect, the act authorised the government to imprison without trial any person suspected of terrorism living within the Raj. (Can anyone see the parrallels with today's climate?) However, it was Indian idignation that led the British Government to such repressive measures as culminated in the Amritsar Massacre of 1919. Most vociferous of the protestors among the Indian leadership was Mahatma Ghandi, who - not unreasonably - argued that not everyone should be punished in response to isolated political crimes. However, were the seeds of Indiant dissent and eventual independence sewn by promises made in WW1? Even had WW1 never happened, might the British Government still have tried to maintain its control over the Raj by whatever measures were necessary? It is my contention that the Indian population would have fought hard for their independence regardless of World War and that Britain was always destined to lose its "Jewel in the Crown". Dissent had emanated from India long before WW1, the voices of a people tired of colonialism and foreign rule by an oppressive government. WW1 may have escalated the process, but I cannot believe it was direcly responsible for it, however insidiously. All good points But the movement for Indian participation in Indian affairs was very different before and after the war. Before the War, the calls for independence were in such a minority that they were barely heard, even in the Indian organisations themselves. Most Indians who wanted a greater say in their country were products on the British education system, and were great Anglophiles. None of them (including Gandhi and Nehru) were calling for a complete British withdrawal. They supported the Empire and the war effort. However, in return they did ask for the speed of Indianisation of the government and the army to be speeded up. However, after the war, with the Rowlatt Act, and the Amritsar massacre, the voices of Indians turned from wanting the British to stay to calls for Independence (or at least Dominion status like for example Canada and Australia), and Gandhi's Non-Cooperation Movement. This all happened in 1919, and as one commentator at the time said (I'll have to look up the reference as to who said it) "We have lost India". Don't forget that the Rowlatt Act was an extesion of war-time provisions, in response to German attempts to stir up trouble in India (as well as the Middle East which was under the supervision of the Indian Government rather than London)
All good points But the movement for Indian participation in Indian affairs was very different before and after the war. Before the War, the calls for independence were in such a minority that they were barely heard, even in the Indian organisations themselves. Most Indians who wanted a greater say in their country were products on the British education system, and were great Anglophiles. None of them (including Gandhi and Nehru) were calling for a complete British withdrawal. They supported the Empire and the war effort. However, in return they did ask for the speed of Indianisation of the government and the army to be speeded up. However, after the war, with the Rowlatt Act, and the Amritsar massacre, the voices of Indians turned from wanting the British to stay to calls for Independence (or at least Dominion status like for example Canada and Australia), and Gandhi's Non-Cooperation Movement. This all happened in 1919, and as one commentator at the time said (I'll have to look up the reference as to who said it) "We have lost India". Don't forget that the Rowlatt Act was an extesion of war-time provisions, in response to German attempts to stir up trouble in India (as well as the Middle East which was under the supervision of the Indian Government rather than London) OK, I haven't studied the subject in the same depth as you obviously have, and am probably taking a polemical viewpoint. So I defer to your knowledge on this one. But as far as the Rowlatt Act itself is concerned, I think we are in agreement, in that I already mentioned that the act was an extension of wartime provisions. Clearly, it represented British recognition of German efforts to subvert the "peaceful" status quo in India and the Middle East. Some might argue that Britain brought about its own downfall as an Imperial power, but really all it was trying to do, at least in the case of India, was shore up its defences in its outposts of Empire at a time of increased security tensions. Any legitamised nation state would act in the same way.
