Pledge of Allegiance

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course your Event A is an irrelevancy.

Really? A mission from His Majesty's Government, empowered to negotiate and conclude the terms for British withdrawal in India, directly responsible for the departure of the British a year later -- is an "irrelevancy" in a discussion about causes for said departure?

Now who's being thick today?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Really? A mission from His Majesty's Government, empowered to negotiate and conclude the terms for British withdrawal in India, directly responsible for the departure of the British a year later -- is an "irrelevancy" in a discussion about causes for said departure?

Now who's being thick today?

Yes, the fact of the mission itself is irrelevant to its causes. In any event, the mission itself certainly followed the activities of the INA that Atlee identified as a major factor in the British leaving India, though you think he's wrong.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Note also that the Congress itself declared a policy of "neutrality" in the war between Britain and Nazi Germany and Japan' where was the "moral high ground" in that?

Simple. The Congress had no interest in India going from being part of the British Empire to being part of a Japanese one. As to the Nazis, they couldn't have known the extent of Nazi atrocities than the rest of the world, could they?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Simple. The Congress had no interest in India going from being part of the British Empire to being part of a Japanese one. As to the Nazis, they couldn't have known the extent of Nazi atrocities than the rest of the world, could they?

Maybe the RCC could have told them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, the fact of the mission itself is irrelevant to its causes.

That's the worst tripe I've heard so far. Are you even listening to yourself?

In any event, the mission itself certainly followed the activities of the INA that Atlee identified as a major factor in the British leaving India, though you think he's wrong.

The war was over. The Japanese had been defeated; with it, any hopes of serious support for the INA. Within India, the Congress (and the Muslim League) called all the shots. If the INA was a problem, it wasn't for its military prowess -- but rather for its ability to inspire. Even there, as Attlee himself noted in his debate with Churchill on the floor of Parliament:

"The Royal Indian Navy's revolt in 1946 and the and the formation of the INA under the leadership of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, through not blessed by Gandhi, were the consequences of the patriotic mass awakening that Gandhi had created. It was thus clear that we could no more rely on the army and the navy to sustain our empire in India. When that became a reality, it was better to quit with grace."[1]

Even for Attlee, the RIN Mutiny and the formation of the INA were symptoms rather than causes of a deeper problem that the British could not sustain.

[1] http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/humantouch.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Maybe the RCC could have told them.

Trying to change the subject?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That's the worst tripe I've heard so far. Are you even listening to yourself?

[b]In any event, the mission itself certainly followed the activities of the INA that Atlee identified as a major factor in the British leaving India, though you think he's wrong.

The war was over. The Japanese had been defeated; with it, any hopes of serious suppo ...[text shortened]... hat the British could not sustain.

[1] http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/humantouch.htm[/b]

Did you bother to read your own cite?

"It was thus clear that we could no more rely on the army and the navy to sustain our empire in India."

Do you need an army and navy to sustain an empire from nonviolent resistance?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Trying to change the subject?

I thought you'd appreciate my little "joke". I have no need to change the subject since the more you argue the more clear it is that my position is correct.

EDIT: Which was and is:

but the mutiny of large parts of the Indian armed forces in 1946-47 and the threat of open armed rebellion probably had a lot more to do with the English leaving India than Gandhi's actions.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you need an army and navy to sustain an empire from nonviolent resistance?

Certainly. If the basic machinery (offices, railways, telephones, revenue mechanisms) of an Empire comes to a halt, who else will you get to keep the engine running (or at least force people to keep it running)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I thought you'd appreciate my little "joke". I have no need to change the subject since the more you argue the more clear it is that my position is correct.

EDIT: Which was and is:

but the mutiny of large parts of the Indian armed forces in 1946-47 and the threat of open armed rebellion probably had a lot more to do with the English leaving India than Gandhi's actions.

Actually, the more you argue the more your lack of a basic grasp of logic comes to the fore. And your naivete -- your entire case is built on the words of a politician who let the Empire crumble on his watch and who would have no incentive to admit that the actions of a man who the British had refused to take seriously for years had finally had an impact.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Certainly. If the basic machinery (offices, railways, telephones, revenue mechanisms) of an Empire comes to a halt, who else will you get to keep the engine running (or at least force people to keep it running)?

Civil servants? Your position is ridiculous and contrary to plain meaning of Atlee's words. I see you now are quoting him and then claiming what he says is disingenous! You really are an absurd piece of work.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, the more you argue the more your lack of a basic grasp of logic comes to the fore. And your naivete -- your entire case is built on the words of a politician who let the Empire crumble on his watch and who would have no incentive to admit that the actions of a man who the British had refused to take seriously for years had finally had an impact.

My "entire case" is based on the events that happened, not the pipe dream that somehow, someway nonviolent resistance EVENTUALLY caused the British to leave India. This is a typical tactic of yours to state that someone's "entire case" is based merely on one piece of evidence when they have presented multiple facts and logical inferences from those facts. This is why you are the most intellectually dishonest poster on this site.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Civil servants? Your position is ridiculous and contrary to plain meaning of Atlee's words. I see you now are quoting him and then claiming what he says is disingenous! You really are an absurd piece of work.

Civil servants?

Er... which ones? The Indian ones who refuse to come in to work? Or the ones that you're going to import from a homeland that has been devastated by years of war?

Even during the best of times the British didn't have enough civil servants needed to run a country 20 times its size. Why do you think they started training Indian bureaucrats in the first place?

Your position is ridiculous and contrary to plain meaning of Atlee's words.

Hey -- you're the guy who claims that the fact of something is irrelevant to its causes. Now you're calling me "ridiculous"? Ridiculous!

I see you now are quoting him and then claiming what he says is disingenous!

What he said (to Justice Chakraborthy) was disingenous. My reason for quoting what he said (to Churchill) was to show how even he couldn't help but let the truth slip.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Civil servants?

Er... which ones? The Indian ones who refuse to come in to work? Or the ones that you're going to import from a homeland that has been devastated by years of war?

Even during the best of times the British didn't have enough civil servants needed to run a country 20 times its size. Why do you think they started training Ind ...[text shortened]... hat he said (to Churchill) was to show how even he couldn't help but let the truth slip.[/b]

Both Atlee quotes are perfectly consistent with each other and with my point of view. Your idea that what Atlee meant was that now they couldn't rely on the armed forces doing the work for Indian civil servants in time of crisis (when did they ever do that?) is absurd. I think you know that it is absurd.

Originally posted by no1marauder
My "entire case" is based on the events that happened, not the pipe dream that somehow, someway nonviolent resistance EVENTUALLY caused the British to leave India. This is a typical tactic of yours to state that someone's "entire case" is based merely on one piece of evidence when they have presented multiple facts and logical inferences from those facts. This is why you are the most intellectually dishonest poster on this site.

When it is typical of you to build your entire case around one quote or piece of evidence, it's quite natural that it would be typical of me to call it out. After all, you don't see me using that argument with other posters on this site, do you?

No one is disputing your facts (in as much as they are facts) here -- just your weighting of them and the inferences you draw from them. Your "logical inferences" ignore far too much contradictory evidence and your hermeneutic of history is simplistic and naive.