Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the Salt | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1930 Part 1 of 1

Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the Salt | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1930 Part 1 of 1


Without a regular supply of sodium chloride,
the main component of salt, you will die. See, when your blood sodium level falls below
a certain amount, you will go into a stupor, your muscles start twitching and spasming,
you get seizures, and then you then slip into a coma and die. Even just getting too little
salt will make you very sick, so when the British colonial masters have a state monopoly
on salt extraction in India, they are restricting one of the basic necessities of human life.
In April 1930 this makes one man, a peaceful lawyer and civil rights activist, decide to
resist an entire empire by taking a long walk. Welcome to Between-2-Wars, a chronological
summary of the interwar years, covering all facets of life, the uncertainty, hedonism,
and euphoria, and ultimately humanity’s descent into the darkness of the Second World
War. I’m Indy Neidell. With spoils of World War One, awarded to Great
Britain at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the British Empire reaches its peak in size
and population. For over a century it has already been the largest, richest, and most
powerful political entity that the world has ever seen. It now spans a quarter of Earth’s
land mass, and the sovereign of the United Kingdom is the head of state for 450 million
people, 23% of the world’s population, with subjects on every populated landmass of the
globe. The Empire is also armed to her teeth with a professional army and the most powerful
navy of all time – Britannia rules the waves, and a huge chunk of the world. But as the 1920s proceed this vast empire
is now also a changing empire. In our 1920 episode on carving up the Middle East, we
saw that Britain’s colonies and territories were still vital to its domestic economy while
also becoming increasingly troublesome. As the 1920’s roll on, Britain is, however,
able to hold onto its territories through a mixture of concession and repression. Nevertheless,
the ‘empire on which the sun never sets’ is maybe not yet declining, but it is undeniably
changing. It is one man in India who will embody the
challenges Britannia now faces, he is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, better known as Mahatma
Gandhi. Born to a poor family in India in 1869, he
managed to study law in London with financial support of an uncle. And then went to practice
law in South Africa, where over a period of 21 years he established himself as a fervent
activist for increased civil rights for the indigenous population. In 1915, he is asked
to return to India and join the movement for increased independence as the President of
the Indian National Congress, the political party striving for a peaceful path to self-rule. Now, India is a British colony which means
that it has much less autonomy than the more independent members of the Commonwealth, which
are called Dominions. These are the territories that have long had a large settler presence
in them and where institutions and forms of government have been set up along British
lines. These territories are Newfoundland, Canada,
New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa and the idea is that, while they are largely autonomous,
they all carry a strong sense of “Britannic nationalism”, a form of imperial patriotism
based on the idea of a “Commonwealth of Nations”, and solidarity between kith and
kin across the globe. Way back in 1858, William Gladstone, later British Prime Minister, captured
this idea when he declared that the aim of colonization “was to reproduce the likeness
of England…thereby contributing to the general happiness of mankind.” That is not quite the reality on the ground
though. Many Canadian settlers are of French descent, white South Africans are primarily
Boers of Dutch heritage, famously once at war with the English. The Irish who achieve
Dominion status in 1922, also after years of struggle and then war for independence,
are hardly enthusiastic about ‘Britannia’. Not to mention that in most places the settlers
are a ruling minority dominating much larger native populations with fewer rights or even
none at all. The situation in India is a bit different.
Here the vast native population dwarfs that of the British arrivals by a factor of many
times, and is by force a part of the administration, at least at the local level, which gives the
indigenous population hope for more rights by becoming a Dominion. In 1917, the ‘August
Declaration’ by secretary of state for India, Edwin Montagu, promises progress towards ‘responsible
government’. In 1918, Indian nationalists get another sliver of hope when India is admitted
to the Imperial Conference, a big step considering that it was previously for White Dominions
only. In 1919, the Government of India Act introduces
the idea of dual-rule, and gives Indian legislators control over things such as agriculture, sanitation,
and education. It’s not quite democracy yet though, as these legislators are chosen
by an electorate of indigenous landowners of a certain size, or about 10% of the adult
male population and 1% of the adult female. But that doesn’t really matter though, because
the process has already been derailed before it gets going. In parallel to the reforms,
British legislators in India extend wartime security measures to preempt any revolutionary
nationalist activity. Security forces can then detain suspects for one year without