It's true that England and France had been arch enemies for centuries. Even now, there's residual emnity. Hitler was well aware that the English were not Germany's natural enemy, and this is why he made his famous "last appeal to reason". It was also, some theorists suggest, why he ordered Hans Guderian to halt his tanks short of the beaches of Dunkirk, so enabling the British Army to remain largely intact and a viable instrument with which to continue to police Britain's Empire, of which Hitler was an admirer and advocate. Okay, you see my point. Next is where you make your mistakes by not knowing your audience and missing the overall big picture. Simply classic, disagree with someone by not addressing their point and going off on a tangent by misinterpreting the statement. So let's make things chrystal clear. However, it is wrong to suggest that Britain lost her empire in the aftermath of WW1. Quite simply it was the beginning of the end for Britain's Empire. Why, because of loss in manpower. Since you're one of those names and dates guys. I'll let you supply the figures of Lost British manpower. Since this is a WWII site and it has been said that both wars were perhaps one big war then the loss in British manpower in WWII certainly put the nail in the British Empire's coffin. Secondly, the British lost their zeal for military action after WWI, many nations did. (Oh, did I forget to support this, well then I'll mention Chamberlain and we'll leave it as enough for now.) That only made it harder to police the Empire. The "Jewel in the Crown", India, didn't achieve independence until 1947, and the American Colonies had already been lost way back in 1776 - that's what the American War of independence was all about! Although accurate, this statement is both obvious and unnecessary and illustrates my point that you didn't look at the big picture, ie loss of two major colonial possessions which wasn't the focus. It was that both those former colonies are economically stronger than their former master today. A result of the Wars. Moreover, Britain's position as a world leader - politically and economically - was more secure in 1918 than it had been in 1914, That can be subject to debate. Secure from German agression from winning the war but not economically more strong, once again, due to the loss in manpower. Would Britain had been worse off had France been taken by Germany and Britain had stayed out of the War? How would Communism have played a roll in Germany? Probably little or none at all if the Kaiser had beaten France. whilst the USA similtaneously reverted into its former position of isolation. Again, a little off subject. My comment on the US was that it was currently along with India more economically powerful than the UK. Resulting in a loss of english pride. And at the end of WW2, Britain, together with Russia and the USA, emerged as a world superpower. Well, you'd like to think that, but it simply was not true. If your referring to Germany and its administration, the UK and France were given say because they were participants in the War, not superpowers. The UK didn't have an A bomb until 52 and France 59. Oh, look I know some dates too. The US and USSR, which were the super powers, before 49. Admittedly, Britain's membership of that club didn't last long Atomic powers club yes, super powers no. as a country we had been virtually bankrupted by financing the war (I hope your not suggesting Britain by herself) Look at all the material the US provided. but to suggest the waning of Britain's fortunes was attributable to its involvement in WW1 is a very dubious theory, unsupported by the facts. On the contrary, quite sensible and well supported.
Didn't he have a heart attack then as well (1941/42?), which was all hushed up for morale purposes? Just remember something from a TV series about Churchill's Bodyguard It was either a heart attack or a miild stroke I'm not sure which. Lord Moran commented on it. I don't know if it was down to WSC's resilience or the fact that any illness minor or major of WSC had to be covered up. Both or either way, it wouldn't have bode well if it had come out. I think it was part stubborness and as well as an enemy morale viewpoint, if you look at the Cabinet at that time if I was WSC I would have had a steel back plate for protection if you get my drift. There were a lot of the ministers who would have liked to seen him out of office/ power. He couldn't show any weakness. That's the way I see it anyway.
Okay, you see my point. Next is where you make your mistakes by not knowing your audience and missing the overall big picture. Simply classic, disagree with someone by not addressing their point and going off on a tangent by misinterpreting the statement. So let's make things chrystal clear. Quite simply it was the beginning of the end for Britain's Empire. Why, because of loss in manpower. Since you're one of those names and dates guys. I'll let you supply the figures of Lost British manpower. Since this is a WWII site and it has been said that both wars were perhaps one big war then the loss in British manpower in WWII certainly put the nail in the British Empire's coffin. Secondly, the British lost their zeal for military action after WWI, many nations did. (Oh, did I forget to support this, well then I'll mention Chamberlain and we'll leave it as enough for now.) That only made it harder to police the Empire. Although accurate, this statement is both obvious and unnecessary and illustrates my point that you didn't look at the big picture, ie loss of two major colonial possessions which wasn't the focus. It was that both those former colonies are economically stronger than their former master today. A result of the Wars. That can be subject to debate. Secure from German agression from winning