What If? Britain doesn't go Bankcrupt at end of WWII

Great Debates
41

[quote=“qpw3141, post:40, topic:550346”]

I never said that was the sole criteria. She/he had specifically mentioned the amount of violence in his/her response to me. I was responding to his/her use of that statistic as a factor in using the term “civil war.” Try and keep up on the thread.

This is pedantic silliness. It’s obvious how I was using the term “fraction.” I really think you are completely unable to understand that words have multiple meanings in the English language.

Blah, blah, blah. This isn’t even an argument. By stating that I wouldn’t personally classify this as a civil war, I was making it clear that I didn’t think my definition of civil war was definitive or the only one that could be used.

Yes, I do consider that the amount of bloodshed is a relevant factor in whether to classify something as a civil war. It’s not the only factor, but given that the post-Independence violence was basically unorganized mob violence which never controlled significant portions of the country for any meaningful period of time, given that there was a complete assymetry in fire power between the Indian government and the mobs, and given that the Indian government was never under serious threat of losing control of significant areas of the country for any period of time, and given that most of the mob violence didn’t have an organized political goals, yes, I don’t consider it a civil war. If you want to consider it one, feel free.

42

Silly! War & militarism are good for everything! Mussolini tells me this is right! [/snark]

No, yeah, unfortunately after WWII the USA became a world-dominating army with a pension fund. (Note–not just the government, the USA itself; not had, became.)

Now its government is a pension fund with a world-dominating army. The country is writing both off to some degree.

43

I’m still waiting for you to return to the other thread and tell me how my arguments are irrelevant.

44

I would say with respect to India, sans WWII, the British would have taken their Indianisation policy (actually started in 1906 with the Minto-Morley reforms) to their logical and desired conclusion. All power would have been transferred to elected provincial governments, with the exception of defence and foreign affairs. The idea was to nip the whole independeance issue in the bud, make most points moot and infructuous.

So they could say to the populace “freedom? Well you have responsible and representative govenment ruling you and being with us means a lot more influence globally etc etc etc”.

45

I don’t think this would have been feasible after the “Quit India” movement launched and after the RIN mutiny. It was just too far gone at that point. All political actors have to appeal to their domestic audiences, and failing to secure complete independence would have been crippling to the Congress Party.

Furthermore, I’m not sure how you are using the term “foreign affairs.” Traditionally, in British terms, this encompassed trade issues, and I just don’t see it being acceptable to the Indians to have trade issues controlled by the British.

46

Oh, I missed the part about “sans WWII.” Well, we’ll never know what would have happened without WWII, since the British did take a more repressive stance during the war, which helped to inflame the independence movement. But unless there was some way to work out trade issues, I’m not sure how successful such a devolution would have been.

47

Historically it was WWI and II which affected the transfer of power to the provinces; specifically the repressive attitude adopted during and in the aftermath of WWI. Without the wars or even with a more wise policy, it would have been a success. Remember British rule from 1860-1915 was popular, the British had for all their faults restored peace to South Asia after 150 years, and at least until the late 1930’s outright independance was rarely the stated agenda and never the desired obejctive of most parties.

As for trade issues, most leaders were interested in the status quo; using the Commonwealth market. After a while I suspect the center would have aquiesed to whatever the provinces wanted with respect to international trade, as happens in the modern states of India and pakistan today.

48

Well, by comparison to the rule of the British East India Company, it was definitely better, but the trade policy between Britain and India during the colonial period was fairly lopsided and was a thorny issue in relations. And the British were fairly resistant to the idea of devolution during the pre-1915 period (which led to the rise of the Garam Dal faction of the Congress Party, which was explicitly pro-independence). Furthermore, there was a lot of agitation about unfair labor and tenant farming practices on the part of British landlords and local zamindars. And, of course, there was the ruckus surrounding the 1905 Bengal partition. While the pro-independence view wasn’t as widespread during this period as it was later, I don’t know that it makes sense to characterize British rule as popular. Without polling data, I guess there’s no way to settle that, though, and I’m not aware of any polling data from this period.

