You're so insanely full of shyt. India did NOT recover all of its territory after Kargil. Why are you pushing an outright lie?
You posted the Kargil War first. The line that had been established for decades prior was recaptured. The Kashmir matter as been settled in an uneasy truce for over 70 years. Indian claims to Kashmir are not a settled certainty like Ukraines claims over its territory and the whole of Kashmir was never under Indian or Pakistani possession.
Again this is not something you can use to support your argument as it has little similarities to a country being invaded and not pushing out its attacker completely with military superiority.
Even if you were able to find an instance it’s a anomaly and not something you can base real world geopolitics around.
Just a quick rundown of some of the most obvious lies this time around:
* All the bullshyt deflections you spun about Gandhi were just meant to cover that you made up the ridiculous false claim that Gandhi would have been slaughtered if he had been born in the 1860s without realizing that he WAS born in the 1860s. This is one of the clearest examples of what I'm complaining about in this thread: that you don't know jack shyt about what you're talking about, yet want to make definitive declarations of what would happen historically. How can you claim that knowledge when you don't even know the basic facts?
I don’t think I ever claimed to be an expert in every area of history. So you are texting angrily for me admitting that I don’t know much about the Indo-Pakistan wars, yet you are also angry at me for a perceived era in Ghandi’s birth year that I didn’t make, thus I am “claiming knowledge without knowing basic facts?”
Are you ok?
* Your characterization of his actions in the Zulu War were bullshyt. Gandhi supported the Zulu cause in the war and refused to fight for the British, but believed that he could work them to prove that Indians and Black Africans deserved citizenship as much as White men did. So he organized a mixed Indian/Black ambulance crew that primarily saved ZULU lives who the White nurses were refusing to help, and he spoke strongly after the war about the strength and courage of the Zulu and their absolute unjust treatment from the British. Your slander on that front is incredible.
The South African Gandhi focuses on Gandhi's first leadership experiences and the complicated man they reveal—a man who actually supported the British Empire. Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed unveil a man who, throughout his stay on African soil, stayed true to Empire while showing a disdain for Africans. For Gandhi, whites and Indians were bonded by an Aryan bloodline that had no place for the African. Gandhi's racism was matched by his class prejudice towards the Indian indentured. He persistently claimed that they were ignorant and needed his leadership, and he wrote their resistances and compromises in surviving a brutal labor regime out of history. The South African Gandhi writes the indentured and working class back into history.
The authors show that Gandhi never missed an opportunity to show his loyalty to Empire, with a particular penchant for war as a means to do so. He served as an Empire stretcher-bearer in the Boer War while the British occupied South Africa, he demanded guns in the aftermath of the Bhambatha Rebellion, and he toured the villages of India during the First World War as recruiter for the Imperial army. This meticulously researched book punctures the dominant narrative of Gandhi and uncovers an ambiguous figure whose time on African soil was marked by a desire to seek the integration of Indians, minus many basic rights, into the white body politic while simultaneously excluding Africans from his moral compass and political ideals.
About the authors
Ashwin Desai is Professor of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg.
Goolam Vahed is Associate Professor of History at the University of KwaZulu Natal.[/]
In the pantheon of freedom fighters, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has pride of place. His fame and influence extend far beyond India and are nowhere more significant than in South Africa. India gave us a Mohandas, we gave them a Mahatma, goes a popular South African refrain. Contemporary South...
www.sup.org
Second Boer War (1899 – 1902). On Apr. 18, 1900: “I need hardly say that, as soon as war was declared, irrespective of their opinions as to the justness or otherwise of the war, the Indians to a man made up their minds to give their humble support to the British Government during the crisis.” [CWMG, Vol. 2, p. 353]
Bambatha Rebellion (1906). On Nov. 18, 1905: “If the Government only realised what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare… A very fine volunteer corps could be formed from Colonial-born Indians that would be second to none in Natal in smartness and efficiency.”
World War I (1914 – 1918). On June 17, 1918: “[Gandhi said] full assistance should be given in order to overthrow the Germans. He believed they could not preserve the country so long as they had no military traditions… He was ready to go to the war if the people would come forward… To receive military training was the stepping-stone to acquire Home Rule, and so each and every member of the Home Rule League should join.” [Vol. 17, p. 76] (Notes from Gandhi’s speech at Nadiad record these statements.)
World War II (1939 – 1945). On May 15, 1940: “I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.” [Vol. 78, p. 219] (Five days before, the horrific and very bloody Nazi invasion of France began.) Later that year, on Dec. 24, he began a letter to Hitler with “Dear Friend” and continued: “That I address you as a friend is no formality.” He then told the German leader: “We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” [Vol. 79, pp. 453-56]
To a young Ghandi the British Empire was an extension of his country and he only sought to elevate Indians within it. He became disillusioned by the true mechanizations of the empire as he grew older. However you trying to categorize his early exploits which were at worst servile and at best annoying to the local magistrates as some grand revolution that the mighty British Empire could not cope with is laughable.
