Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

As a broad generality, Britain is a naval power, not an infantry power. Britain is protect by "wooden walls". At the time of the US war for independence, Britain had just completed the Seven Years War and was trying to demobilize the officers from that war; Britain couldn't afford to pay half pay to their retired officers let along staff up a new military ...


1

As someone who studied in Indonesia (former colony of Dutch) and Singapore (former colony of British), I can say very well the difference lies in the education investment made by the British. This simple slides (slide 21) shows very clearly the investment made by the British in their crown colony. The Dutch, however, did not do the same for its colonies ...


2

In 1776, Britain had a population of 9 million (and numerous commitments all over the world). "America" had a population of 3 million. This compares to 25 million in France, and an even larger number in "Germany" (taking into account all the German states). With "only" a three to one numerical advantage, diluted by the vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean, ...


12

The British army simply didn't have enough soldiers available when the war started. Per the Wikipedia page, their total military strength was around 45,000 men, and Lord North and General Howe didn't think this was nearly enough to succeed. Toward this end, the parliament authorized the raising of 55,000 soldiers and 45,000 sailors in October of 17751. ...


1

One of the primary aims of the Government of India Act was to weaken the rising Indian governing class, specifically, the Congress Party. For instance, Burma was separated from India altogether, and a number of Indian provinces were subdivided for "gerrymandering purposes. The idea of having "separate but equal" electorates for the classes at the bottom was ...


1

You need to realize that the Government of India Act was passed by Britain, not India, since India was a British colony at the time. Whatever Gandhi worked out with the other Indians has no effect on what the Brits do unless they convinced them it's for better for British interests, which they didn't.


5

Because it suited British interests to do so. It seems you are wondering why the Poona Pact was reversed, but this should not be surprising. The Poona Pact was a compromise between Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi, designed to reconcile the Untouchables and the Hindus against British Imperialism. In contrast, the Government of India Act 1935 was an ...


3

This seems to be the rulers' method of "divide and rule", and largely to prevent the Congress from getting too strong: ...ensuring that the Congress could never rule alone or gain enough seats to bring down the government.. This was done by over-representing the Princes, by giving every possible minority the right to separately vote for ...


1

The reason why is that India was on a silver standard and England was on a gold standard in which pounds were denominated. To convert India to pounds sterling, you would have had to convert the whole country to a gold standard first, which was discussed occasionally, but was more or less impractical because India had no central bank like England did. To ...



Top 50 recent answers are included