British industry was making quite a lot of money off the trade and currency restrictions, so I don’t think it’s clear cut that the British could have acquiesced. It would have been quite a dicey political issue in Britain. And as for Indian businessmen, if you were successful, you were benefiting from the system, but it was a system that created bad economic incentives for industrialization on the subcontinent. Unless you are referring to the post-WWII Commonwealth market, which was decidedly less mercantalist, which might have been ok with the Indians.

49

But the amount of violence - at least once you start to get above hundreds killed - has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not something is a civil war.

Actually, it wasn’t. You said that a fraction of the population were involved when 1 million had died. If anyone were to call you on your lack of compassion or cold heartedness (I wonder if a million US citizens had been killed in civil fighting you would be so dismissive) you can turn around and say that you didn’t say it was a small fraction. Any real number is a fraction of any other real number. Unless you qualify ‘fraction’ you’re not saying anything.

So, are you now admitting that your definition - one that allows a million to be slaughtered and yet the fighting not be called a civil war - is pretty weird, if not downright stupid.

So, you consider that a situation where people are being killed by the hundreds of thousands and the army either cannot, or will not, take action to prevent that slaughter is not a civil war?

Just so long as we know.

50

I called the violence “horrific.” Calling something “horrific” doesn’t display a lack of compassion nor is it being dismissive. Anyone who is reading this thread can see that you are just making stuff up.

“Fraction” in this sense means a relatively small portion compared to the whole. Go look it up in any dictionary. And I really don’t know why you think your foolish quibbles with me over the use of the English language mean anything. You’ve demonstrated very clearly that you have a thin grasp of it.

Oh, seriously. Go pick up a political theory book sometime before you start quibbling over the definition of “civil war.” No, my definition is not stupid or weird. But your histrionic responses to me certainly are.

Yeah, just so you know, here’s one standard definition of the term “civil war”:

And here’s the 1949 Geneva Convention’s Article III definition of an “Armed Conflict not of International Character”:

This definition in often used as a definition for “civil war.” (See the previous Wiki article I linked to).

The post-Indian rioting does not meet the criteria under these definitions, so I don’t use the term “civil war” to describe it. And really, anybody with a passing grasp of world history wouldn’t bother to quibble over the definition I’m using. It might be better for you to avoid displaying your ignorance so flamboyantly in thread after thread.

51

That last sentence should read “post-independence” not “post-Indian”

52

Nope. ‘small fraction’ (for example) means that. ‘fraction’, used alone is sloppy and meaningless ** any** real number is a fraction of any other real number.

If you meant ‘small fraction’, why didn’t you just say that?.

Calm down.

Wiktionary: “A war fought between members of a single nation or similar political entity.”
OED2: "3. a. civil war, strife, troubles, etc.: such as occur among fellow-citizens or within the limits of one community.
Merriam Webster: “: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country”

Generally speaking, when two opposing factions kill a million of each others members it qualifies as a a war. :wink:

It isn’t so much my displaying ignorance as you picking one definition and insisting on sticking to it to the exclusion of any other accepted definitions.

53

Maybe you should stick to lecturing me about what the word “native” means. Oh, wait you don’t know that either. Go check a dictionary.

It’s obvious to everyone but you what I meant. If you don’t understand basic English constructs, that’s not my problem.

Right back at you. You constantly post in the most pompous and rude manner possible, and then try to throw the accusation onto other people. Look in a mirror.

Generally speaking, a civil war in political theory requires organized factions to be involved and for those factions to control territory.

Again, making stuff up. Do you really think you can just keep making stuff up when people can look back and see my posts? I clearly stated that I don’t think the definition I am using is the only one that can be used. You, in fact, are the one insisting I use your definition to the exclusion of all others. If you don’t like the definition I’m using, go take it up with the drafters of the Geneva Convention and the International Red Cross. I’ll go with the definition used by people who have actually studied conflicts, rather than somebody on the internet who doesn’t understand what the term “fraction” means.

54

And I can’t believe I actually have to do this: the definition of fraction:

55

I’ll use the same one as you use below.

  1. Mathematics .
    a. a number usually expressed in the form a/b.
    b. a ratio of algebraic quantities similarly expressed.
    a. a number usually expressed in the form a/b.
    b. a ratio of algebraic quantities similarly expressed.
  2. Chemistry . (in a volatile mixture) a component whose range of boiling point temperatures allows it to be separated from other components by fractionation.
  3. a part as distinct from the whole of anything; portion or section: The meeting started with a fraction of us present.