trial. Instead of curbing unrest, riots immediately flare up in response. The Army responds in
force and this culminates at Amritsar, Punjab, when on April 13, 1919 at a peaceful gathering
in the square of Jallianwala Bagh, thousands of unarmed Indians are shot at by troops under
the command of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer. The shooting lasts for 10 minutes, from
a distance of only about 100 yards. The official death toll is 379, other sources cite as many
as 1,600 killed. The massacre alienates the moderate nationalists,
and Gandhi breaks off all negotiations with the British government, declaring it to be
a ‘satanic regime’. He now launches a non-cooperation campaign that gains a mass
following. It is a program for self-sufficiency. They boycott elections, British schools, British
goods, and British courts, challenging the Raj at every level. In September the Indian
National Congress officially sanctions it with the aim of bringing ‘swaraj’ (self-rule)
in one year. But by January 1922 little progress has been
made, so the National Congress calls for increased civil disobedience, including the refusal
to pay taxes. Things quickly turn violent, and Gandhi is forced to call off the campaign
already in February after rioters in the town of Chauri Chaura set fire to a police station,
killing 22 officers inside. Gandhi is jailed soon after, his movement loses momentum, and
by 1923 mainstream political opinion in India has drifted back to an acceptance of moderate
constitutional reform. Meanwhile it is the Dominions that are demanding
more autonomy, just when Britain has realized how much it depends on its Empire. The war had clearly shown the British government
how essential these territories are, and it is also clear that they will be needed again
should another war happen. And it is not only the need for military support which the Great
War has driven home. Growing competition from the much more modernized economies of countries
such as the United States means Britain is increasingly relying on imperial trade to
aid its post-war recovery. There’s a problem though, you see economic nationalism in the
Dominions, and their autonomous constitutional systems means that Britain lacks the legal
and political avenues to create an imperial network of trade under its own control. British officials realize that their only
option is to encourage voluntary economic cooperation, and The Empire Marketing Board
is established in 1926. Tasked with “bringing the empire alive”, the Board produces vibrant
posters encouraging consumers in both British and Dominion markets to buy Empire-produced
goods. They have spiffy slogans like “Buy Empire Everyday” or “From Christmas to
Christmas May Empire Trade Increase” Radio programs celebrate Empire and cover events
such as imperial exhibitions and royal addresses to colonial listeners. So, the war may have brought home how much Britain
needs its Dominions, but it has also furthered a sense of nationalism within the Dominions
themselves. By 1910, they had become self-governing in
their domestic politics, with Ireland joining the fold in 1922, and they are now all pushing
for further independence. The trauma of the war, and the slaughter on battlefields such
as Passchendaele and Gallipoli, has made many question how Britannic they want to be. As
historian Jay Winter tells us, “the men who returned from the field were less British
than those who had gone off to fight. The tie to Britain was still there, though palpably
and permanently transformed.” The Dominion governments now make it clear
that they have no wish to become embroiled in another unnecessary European war. During
the Turkish War for independence, Churchill, who at this point heads the colonial office,
calls on Dominion military aid to protect British post-Ottoman interests, but he is
promptly rebuked and met with refusal by Canada’s Prime Minister. Continued appeals for Dominion
contributions to imperial defense also repeatedly fall on deaf ears. It all comes to a head at the 1926 Imperial
Conference, where a committee led by Lord Balfour defines the constitutional status
of the Dominions. They declare that the Dominions are to be “autonomous Communities within
the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect
of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown,
and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” The wording is
a delicate compromise between the needs of the Empire and the desires of the Dominions,
though the Dominions are now effectively sovereign states and can be as independent as they want
to be. When Britain declared war in 1914, all of its empire was automatically involved,
but in future Britain cannot fall back on its Dominions by default should it find itself
in another major conflict. And it is this freedom and sovereignty that
the people of the Indian subcontinent are after too. After the collapse of the first passive resistance
campaign, the Indian National Congress is more fragmented compared to the unity of 1919
and 1920. This is good for Britain who remain reluctant to give greater autonomy to India.
To begin with it would break some of the cultural taboos surrounding what races are able and
unable to rule themselves. But direct rule over India is also necessary should any conflict
in Asia break out. Its huge population provides a vast pool of labor and military resources
already present on the continent. It is a massive market for Britain’s industrial
products and the receiver of huge injections of investments and loans. Imperial leaders
