Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 121
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Interesting stuff, why does India leave the British? Aren't the British still very strong as a power, the Americans weren't slapping them down? Do they pull out because it wasn't cost efficient to hold onto or something?
My general althistory headcanon is that a lot of anti-colonial revolts/insurgencies would've been put down hard if the two superpowers (USA and USSR) hadn't been anti-colonialist. Nerve gas and bombers is a tough combo to beat.
A couple brigades of Wagner are sufficient today to overthrow a mid-sized Central African country, one would think that some big power or other would end up running these places if only to secure gold mines and oil wells.
I think decolonization was a historical inevitability after WWI, and the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in particular was probably difficult to hold on to. Gandhi specifically probably succeeded in large part from American pressure, but I doubt the British empire even absent WWII keep India in the face of another sepoy revolt. My head canon is that local revolts push British control south, possibly with Russian assistance and the mainland Indian subcontinent is notionally a single state but realistically far more fractured than IRL, and that the commonwealth was more concerned with the transition to an oil-based empire than with territorial expansion. But, there’s definitely a greater extent of colonial rule in the second and third rule, and complicated statuses in between independence and full colonization make more sense than fighting a bloody war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link