Comments by "William Innes" (@williaminnes6635) on "Whatifalthist" channel.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. I think he had a bit on the Marathas where he argued they would have burned themselves out with constant warfare. The way to have India never get colonized by the British is you just have Plassey go the other way. Either it doesn't rain that day and the Nawab's weekend warriors are able to fire their muskets, or the Nawab's one general doesn't take Clive's money and actually leads his contingent to reinforce the Nawab, or Clive himself has a bad curry the night before and his judgement is off. Without a win at Plassey, the Seven Years War doesn't result in the East India Company expanding across the continent, with them remaining confined to a couple of coastal trading forts, and possibly getting kicked out of Bengal. The industrial revolution still happens, but the 2BE without India isn't the same thing. UK is not the industrial powerhouse it was in our timeline without the captive market of Company-controlled India. There's also no strategic imperative for the 2BE to be in the Mediterranean, for instance, without the most important colony on the other side of the Suez Canal. British involvement in Africa has much less motivation - the strategic aspect of Cape Colony was identical to that of Gibraltar or Egypt, hold open the sea lane to India - so the pressures which lead to the Scramble for Africa are reduced. Egypt possibly still carves out a swathe of territory uphill of the Nile rapids under that Albanian dynasty. Holland possibly continues to hold Cape Colony - with a dramatically different ethnic composition - Spain and Portugal still hold their enclaves, and indigenous empires like the Sokoto and the Zulus who had the aggression and warrior spirit to expand in our timeline up until they ran into the 2BE might just have kept going. There is no Great Game with Russia over Afghanistan, but, Afghan empires are never prevented from snowballing their way into the Indian princely states every couple of decades. Afghanistan could easily be a major world power today without the legacy left by the imposition of the frontier which divided Pathanstan. With nobody to conquer them besides the Afghans, the Punjabi Empire which started in the 17th century would have most likely continued to be a thing into present day, and most likely be in an ongoing state of intermittent war with Afghanistan. I could see it causing a lengthier period of tensions with America, since South American markets would become relatively more important to colonize with India taken out of the picture. In our timeline, Royal Navy reformer Thomas Cochrane lead South American revolutionary fleets while working as a mercenary in the waters surrounding that continent in the early 19th century. This might, if the British were still the guarantors of Belgian neutrality in 1914 and matters still came to a head then, mean America enters WWI sooner, on the side of the Ottomans, Austrians, and Germans, to get revenge on the British over chronic violations of the Monroe Doctrine. No colonization would also mean no decolonization. There would be no pressure for west Eurasian states to leave their coastal exclaves around the world.
    1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. Stalin in my view doesn't fit neatly as a left winger but as more of an archpragmatist working from the baseline of Russian culture and Leninist revolution. Stalinism forsook worldwide revolution, invited in foreign investors to achieve the necessary levels of capital and entrepreneurship to achieve its Five Year Plans, and in the wake of Barbarossa, allowed the Red Army to take up the iconography of its Tsarist predecessor. Stalin is rejected by more ivory tower style orthodox communists - Marxist fundamentalists, in other words - as well as by socialists who view the core of their movement as the reduction of societies world wide to grease stains beneath their jack boots. From the perspective that the left is antimarket and the right is antileft - I can't recall the original person who argued it that way - and in the context of the European rather than the English-speaking political spectrum - stakeholder rather than shareholder capitalism - there is a case to describe Hitler as right wing, but if one accepts the Hitler's Circle of Evil thesis, he was a fringe figure for decades to whom the public only turned with the increase in world interest rates in the wake of the Great Depression, which made it impossible for America to continue to refinance the Weimar Republic's inheritance from the Kaiser as cheaply as it had over the 1920s. There is also an argument that the idea that Stalinism is left wing and Hitlerism right wing stems from arguments made by Stalin and Stalinists to distance themselves from criticism from Trotskyists.
    1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50.  @anthonysaunders345  You know what, for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume you're speaking in good faith. There is an intrinsic incompatibility from first principles built in to the predominant evolved forms of regional civic sentiment in these provinces. Multiculturalism in the form in which it exists on the ground with its felt and understood but often unthought and unarticulated assumptions about individual rights can not be reconciled with secularism in the francophone tradition, due to the implicit assumptions multiculturalism makes about individual rights. By Benedict Anderson definition, a nation represents an imagined community, held together in Anderson's view by specifically print media. 1830s-1840s through 1960s, the old nationalism worked on a system of guaranteed standards of second class citizenship for the nonProtestant minority groups. I'd argue that this in and of itself was something specifically southern Ontario was able to do because of its heritage in having been originally settled - set aside the Neutral Nation who had been ethnically cleansed by the Iroquois - by Pennsylvania Loyalists who were themselves heir to the culture imported by the Religious Society of Friends along the Black Walnut Trail following the Revolution. For having had, since the Potato Famine, an analogous ethnoconfessional dynamic to that Northern Ireland imported to it, this ought to be seen as stroke of good fortune that the basic ingredients necessary to build multiculturalism had all ready existed here for so long. Just because this is going to get to be about five times as long as that, I'd just like to clarify with you that you are, in fact, about 75 years old and speak English as your first language; and would like to ask you in which part of which province or territory you live, and if you or your parents or grandparents moved there from somewhere else. I'm from around Toronto.
    1