have long recognized this. In 1901, Viceroy Curzon stated that “As long as we rule in
India…we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it we shall drop straight away
to a third rate power”. In 1930 Churchill declares that “The loss of India…would
be final and fatal to us…The British Empire would pass at stroke out of life and into
history”. The British see the gradual constitutional
movement as a good way to keep the independence movement working on their terms. In February
1928, Sir John Allsebrook Simon, is sent to India to set up a commission to review
the Government of India Act of 1919 and investigate further reform. The commission is pretty controversial;
it has no Indian members, and both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League boycott
its findings and organize mass protests against it. Still, in August, a joint declaration
of the Indian independence parties reaffirms that India should hold Dominion status within
the British Empire. They are given further hope in October 1929 when the Viceroy, Lord
Irwin, declares that Dominionhood is the intended outcome. And yet, things seem to be again
sliding out of British control. The global economic recession is also hitting
India, and another wave of nationalist violence spreads across India. Mainstream political
nationalists also now switch back to activism. In December 1929, the Congress, under the
leadership of the more radical Jawaharlal Nehru, authorizes a renewed Civil Disobedience
Movement for complete independence. It is Gandhi that turns this into a movement
that will send ripples throughout the Empire and the rest of the world. Under the India
Salt Act of 1882, there is a British monopoly on the collection and manufacturing of salt.
So even in regions by the sea, where you can technically just collect your salt yourself,
which people have been doing so for thousands and thousands of years, Indians now have to
buy their salt from the British. There is also a tax on salt sales so that revenues
from the salt monopoly make up from 4 to 9% of the Raj’s income. The British administration fails at first
to understand that a purely administrative matter like this is an explosive target for
protest, but Gandhi is certain that he has picked the right target. You see, to animate
the people he needs something that matters to all of the people, especially the poor.
And since you can’t live without salt, this is the one. On March 12, 1930, Gandhi and
78 followers begin a 200 mile march from the banks of the Sabarmati river to Dandi. Along
the way Gandhi collects salt form the sea, encourages others to do so, and holds public
addresses. When he arrives at Dandi on April 6, he once again collects salt, and has set
in motion a wave of civil disobedience of massive proportions. Across India, Gandhi’s followers of non-violent
resistance, the satyagrahis now march to collect salt on the shores of Bengal, Orissa, Madras,
Andhra, and Kerala. Gandhi declares that “Salt in the hands of satyagrahis, represents the
honor of the nation. It cannot be yielded up, except to force that will break the hand
to pieces” and the movement is now gaining a mass following. Widespread boycotts of British goods follow,
with the import of foreign cloth falling from 160 million to 48 million yards. The British
soon crack down, and both Nehru and Gandhi are arrested. In May, 2500 volunteers march
to the Dharsana Salt Works in a non-violent raid, they face brutal police assaults. Overall,
60,000 Satyagrahis are arrested in this first phase of the movement, which fails to produce
definite results, but has two major effects. First of all, it creates widespread foreign
support for the Indian independence movement as Gandhi’s Salt March is in headlines and
newsreels all over the world. Gandhi becomes what he remains in 2019; a worldwide symbol
for passive resistance against oppression – Time Magazine makes him man of the year
1930. Second of all, these images of one man draped only in cloth simply walking and collecting
salt in defiance of the greatest power on the planet, broadcasts to the world that the
British Empire might not be as invincible as everyone thought. It also sends a shockwave to the British Government;
can it continue to rely on its Empire as an economic and military guarantee? And this can’t come at a worse time. You
see, Great Britain has kinda painted itself into a corner. In 1921 she broke off her alliance
with the Japanese Empire, who was flexing its muscles in the Pacific. They are also
at loggerheads with the Americans, who are calling for Britain to reduce its Naval strength
to be on a par with its own. In fact, in 1928, Anglo-American relations are so low that British
Acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Cushenden, declares that “war is not
unthinkable between the two countries. On the contrary, there are present all the factors
which in the past have made wars between states.” Britain is being pushed and pulled from all
over the place Its Naval supremacy is being challenged and
the territories which supported her in the last war are looking increasingly insecure.
Loyalty to the motherland is still strong in many Dominions, but this is tempered by
a reluctance to enter another massive war, with no legal force compelling them to do
so if it should break out. Now, imagine if some of her European neighbors should soon
rise up and challenge the world by starting renewed aggressive expansion into other sovereign
nations, will the greatest power in the world still be able to stand up to that like she
did in 1914, or will she see no other way out than appeasement?

