The fact that this giant list of historical inaccuracies and ridiculous counterfactuals got any daps at all says a lot about this thread.
The only thing I know about this war is a movie I saw on Amazon of them fighting in the mountains, but Wikipedia states India recovered all of its territory
en.m.wikipedia.org
If you are completely ignorant on the subject, then why comment? You're 100% wrong, nowhere in that link does it say India recovered all of its territory, because it didn't. It just recovered back to the previous LINE OF CONTROL. The Line of Control runs right through the middle of Kashmir, India didn't recover the Pakistan-held territory (which Pakistan took in the First Kashmir War and the Bangladesh Liberation War) nor the Chinese-held territory (which China took in the Sino-Indian War).
India STILL doesn't have control of all its Kashmir territory - the Line of Control is exactly where it ended after Kargil:
In 1947, 65 per cent area of Jammu and Kashmir was under India's control. Today, only 45 per cent of princely state area is under its control.
www.indiatoday.in
Since the previous line of control before this war was at Crimea, then ending the war at the Crimean border would be the exact analogy to what happened at Kargil.
That reminds me of a second example that kills your claim - the Bangladesh Liberation War. After Pakistan pre-emptively attacked India and gained significant ground in part of Kashmir, India started kicking their ass and taking far more ground across other sections of the LOC....but when Pakistani forces surrendered in Bangladesh, India not only stopped advancing in Kashmir but actually GAVE BACK large sections of the land it had taken as a goodwill gesture to try to maintain peace.
Since that war involved three nations, over a million soldiers, resulted in ~100,000 casualties and nearly 100,000 POWs, I hope it counts as big enough for some people.
The terms of the armistice that ended World War 1 and the treaty of Versailles virtually guaranteed a 2nd conflict.
The demands placed on the German people were harsh enough to create enmity within the population but not harsh enough to prevent future ability to make war. The primary cause of German militarism was the Junker class of the Prussian aristocracy which were never completely enamored with Hitler but were supportive because he enabled their militaristic culture.
The Allies at the end of the war left much of Germany’s social, political and military structure in tact. If you notice most of the high command of the Nazi’s had names like Von Manstein, Von Block, Von Kluge, Von Rundstedt, Von Kleist etc. Von is an aristocratic designation.
There is a reason the 2nd go around the Allies made no mistakes and abolished Prussia as a political entity and abolished the Junker class. This not Hitler was the source of German militarism.
To put it simply the allies did not go far enough in World War 1. A complete occupation and dismantling of German social and political structures largely geared towards making war (Prussia was one of the few states that existed to make war in history outside of maybe Sparta), and purging of the aristocracy would’ve prevented World War 2. Which is exactly what they did in 1945.
Now we can’t go into Russia and so the same, but what Ukraine can do is remove Russia from their territory and purge the Donbas and Crimea of the social and political structures that allowed themselves to be usurped by Russian militarism.
Half measures will only lead to more conflict down the road.
lol - you're just proving what I said. The measures taken against Germany were MORE punitive, by far, than anything that is going to be done to Putin. So by your own definition, what you're saying needs to be done to Russia is an ultimate "half measure".
This is why I can't take these takes seriously - you're just picking shyt at random to support your views even if it does the exact opposite. World War 1 is perfect proof that a war ISN'T the end-all people are claiming it is, proof that kicking someone completely out of your territory militarily ISN'T some magic bullet to prevent future conflict, and that you have no reason to think the thing you want to do to Putin is going to work in the long term at all.....and yet not only are you ignoring all that,
you're actually trying to use it to prove your claim that war works when it clearly didn't.
These are all examples of Empires on their way out. The British empire was on its death door and did not have the political, social or military will to administer its colonial possessions. The USA was pressuring Britain, France, Netherlands etc to renounce its colonial possessions and join the American led liberal order. The British had crushed numerous Indian rebellions previously, if Ghandi was born in 1860 he would’ve been dealt with like numerous other Indian, Irish, and African intellectuals.
LOL - what complete bullshyt. Gandhi was born in 1869, so obviously no, the British weren't able to kill him. This is absolute proof you have no fukking clue what you are talking about.