the war but not economically more strong, once again, due to the loss in manpower. Would Britain had been worse off had France been taken by Germany and Britain had stayed out of the War? How would Communism have played a roll in Germany? Probably little or none at all if the Kaiser had beaten France. Again, a little off subject. My comment on the US was that it was currently along with India more economically powerful than the UK. Resulting in a loss of english pride. Well, you'd like to think that, but it simply was not true. If your referring to Germany and its administration, the UK and France were given say because they were participants in the War, not superpowers. The UK didn't have an A bomb until 52 and France 59. Oh, look I know some dates too. The US and USSR, which were the super powers, before 49. Atomic powers club yes, super powers no. On the contrary, quite sensible and well supported. Hmm. OK, Herr Oberst. Why is it that when someone's view of world events and their significance is challenged - even in an amicable way - they often respond by climbing onto their high horse and talking down to the challenger? Oh well. Anyway, I'll try to respond as best my limited intellect will allow. You make the point that the USA and India emerged economically stronger than Britain after WW1/2, which wouldn't have been the case had Britain not got involved in those conflicts, right? That is the thrust of your argument. However, there are in fact two very simple reasons why the USA became the economic power it is which are entirely independent of the incidence of world war and its effect on other nations. The first is its vast, vast abundance of natural rescources. Foodstuffs, oil, the materials of mass production, etc. The second is its size - and I'm not going to quote square miles to you because I don't know the figures - which, combined with those vast natural resources, allows it to support a much, much greater population than the geographically smaller British Isles. This translates to a hugely increased potential GDP, which has been realised in actuality. The migration of Europeans that began in the sixteenth century was the beginning of the transformation of a few unconnected American colonies into the all powerful United States that we know today. The incidence of WW1 was irrelevant in that process; whether it had occured or not Britain would always have been ultimately dwarfed as an economic power because of that process. Ergo, Britain did not lose its economic superiority due to its involvement in WW1/2 and the resultant loss of manpower. (In fact, the American troops in France in WW1 suffered huge losses too, mostly due to the brand of influenza they brought with them. But, relative to their total manpower, it was like a pinprick compared to the sledgehammer blow the British losses relatively represented. Also, I believe it was the French who suffered most in manpower terms in WW1, and the Russians in WW2.) Also, it is worth noting that Germany, a country with similarly few natural resources as Great Britain, who suffered equally if not worse than this country in WW1/2, has emerged as the economic powerhouse of Europe. Might that not say something about national attitudes, politics and drive? In other words, while neither Great Britain nor Germany could ever hope to compete equally with the USA economically, Germany's economic infrastructure is perhaps superior to Great Britain's. As indeed is Japan's, who prior to their involvement in two world wars were also busy empire building in the Far East. My point here is that loss of Empire, for whatever reason, dosen't necessarily translate into a down turn in economic fortunes. As for India, it is a largely improverished country, with fewer natural resources than the USA, high unemployment, and hardly the model of economic succes you claim it to be. In fact, according to the Economics department of Yale University, India has only just joined the list of the world's emerging economies, and currently the only Indian exports I can think of are Bollywood films and curry houses! With a population of around a billion, even now the per capita income is only $US750 per year. Undoubtedly, the loss of so many British lives in WW1 did make it harder to police the empire. But so did financial considerations. For those allied reasons, a wave of pacifism swept this country, and indeed most of Europe, as you say. On that we are in agreement. But nonetheless you still make some odd statements. For instance, that Britain didn't emerge as a superpower at the end of WW2. Do you not remember the Yalta conference in 1944, when Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met to decide the carving up of Europe after the war? France, interestingly, despite contributing men to the conflict, was NOT invited to send De Gaulle! Britain's armed forces were at their largest ever at the close of WW2; next to Russia and the USA the largest in the world. (Indeed, Britain was actually granted trusteeship of Italian Somaliland as a result of WW2 in 1946, a measure of its ability still to police foreign territory). That position was maintained at least until the end of the Berlin Airlift in 1948, when Britain's influence as a superpower began to decline... I have never argued that Britain's world influence, and control of its empire, wasn't severely affected by its involvement in two world wars - it would be stupid to argue otherwise. But to suggest that Britain ceeded economic superiority to the USA and India - to name but two nations - as a direct result of its involvement is equally facile. P.S. Of course I wasn't suggesting that Britain was financing the war by herself! That sentence should more accurately have been written, "Britain was virtually bankrupted by financing HER war effort".