100 thoughts on “Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the Salt | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1930 Part 1 of 1

  1. LIVESTREAM Sunday 18 August, 20:00 PM CET
    Next week, we will air our 52nd weekly episode of our World War Two series, marking exactly one year since the war broke out and we started covering it. We would love to reflect on the past year together with you all, as well as look at what lies ahead of us. We will of course also be answering many of your questions. Make sure to tune in on our World War Two channel on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/c/worldwartwo) at 20:00 CET (GMT+1) next Sunday 18 August to chat with Indy, Spartacus, Astrid and the rest of the TimeGhost team!

  2. Relations between the United States, and Britain where so low. That both countries drew up war plans….
    The U.S. government even looked towards Germany for a allie.

  3. >Britain in 1930
    >Still taxes people without representation
    Some countries never learn from their mistakes.

  4. Gandhi NEVER 'fought" for "Native Rights" in South Africa! Ghandi like most Indian Hindus HATED native Africans in fact Gandhi championed "Ayran" settlement and dispossession of Native africans he boasted about helping the "Ayran" race to take South African land away from the natives he was what most ppl nowadays would call an "Uncle Tom" but in his case he was what they called a "WOG" a butlicker, he help to fight against the Zulus in the British Indian army! It's only after he was kicked off the Train he became an "Indian nationalist" etc

  5. I love the stiff upper lip ending! Good job with this episode. I can see where things are headed… hindsight notwithstanding. 😛

  6. In this day and age in kinda surprised you didnt mention the fact he was known to be oncredibly racist towards especially africans. If you guys do not believe me, look up some of his letters. He uses some "unsavory" (thats a nice way to put it) words to describe africans. Not that any of this discredits his amazing contributions as he was a man of his time so to say and that was a pretty widespread opinion

  7. What about the French Colonies and dominions during the 1920's and 1930's. Did the French reach it's peak, where their resistance against the French since their empire grow a little after the Great War.

  8. Ah I got it. I truly loved reading 4 of the 6 books of the Asian saga during my 3 month imprisonment were I learned some fiction or not about that side of the world.
    Ah I read some what in Noble House that they where happy finally when they got rid of Winston Church Hill and well I'd be dead or exousted after him truly.

  9. It's funny that Winston Church Hill would claim that the lose of India would effect Thur empire that way yea.

  10. Tiny tiny objection:, If you want to say it like a Newfie, it aint " Newfundlund", it's "Newfundland", rhymes with "understand". Ready? Understand Newfundland ! Why they taught us all the wrong way growing up I'll never get! Many riotously funny people there, and one of these days I'll get to the place! In the thirties they were actually in very bad shape, Dominion or not, some places had a 30% infant mortality!  Many many thanks for the superb work y'all are doing! So very much to learn! All the very best!

  11. Wow, the way you put it showed that appeasement might have been the only way the British Empire would still survive. And indeed, it fell some years after the war ended.

  12. 2:38 he wasn't born to a poor family but a middle class family. His father was a clerk. Being poor in India would have made it infinitely harder for him to become a lawyer never mind going to South Africa (except maybe as a coolie or indentured laborer)

  13. at 2:54 you claim he was brought in as the "President of the Indian National Congress" . Here is a list of presidents of the INC : https:/ /en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Indian_National_Congress . Gandhi was only president for ONE YEAR and that was in 1924, but Gandhi returned to India and had already raised mass movements in Champaran before that in 1917 .

  14. You missed out Lord Ripon's self governing reforms which have since evolved into panchayati raj. This was the first big effort at self governance in India.

  15. In re the Chauri Chaura incident. 228 were arrested for rioting, 6 died in custody and 172 were sentenced to death.

  16. The Indian economy powered 50% of the Imperial GDP in 1870, which declined to about 37% by the 1930s. During the war, Indian jute was crucial for the war. Calcutta was the economic nerve center of the British Raj, and arguably for its entire Asian holding.

  17. The first 'peaceful' national movement for independence was the Home Rule movement which happened simultaneously with the 1st World War and was initiated by an Irish woman, Annie Besant, who was the then president of the Congress Party.

  18. The most important person in 1929 was not Gandhi or Nehru, but Bhagat Singh who was a revolutionary socialist. His action had captured the imagination of the populace and forced the congress to come out of its inertia and take action. This was especially the case with the younger members of the Congress who opposed the moderate leadership of the Congress. Gandhi had been sliding further towards the moderate side of the Congress. 1930 was the last mass movement led and controlled by the Congress, before independence.