Since you didn't realize that Gandhi was born in the 1860s, you're probably unaware that Gandhi had already been fighting major civil rights battles with nonviolent resistance in British South Africa in the 1890s and 1900s. You know, that nice friendly British South African government that was crushing the Zulus and crushing the Boer at the exact same time. Yet he wasn't killed like you claimed he would be, eh?
When Gandhi started his Indian agitations in 1915, the British empire was not on its "death door", and no one was pressuring Britain to renounce it's colonial possessions. Nor does that describe them in 1919 during the reaction to the Amritsar Massacre that you replied to. Nor does that describe Britain in 1931 when they were forced to sign the Gandhi-Irwin Treaty, or in 1935-1937 when they were forced to hand over defacto internal political autonomy to Indian leaders. By the time independence was granted in 1947 the writing had already been on the wall for a decade - in fact if it hadn't been for Gandhi suspending the movement in 1940 because he didn't want to see India come to self rule "over the ashes of Britain", it likely would have happened even earlier.
Do you know how many other colonial British possessions gained independence in the 25 years before 1947? NONE of them. Not a single one. The few that tried, Britain easily crushed them. They easily crushed the minor armed rebellions attempted by Indian offshoots as well. And a full decade after Indian independence, they crushed the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya at the cost of over 10,000 lives. Claiming that Gandhi won because Britain was at death's door is total bullshyt - Gandhi's movement is what created the climate for other colonial possessions to gain their freedom as well
Similarly the Soviets were already collapsing internally when it’s territories broke away. The Hungarian and Polish workers tried similar non-violent resistance in the 50’s and 60’s and were crushed by tanks. The Tiananmen Square massacre was non-violent student protests that were destroyed with as much violence as possible because China was not a declining political power.
Non-violent resistance only works if the conditions are right for them. Usually an empire that is collapsing already.
Breh, that argument is even more true for violent resistance than it is for nonviolent resistance. If Russia had their shyt together than Ukraine wouldn't have had a fukking chance - they're ONLY winning this war because Russia is a dying superpower (as Obama announced a good 10 years ago) who has displayed extreme incompetence and top-to-bottom failure in every single stage of the war.
No one has ever claimed that nonviolent resistance is some sort of magic bullet that succeeds any way, every time. But in the vast majority of cases where nonviolent resistance would fail, violent resistance would fail too. Yet in a large number of cases where violent resistance would fail (or does fail), nonviolent resistance is successful. And nonviolent successes are on average far better than violent successes (fewer casualties and much more likely to lead to democratic government).
The data is out there, if you give a shyt.
Harvard Professor Erica Chenoweth discovers nonviolent civil resistance is far more successful in effecting change than violent campaigns.
news.harvard.edu
For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving t... | CUP
cup.columbia.edu
How long shall we allow Ukrainian territory to be Russian hands? 30 years? 50? 100? Also, if Putin keeps his conquests what examples does that set for the rest of the world? You can just take territories with no long term political repercussions?
Where did you invent this "no long term political repercussions" bullshyt? I said from the beginning on the conflict that the hardest possible sanctions on Russia should remain until they end the war and that Ukraine should not comply with Russian occupation, and that there were further steps they could continue to take in that direction to make it even worse. Claiming "30 50 100 years" is bullshyt, under their economic turmoil and incompetent leadership structure, they couldn't even hold an openly resisting Ukrainian population for two years - considering the utter lack of administrative capacity and domestic will for this bullshyt, maybe less than that. If Putin even lives that long.
You might claim I don't know that for sure - and you're right, I don't. Nor do you know how many lives this war will take or how long it will last, nor do you appear to care.
I think we all understand the sentiment. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr are taught in school.
lol at claiming anyone knows jack shyt about nonviolent resistance from high school. Brother legit said everyone knows what's going on cause
high school.
That pretty much sums up this thread. If you're talking any other field, then people expect you to have at least some knowledge and experience to be able to make definitive claims about it. But when warmongers shyt on nonviolent resistance they claim they don't actually need to have done any research at all in order to know definitively what will and will not work, and that all they need to be able to say that is a fukking casual mention of Gandhi in high school. And you expect me not to treat you dismissively when you say shyt like that.
You said with confidence that the British would have wiped Gandhi off the Earth if he had been born in the 1860s
without even realizing he was born in the 1860s.
