Quote:
Originally Posted by LiberLibri
It is arguable whether Britain accepted that on a moral ground. You should take into account the damage British military force suffered during the WW2 and the decline of national strength. Britain was just wiser to avoid friction than France on the relation to Asian colonies.
.
|
not entirely true.. it became apparent by the 1930's that britain would not last in india. infact, it was silly economically to try and keep india, but the government that came in after churchill was always anti-colonization. however, it is true that WW2 greatly speeded things up.
having said that, as an earlier poster mentioned.. the chinese arnt the british. non violence will not get them anywhere in this case - even if everything in tibet stops functioning effectively.. the chinese can and will move on. in somewhere like india, the entire colony stopped functioning for the most part, which is why non-violence was succesful.
The situation is pretty complicated, as much as people might agree that tibet deserves freedom, resisting violently is probably not the answer.. so what other alternatives are there?