Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:17 AM   #11
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: you kiddings right
Posts: 214

Slowed decolonization down by at least 2 decades due to the French(and to a lesser extent a few others) being justified or feeling so in bashing South east asia and then Africa.

Neither of which would have been allowed on the coldest days in hell in the league of nations.
Cyan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:21 AM   #12

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

The US passed a law in 1936 that declared that the Philippines should be made ready for independence by 1946. Despite the invasion by the Japanese we stuck to that schedule.

We did retain our largest colony, Canada.
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:25 AM   #13
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: you kiddings right
Posts: 214

Without WW2, Phili would have been independent by around 1944 to 1946, thanks to WW2 it was around 1955 or so when the guerilla war started to die down.

Declaring victory and going home does not constitute independence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukbalahap_Rebellion
Cyan is offline  
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:30 AM   #14

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyan View Post
Without WW2, Phili would have been independent by around 1944 to 1946, thanks to WW2 it was around 1955 or so when the guerilla war started to die down.

Declaring victory and going home does not constitute independence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukbalahap_Rebellion
Depends on how you define independence then.
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:36 AM   #15
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: you kiddings right
Posts: 214

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
Depends on how you define independence then.
The lack of strong organized military forces inside the country that are of the opinion that the country should not be independent, regardless of the loyality of the outside force.
Cyan is offline  
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:41 AM   #16

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyan View Post
The lack of strong organized military forces inside the country that are of the opinion that the country should not be independent, regardless of the loyality of the outside force.
Hyperfocused, I see. Have fun with that.
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:41 AM   #17
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: you kiddings right
Posts: 214

Quote:
The Huks decided to go back to the mountains and their guerrilla lifestyle as a response to supposed maltreatment by the government. They staged a rebellion against the Philippine Government when it became clear that the repression will not stop unless all former Huk soldiers and supporters were rounded up.
This for example, is not independence, its occupation by a foreign power that was able to evict the supporter of one of the local powers, nothing more. The independence for Phili's began roughly in 1955's or so, roughly the same time that Global Communism was losing its appeal.

But that whole part with the Carthy trials is one of those things that defines a country's idea of independence.
Cyan is offline  
Old July 8th, 2015, 05:37 AM   #18

Gaius Julius Civilis's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2015
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 906

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
WW1 had no role in creating national awareness in India. The Partition of Bengal in 1905 was one of the early factors of anti-British resistance and the resistance against partition of Bengal was so intense Britain had to revoke it in 1911 and shifted the Capital to Delhi from Calcutta(Delhi lost its glory after the suppression of 1857 Rebellion). Also, Indian National Congress over the time too became anti-British since its foundation in 1885.

Infact, after world war 1, Britain imposed the notorious Rowlatt Act to suppress dissidents and the Jallianwalabagh Massacre(also called Amritsar Massacre) was the result of this only.
Perhaps not so much national awareness in the case of India as was the case in other parts of the empire, but I understand it did create a strong Indian movement for more self-government.

"The First World War would prove to be a watershed in the imperial relationship between Britain and India. Shortly prior to the outbreak of war, the Government of India had indicated that they could furnish two divisions plus a cavalry brigade, with a further division in case of emergency. Some 1.4 million Indian and British soldiers of the British Indian Army took part in the war, primarily in Iraq and the Middle East. Their participation had a wider cultural fallout as news spread how bravely soldiers fought and died alongside British soldiers, as well as soldiers from dominions like Canada and Australia. [... ] Back in India, especially among the leaders of the Indian National Congress, the war led to calls for greater self-government for Indians."

"In the 1916 Lucknow session of the Congress, Tilak's supporters were able to push through a more radical resolution which asked for the British to declare that it was their, "aim and intention ... to confer self-government on India at an early date." Soon, other such rumblings began to appear in public pronouncements: in 1917, in the Imperial Legislative Council, Madan Mohan Malaviya spoke of the expectations the war had generated in India, "I venture to say that the war has put the clock ... fifty years forward ... (The) reforms after the war will have to be such, ... as will satisfy the aspirations of her (India's) people to take their legitimate part in the administration of their own country."

"In 1916, in the face of new strength demonstrated by the nationalists with the signing of the Lucknow Pact and the founding of the Home Rule leagues, and the realisation, after the disaster in the Mesopotamian campaign, that the war would likely last longer, the new Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, cautioned that the Government of India needed to be more responsive to Indian opinion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...C_Lucknow_Pact

I actually don't know that much about your country's history and whether the British develivered on their promises, but the war definitely served as a catalyst in the changing relations between London and India. Would there have been a Lucknow Pact in 1916 without it?
Gaius Julius Civilis is offline  
Old July 8th, 2015, 01:23 PM   #19

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 12,089
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
We did retain our largest colony, Canada.
Canada isn't a U.S. colony, though.
Futurist is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
decolonization, impact, lack, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Lack of German Territorial Losses in the West After World War II Futurist European History 24 October 24th, 2015 11:20 AM
Geography and its impact on the colonisation of the new world the habsburgs of prague Natural Environment 31 March 26th, 2014 12:37 AM
What Revolution do you think had the most impact in world history ? Corto Maltese General History 25 March 21st, 2012 10:00 AM
Impact of Colonization/Decolonization of South Africa on current day South Africa? iMax History Help 0 October 24th, 2011 06:13 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.