Comments by "Alexander Philip" (@alexanderphilip1809) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

@utpalchandra4525 Churchill didn't cause anything. He redirected resources meant for us to his own country. Dick move but no different from how we should act in the future if our needs are placed against another nation. It's easy to grand stand and play the victim of we didn't what to be victims we shouldn't have lost to our conquerers. We lose we suffer. Whining about it just makes it more pathetic.
6
@aritrakarakart5163 I am an Indian and I know that to be categorically untrue , by the time The Europeans had invaded we were already in steady decline, the last time we were ever a "great civilization" was in the 11 century AD. We haven't been one since before the Islamic invasions. get your head out of your jingoistic ass. British were traders they enforced trade policies favourable to them and occasionally looted when it suited them, why they took from us was in taxes the same way our gov.s restricted trade in the name of ideology, the Brits did it for money. You think the Brits believed their own propoganda ? You might have, the present generation of Brits might have but history is history and as much as I hate it the Brits were able to rule India because Indian states lost the wars we fought against them, we were technologically behind them in terms of rail, steam and industrial technology, not having control of our own affairs made it worse. Their technological superiority is a matter of history. If that were not the case why would we have to have this conversation about British domination and colonialism where were our ancestors ? Living underground ? They failed we can't afford to its that simple. And in the course of learning fo our past you might wanna look at how Brits were able to do it and what lessons do they have that we can learn from, not just the Brits the Chinese,Koreans,Japanese,Singporeans, Even the damn holy Roman Empire has lessons for us, you just need to get your head out of your ass and stop believing every thing from far left/far right crap. Reality is much more ruthless and predatory md societies that learned to play that game have consistently survived.
5
@internetoldie research ? Ok through indirect action sure. But Churchill was a nationalist his concern was his nations war efforts not the hunger of people thousands of miles away. Expressing ceremonial outrage amd generic responses doesn't change the fact that India was not a sovereign nation as such couldn't control what was done to us. Churchill did what hie did for his country of nothing, that's a lesson for Indian to prioritise national interest above idealistic fetishes.
3
@utpalchandra4525 broadly true. But the British drew the rail lines mostly for linking their colonial holdings but yes that did give as a clue as to how to link up our country using rail lines to this day, cross subsidisation of rail-passengers is a tool to encourage political integration, something the Germans Pioneered but they were ethno-linguistically homogeneous, we are the farthest thing from that. All that being said railway freight transport is significantly cheaper and more economical than freight trans. on road not as much as water transport, a key advantage the Brits, Chinese, Japanese, Singporeans, Germans and most Major powers have(internal waterways).
2
Centralised Identity doesnt contribute to survivability, thats a recipe for internal dissension and infighting. Homogenous Indentities have a much better chance of weathering century/decade spanning crisises.
1
@Siegbert85 exactly my point. Linguistic diversity of HRE amongst other things facilitated the creation of modern nation states in Europe.
1
@utpalchandra4525 your point ?
1
Ah Ideological blindness bread and butter of Nazi's Commie's and your garden zealots.
1
I see India.
1