The comment about "before you start" wasn't directed at anyone in particular. It was only rereading it later that I realised it did not sound as I intended it to. My apologies for that.
In my opinion (and please, i'm *not* advocating that this is what England should have done), I think if they'd killed Ghandi and his main supporters, perhaps even gassed a number of crowds (i'd say cities, but I don't think they had NEARLY enough gas/ammo for that), the British would have won in the long run. Intl relations would have been strained, but without a leader like Ghandi to rally behind and to make the appeals, the intl community probably wouldn't have cared nearly as much as they did.
Alternatively, if England had followed Machiavelli's ideas about not forcing the locals to do things YOUR way, but just letting them get on with whatever they were doing, they'd have won as well.
I believe England lost India because they used their force incorrectly, not because they used force/violence.
|