Your omitting the first three definitions, two of which support my contention, is downright dishonesty.

It was perfectly obvious to me what you were trying to say. My objection was that because you didn’t actually say anything in an unambiguous manner you had sneakily given yourself deniability: if anyone complained that 1/350th was not a small fraction when dealing in percentage of people murdered you could turn around and claim that you never said it was a small fraction.

Your definition of pompous and rude being that I don’t agree with you. :smiley:

There you go again.

Picking a definition and pretending that it’s the only definition. :rolleyes:

They don’t need to go back and read other posts. The post that this one quotes shows you continuing to insist that the only definition that we can use is the one with which you agree.

So you still act as though only the one you pick is valid. That isn’t the case.

No, I’m not. I’m just pointing out that you are using a somewhat specialised definition that make distinctions that not everyone does.

Ah, but I do know what a fraction is.

It appears that you are the one who doesn’t and will even stoop to dishonestly editing out the primary definitions to make it appear that the ones you use are the only ones applicable.

56

Editing out the first three definitions which confirm that a fraction is exactly what I said it is is downright dishonest.

57

And when the dust settled after the partition slaughters over a couple of bloody years, Pakistan ended up 80% Muslim, 20% Non Muslim (Mostly Hindu, but with some Jainists, Zoroastrians, Sikhs and Christians - of the non European variety).

After partition India ended up with an estimated 13% Muslim population.

Fast forward 40 years to about 1990.

By this time, Pakistan - Land of the Pure - has driven out almost every non Muslim by means of government sponsored or government approved or government averting its eyes, terrorism so that it is now 99% Muslim, and the terrorism against the tiny number of non Muslims continues to this day.

As of 2010 India is about 20% Muslim.

58

I linked to the entire definition and started the numbering at number 4. That means that I made the entire information available to everyone, and they could easily infer from my own post that their were multiple definitions. Calling me dishonest when I’ve done nothing dishonest is a violation of board rules, and I’m reporting you.

Furthermore, as you seem to constantly miss, words in English can have more than one meaning. The construction I used is common in English and obvious. You have some weird ideas about English, but not everyone does, and nobody really cares what you think about the word “fraction” in a thread about British economic issues post-WWII.

So, it was perfectly obvious to you, but you started this needless hijack anyway? This is also a violation of board rules (although I’m not actually allowed to use the word for this in this forum). And if you wanted clarification, then you could have asked, rather than attempting to erroneously lecture me about English constructions which you don’t understand.

People who throw out terms such as “stupid” are pompous and rude.

:rolleyes: I have already made this very clear. If you want to call it a civil war, go ahead. See how that works? I have no problem with someone else calling it a civil war. I see no reason to call it a civil war, though, and I have thoroughly explained why. Since I am not insisting that you use the same definition, I am not pretending that it is the only definition.

More making stuff up.

Maybe instead of constantly thinking that you know everything, you might actually try and learn something once in awhile. And you don’t have to point out that I’m using a specific definition, since I’ve already pointed it out myself. And it’s such a commonly used definition (most media organizations follow a definition along these lines) that I’m not even sure that it has to be pointed out.

If you can’t figure out that a list that starts at the number 4 might have a number 1, 2, and 3 attached to it in the link which I SUPPLIED, then again, that’s not my problem. However, I am reporting you. I’ve had enough of your behavior and your pointless hijack.

59

I’ve had about enough of this. I never claimed the definition you were using was not a definition. I correctly pointed out that the definition I was using was valid. And I did not do anything dishonest since I linked to the full definition and I clearly indicated that the definitions I supplied were part of a longer list. I’m reporting you to the moderators.

60

BrightNShiny and qpw3141, both of you are getting close to violating the rules of this forum and any more impolite remarks about stupidity, obstinacy or dishonesty will lead to warnings. It’s time for this hijack about fractions to end: both of you have made your positions understood even if they were not clear at first, so there is no point in nitpicking the wording of an old post. If you have a personal problem, start a thread in The BBQ Pit.