* Gandhi's actions against Britain in South Africa came almost entirely BEFORE World War I, when Britain was at the height of their powers and generally at peace. Claiming that Gandhi only survived by being born a couple years too late was complete nonsense, you made that bullshyt up because when you started this conversation you had no idea when he was born and now you're juelzing.
So who gained their independence first? 5 million population Ireland or 500 million population India? Which one was through armed conflict?
* Gandhi's actions against Britain in India came almost entirely AFTER World War 1, when Britain wasn't "distracted" by anything. Let me quote from Crowley's review of Edgerton on the strength and wealth of the British nation and their war machine at the time: "Edgerton shows that Britain was a wealthy, confident nation who believed that victory against the Germans was assured. Drawing on contemporary archival material, he shows the confidence of senior politicians and the military from 1939–41. They frequently expressed the belief that victory for Britain would be assured. Central to this argument was Britain’s wealth – a factor that politicians believed would be the key to ensure victory, especially since Britain would have a larger military budget than the Germans with which to fight."
Who and what work are you quoting here?
Julian Jackson’s The Fall of France is probably the best recent work on the failure and political weaknesses/insularity of the British empire during this time. It’s very likely that some in Britain believes it could win a long drawn out war due to its command of the sea and superior industrial capacity but there is very little evidence that the British had the national determination for such a prolonged conflict until its defeat during the Battle of France.
Evidence for this includes being unable to form a broad European coalition against German aggression. Besides it’s treaty with Poland, Britain refused similar overtures by Stalin and Mussolini who did not like Hitler. They also failed to bring Belgium into a defense pact with France, and failed to match the German army in men and material despite supposedly being the wealthier country.
Further highlighting Britains decline is the rapid destruction of British defenses by the Japanese and the Japanese being nearly able to penetrate into India and the rapid defeat of British forces in the North Sea and Greece by Germany.
Being confident in victory means nothing with regards to reality, as we see with the Russian political regime today.
You claimed they were a weak, collapsing empire being forced to give up their colonies by the USA. That was utter ahistorical bullshyt, and I can only imagine it's based on the fact that you looked up that India got independence in 1947 and somehow thought that meant that's when Gandhi's agitation happened, failing to realize that all the most essential work occurred between 1919 and 1937 and that the last few years were just transition and mop-up.
Umm they were a weak and collapsing empire forced to give up their colonies by the US. The Soviets played a roll too and a more liberal outlook politically throughout Britain. Churchill was sacked after WW2 for a reason. He was a relic of a different age.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Once again, claiming y'all already know all you need to know about nonviolent resistance because you heard Gandhi and King's names in high school is embarrassing.
Who said this? I said we know what you are referring to and that it wouldn’t work in this war and that historically armed resistance has had more success than peaceful ones. I don’t think anyone but you had claimed to be an expert in the philosophical and political application of non-violence.
* If you want to know how nonviolent resistance would work, read some books. You claim to be a history nerd, so at least read the Chenoweth book on the relative history of success of violent and nonviolent revolutions. Then, with that as background, read the Bartkowski white paper on nonviolent civilian defense in Ukraine or any of the other books on the subject, say by Gene Sharp for example. It's pointless to argue about it here when you've proven that you don't know anything about it yet and are already willing to just grab historical events at random to buff up your case despite how little you know of their actual relevance.
Just read it. While it offers some solid arguments about how a citizenry should respond in the event of an occupation by a superior aggressor, it like you fails to account for difference in the application of ideology, geopolitical context, size of conflict and most importantly racism.
For instance the author references Denmark as an example of successful non-violent resistance compared to Poland. The Nazi’s viewed Poles as subhuman and were actively attempting to enslave and or genocide all Poles with non-German heritage. The intelligencia and political leaders in Poland were massacred to a man.
Denmark was considered a fellow Aryan nation and a model protectorate. You think Non-violent resistance would have worked in Belarus or Serbia?
This is an extremely bad take. He seems to be avoiding the fascist and racist and genocidal underpinning of the Nazi regime that makes conflict inevitable like you are avoiding the fascist, genocidal blood and soil rhetoric of the Putin regime.
Further on he makes a claim about Russian hybrid warfare being some special tactic that must be combated by similar acts of non-violent conquest?
The Russian invasion of Crimea succeeded because there were many Russian sympathizers in the Crimean government and the Ukrainian government and international community at large was shocked and caught wrong footed by the invasion. The world order was upended in an an almost unprecedented event and nobody was ready for war.
Conversely his thesis is proven incorrect as the Russians tried the same tactics in Kyiv but this time the Ukrainians were ready and blew them all to hell.
While his argument has some substance for low level conflicts and occupations where armed resistance is impossible and I certainly agree that once this war is over Zelensky should work to strengthen his countries democracy and economy so that Russia will never be that again; his argument is really outdated at the moment and it’s clear he did not expect war to expand outside of the Donbas in the near future nor did he have confidence in the fighting ability of the Ukrainian military.