  19. The world was at it's absolute best when Britain both had it's empire, and the testicular fortitude to keep it.

  20. Whilst the British Empire had an enormous Navy, it's Army was remarkably small. The Empire relied less on the constant application of force and more on a carrot and stick diplomatic approach to maintain it's territorial claims.

  21. I wish I had seen the world of the 1920s British Empire. I would have loved to have travel it as it was. Seen a less fair but perhaps less jaded world. I'm sure it would have been beautiful nonetheless. You could get places in a reasonable amount of time but you still had to have a little patience.

  22. 2:40 this is incorrect.
    Ghandi was not a civil rights activist when it came to the native African population of South Africa.
    His problem with apartheid was not that it existed in the first place. He took issue with the fact the Indians were put on the same level as blacks. He felt that Indians, like the British and unlikely the natives, were a civilized people. And therefore deserved to be above the black population in status.

  23. all food contains small amounts of salt. theres no need to add salt to food for survival. The British wern't restricting an essential life requirement. They were just trying to make money by monopolizing the salt trade in india

  24. As an Indian….. I can confirm that this is absolutely accurate! The level of research here is amazing…..good job guys!

  25. Gandhi has been massively over-rated.. it's worth remembering that he wanted India to be a "village" based nation for Hindus.. his ardent views drove the other religions to separate and call for partition. his simple lifestyle and dress garnered sympathy, but he would have kept India in a medieval state little different from that of the Moghul empire days. In 1942 he was interned ( in a palace ) for advocating Indians do not fight the Japanese.. his policies would have found little support among Japanese conquerors – unlike the British . they would simply have executed him …. but thanks to the movie, made in India with an overly rose-tinted spectacles biopic – he's a saint.

  26. You open your video with a wrong statement. Humans do not need extra salt beyond that is found regular food. I personally stopped adding salt to my food over a year ago and I better than before and is never going back. Salt adds taste to the food and you kind of become dependent on it as without it food taste blend. Once you get used to the natural taste you would not like salt taste any longer.

  27. From an Indian,
    Gandhi is no longer considered a hero in our country. He was a British stooge. He was a selfish guy who ultimately divided our country. He, along with the British and the devil Nehru and Jinnah, brainwashed the illiterate muslims of India to such an extent that ultimately resulted in the division of our country. Nehru and Jinnah were the most devilish of all creatures. Nehru is the most selfish and disgusting Prime Minister our country has ever seen. He created the Kashmir problem. Indian National Congress is no longer considered a nationalist party. Its intentions are sinister. It doesn't even respect our ancient heritage Vedic texts, which are adorned by the world over. Our country's only hero is Netaji Shubhash Chandra Bose, who achieved the unity of the entire subcontinent and went on to form Azad Hind Fauz with the help of the Axis power Japan. Together, they had thrown out the British from one of our provinces and formed an independent government in Kohima in 1945, unofficially becoming our first Prime Minister of Independent India.
    If you truly want Indian viewers to watch your show and win our hearts, please make videos on Netaji and Bhagat Singh. These are our real heroes, and not the devilish Gandhi and Nehru.

  28. Although Gandhi wasn't an advocate for the rights of indigenous people in South Africa – his activist efforts were aimed at helping the Indian minority living there. Gandhi was contemptuous of Africans. I won't repeat some of his quotes here, but you can look them up and probably be shocked at how racist they are.

  29. a shame that only 40 years later, it will be infested with the ideology of the enemy, rendering it unable to continue it's greatness

  30. Wow the fact that u mentioned Jalianwalabagh massacre surprised me. Most sources try to shy away from it. In fact, the poet Rabindranath Tagore actually refused his knighthood to protest this incident. While I have serious doubts about the claims that Gandhi was reason the Brits ultimately left India, his early actions were pretty great

  31. One thing, Gandi didn't advocate for the indigenous people's rights in South Africa. He advocated right for Indians in the territory. He was actually very prejudiced against the native black population.

  32. Gandhi's "The Story of my Experiments with Truth" makes a great read-and an effective counter to Churchill's otherwise excellent historian writings, which are tainted by the rose tinted glasses of Imperialist prejudice. I recommend reading both men, while keeping in mind they are, Gandhi and Churchill, highly partisan; the one an unrepentant racist and white supremacist*, and the other determined to advance the cause of people of color everywhere . . . especially in India. Here's Gandhi's book:
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/gandhi/

    W. Churchill was a firm believer in the "White Man's Burden" myth, which I urge you, one and all, to read up on. It is racist tripe of the lowest order.

    And a quote from World War One: "Well, If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it."

