[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Ancient history and recent history show it gets bad when the superpower withdraws.
Kind of like when GB left India Pakistan or the SU the East European countries Kosovo …
It was a nightmare…
Wait a minute…
Thanks for making my point.
Pakistan did not exist when the British occupied India and Kosovo that has never been occupied by the SU but was part of communist but independent Yugoslavia.
So what is your point?
Other then that India and Pakistan splitted remarkably peaceful without GB and that the Kosovo nothing to do with the SU while millions of now free and prospering people were glad to see that superpower go?
Since Pakistan was part of India when the Brits left it doesn’t count? The place is a disaster and they have nukes. Bad situation.
I am aware that Yugo was “independent” but they were still heavily in the Soviets camp. That place would not have broken up and those atrocities would not have happened if the Soviet Union didn’t collapse.[/quote]
Zap, you are correct, and it is only through extraordinary mental gymanstics that Orion flays a shred of truth:
(from Wiki:)[i]
Some critics allege that British haste led to the cruelties of the Partition.[9] Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new state line. It was an impossible task, at which both states failed.
There was a complete breakdown of law and order; many died in riots, massacre, or just from the hardships of their flight to safety. What ensued was one of the largest population movements in recorded history. According to Richard Symonds[10]
�?? at the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and twelve million became homeless �??
However, some argue that the British were forced to expedite the Partition by events on the ground.[11], Law and order had broken down many times before Partition, with much bloodshed on both sides. A massive civil war was looming by the time Mountbatten became Viceroy. After World War II, Britain had limited resources[12], perhaps insufficient to the task of keeping order. Another view point is that while Mountbatten may have been too hasty he had no real options left and he achieved the best he could under difficult circumstances[13].
Historian Lawrence James concurs that in 1947 Mounbatten was left with no option but to cut and run. The alternative being getting involved in a potentially bloody civil war from which it would be difficult to get out[14]
[/i]
Some estimates for the deaths during and after Partition–the policy forced on the departing British–were as high as 1.5 million, and the number of people displaced was 20 millions. (None of whom, by the way, are claiming a right to return.)
So perhaps the simplest lesson in this is that Imperial withdrawal is good, but partitions lead to strife.
Or, tribes united in their hatred of the Imperial Power will soon learn, it its absence, to hate each other.