  33. Great Britain wasn't "armed to the teeth". In naval terms it was – until the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty saw naval dominance being conceded to America and Japan as Britain couldn't afford that, due to the mountainous financial debt of Britain caused by WW1.

    Militarily, Great Britain ALWAYS had a very small army for the most powerful country in the world from 1815 – 1918 (WW1 saw a 4 year exception, but was quickly curtailed from late 1918). Great Britain had colonial military forces that were essentially a colonial gendarmerie.

    World War One saw total deaths for Britain, its Empire and Commonwealth running to 953,104. Britain, by itself, sustained 744,000 of those deaths. World War Two saw Britain sustaining 383,700 deaths and its Imperial and Dominion countries sustaining a combined total of 196,000. The white British dead of the World Wars are never emphasised – how many could quote those figures? Do we really never forget? How can we if we have never been told? Clearly the lion’s share of death dealt to the British Empire in both World Wars was shouldered by Great Britain itself. Although the gap narrows markedly in World War Two, it is still wide enough.

  34. England has been for India and most of its colonies throughout Africa and Asia what Turkey has been for the Balkan Peninsula, Spain has been for Latin American natives and the USA has been for the North American natives, East Asian nations and pretty much the whole planet today: the black pest.

  35. Legal is not LAW. It’s illegal to use a legal name. Game over Crown Corporation… Read/Share #BCCRSS

    <<legaldeathcult-dot-wordpress-dot-com >>

  36. You showed a picture of Louis Riel and his Metis council in what is now Manitoba, circa 1869-70. This was not French Canada. That would have been almost exclusively represented by the province of Quebec.

    Louis Riel and the Metis were of mostly French and Canadian Plains Indian background. Others were of British (mostly Scottish) and Canadian Plains Indian background and were then known as half-breeds.

    In any event, your picture was only representative of French speaking Westerners of the 1860s through 1880s, a time you no doubt now understand was well before even WW1! So it had no real effect on Canadian foreign policy of the early and mid 20th century. Canada only received the right to control its own foreign policy in 1931 through the Statute of Westminster, an act of the British Parliament. So, in 1939 Canada displayed its independence by waiting until September 10 to declare war on Germany and thus entering WW2. ;p

    Canadians retained British passports until 1947, after which we issued our own.

  37. According to the classic BBC Sit-com Yes, Minister, the title of J.B. are the highest Honours awarded by the British. J.B. means Jailed by the British.

  38. Timing of releasing this video was perfect – 15 August : Indian Independence Day.
    Great video btw , Indy sir!

  39. Was Gandhi a racist ? I mean…the whole caste system was fundamentally racist. Gandhi was in favor of the caste system. So…

  40. Here are some interesting quotes from Ghandi regarding black people from his time in South Africa.

    “The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs [derogatory term used to describe black people in South Africa].”

    "Your Petitioner has seen the Location intended to be used by the Indians. It would place them, who are undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs, in close proximity to the latter.”

  41. Sorry but I think you are overplaying the status of the British Empire at the end of the the first world war as it was nearly bankrupt and as treaties like the Washington treaty showed could not exercise even naval dominance anymore and the young ruling elite had been destroyed during ww1.

  42. Just one thing to point out. When you list the British Dominions and refer to Newfoundland, you labelled Nova Scotia instead. Cheers

  43. The United States simply took over the British empire when Britain could no longer sustain it. USA took over all of the British naval bases across the world.
    Now you can see the USA can no longer sustain the empire. Will the Chinese take over next? Probably.

  44. The USA should have supported the British empire after WW2 in order to stop communism. Communist pushed into the newly freed colonies & flooded the third world with weapons.
    Rhodesia South Africa are all doing worse now than when they were colonies.
    A former president of Zambia said "We want the Europeans back. At least they treat us well & built infrastructure. The CHINESE are simply here to exploit us."
    The USA was wrong to be anti colonial. Slow gradual Independence would have taken place. the communist movements should have been opposed.

    I would love to see a series about decolonization. That would be interesting.

  45. I wonder what would have happened to Gandhi, Nehru, and their followers if the Germans or Russians had been running India in the 1920s and 30s. By comparison, the British were Boy Scouts.

  46. I'm sorry but you should say that he was fervently racist against black people. He was not a civil rights activist for indigenousblack people when he was in africa. He wanted to elevate the indian 'race' to the same status as the 'white race', he didn't want to elevate the blacks, he regarded them as less than equals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *