What if Britain Never Conquered India? by Alternate History Hub | A History Teacher Reacts

Original Video: • What if Britain Never ...
Sub to Mr. Terry's Gaming channel! - / @mrterrygaming
You can support the channel through:
Discord - / discord
TeeSpring - teespring.com/blue-shell-to-b...
Patreon - / mrterry
Streamlabs - streamlabs.com/mrterry2
PayPal - paypal.me/mrterryhistory

[@kylepickus5712]

People forget though that a major reason why the US won their war for independence was due to the British being preoccupied with India. I can’t help but feel that if the UK didn’t have India, they would try to secure the US that much more. I feel like the US may not have been able to deal with the full brunt of the British Army, and they may have lost the war.

[@trevn__]

Same thing could be said about India's independence since Britain was also heavily invested in the second world war during the time when India's freedom struggle really started having effects. It's probably no co incidence that we gained independence only two years after the war ended.

[@bleddynwolf8463]

agreed

[@davestylehenry]

They also wouldn't get as much resources though without india

[@dorthusiast]

British "colonies" were being managed by the independent, private East India Company though, so how would that have affected the national army itself?

[@blackerpanther3329]

And the the US had better soldiers and home field advantage

[@mazumdar1000]

One of main reasons for partition of India was to separate USSR and India from a common border which would have led India allying to USSR as most of the Indian leaders were socialists or communists during independence. The muslims were promised a separate state and in return, US and UK got air bases in Pakistan from where the first U2 planes were sent in to spy against USSR.

[@Red-uchiha]

Still india and USSR became allies 😂

[@ThePrashu31]

It helps to think of India as being equivalent to Europe rather than a country. The thread holding India together is a very broadly defined culture and religion. Hinduism is a pretty much open-source religion with no centralised authority. So, people in different regions developed their own customs. But, it is a fallacy to say that the concept of India is a new one. India is defined by its geography. Most ancient Indian texts define India as region between the Himalayas and the ocean. The epic Mahabharata culminates in an epic war involving kingdoms from Afghanistan to the southern tip of India. The epic Ramayana journals the exile and travels of Lord Ram from the northern city of Ayodhya, down south to a war with Sri Lanka. Another major factor which led to a decentralized India is languages. Just like Europe, different regions speak different languages, which are often mutually unintelligible. Today, India has 22 official languages and there are 45 more languages with significant enough speakers to apply for the official position. To give an example, my region speaks a language called Kannada. The first Kannada kingdoms emerged around 345CE. The last standing Kannada kingdom was the Kingdom of Mysore, which went on from 1399 till the formation of the Republic of India in 1947, i.e around 500 years. Cases like this are common across the country. Each region has independent history ranging back hundreds of years..

[@StorymasterQ]

I like the term 'open-source religion.' Here in Bali, we have our own flavor of Hinduism, which apparently sounds so foreign I was unable to properly explain it to an Indian person I chatted with once upon a time. Actually, it's probably because I'm not that religious so it's also due to my own lack of understanding.

[@Torus2112]

There's a reason Victoria took the title "Empress of India". There were multiple individual states within India that qualified as kingdoms themselves; only the title of Emperor/Empress would do for the ruler of all India, similar to how traditionally there were multiple kingdoms in Europe but only one Roman Emperor.

[@anitanegi9422]

@@StorymasterQ Your place's Ramayana is famous

[@playhard719]

Western people always have a tendency to look at India with a western mind, India as land was always united by Hinduism, ever since the times of Vedas its always the land of seven rivers, the land stretched from the Himalayas to the Kumari (Sothern tip of peninsula).

[@bhanupratap1063]

@@Torus2112 Mughal Emperors Had Title Of Shahanshah-E-Hindustan

[@anikiikardia8279]

I love how, unlike other reaction channels who just grunt and nod, Mr. Terry actually stops to give input and add more info. With althisthub especially, he seems to almost have an intellectual debate with Cody. I'd love to have a roundtable podcast starring them, tigerstar, and monsieurz

[@ccrigg7227]

Sorry I’m late to class today

[@TheKingEd1tor]

You kidding? I barely. Made it here!

[@MrRizeAG]

Reminder that the concept of one "Hinduism" religion was a complete invention of the British Empire, essentially as a way to classify non-Muslims in India. Without that artificial unification, India's hundreds of religions may still have more distinct identities, Vedic or otherwise.

[@xenialafleur]

Ancient Rome had a miniature very simple steam engine, but they never did anything with it because they had slaves.

[@aniketbiswas7660]

And the engine wasn't very efficient and they didn't have any fuel with a sufficient energy density.

[@sarathmohan4362]

Hey Mr Terry. Love your videos. I was just wondering what level you teach at. Keep up the good work.

[@Ichigokurosaki24140]

Very impressive video and very informative as well

[@Anansi6y]

Can you react to Alternate history's the election that ruined everything and if it never happened?

[@peterperez538]

STORMMASTER YES!

[@TheMyrmo]

That was definitely interesting.

[@biscuitbandit2302]

I literally called it lol. I just said its gonna be the same but more richer.

[@Cohleash]

Love from India. I'm following your channel for Western History Mostly, that is my Study and I love it more, but still seeing one of these now and then certainly is a treat.

[@harmanjotsingh4230]

Sikh empire would thrive and expand into Tibet and Sindh Imagine what could have been. If Maharaja Ranjit Singh's sons would have been capable of course.

[@prasadchaturdesale5795]

Well sikh empire was part of maratha confedracy

[@harmanjotsingh4230]

@@prasadchaturdesale5795 can you elaborate? I think you mean the confederacy of 11 misls before ranjit singhs era

[@etheslimer2044]

I'm Finland person mr terry! :)

[@marcodepril4888]

Hello in Suomi

[@davidhuber2029]

That industrialization argument is spot on. I'm a bit older than most viewers. Growing up, my grandfather owned a rather large manufacturing company. He at one point had switched his sources of machines and machine parts to China because they were cheaper due to them being made by hand by a massive labor force that made them just as well by hand. I remember standing in that meeting while visiting work with my dad and it is something that stuck with me from then. Artisans and the massive labor forces made early industrialization less of a need.

[@kristoffervalen2935]

India wouldn't be industrialized under one state and it would probably industrialize much faster split up because of the competition between the states. China's problem was the ultra-conservative Confucian scholarly class, so China's problem was Confucian philosophy because it is way too rigid socially.

[@updown9697]

So india will have been like japan?

[@leaveme3559]

I think north would be a back water and south would be highly industralised as they have a much smaller population

[@leaveme3559]

@@updown9697 no

[@leaveme3559]

@Aman Lool dude m talking about industrialisation what I said is pretty evident even today....coastal states are way more richer and industralised than Northern ones....

[@leaveme3559]

@Aman Lool exactly which is why southern states would be more industralised...the industrial produce can be made near the coast and shipped off much easier than it is for northern states......which is why I said south would be more industrious....maybe u should try talking without throwing petty insults....

[@krisnr99]

Is there a chance that you could react to CGP Grey's episode on "How to be a pirate", or Netflix's series love death and robots season 1 episode 17 "alternate histories"?

[@pratyushtrivedi4682]

I actually don't agree with Alternate History Hub on one point, it is a misconception that the British brought along the concept of India , The concept of Bharat was prevalent way before even the Mughals and vedic period

[@Shuuchi0676]

Who introduced the idea? Did it have anything to do with Ashoka? Has any ambitious Rajah attempted to unify india? Is so, who was the most successful?

[@scientia.veritas]

@@Shuuchi0676 The idea was first propounded in religious texts - a general idea of a land with similar enough culture that would be later termed Bharat, Aryavart or India. But most kings never even thought of "unifying" India. Many engaged and conquests, but the idea was always to expand their territory. Maurya empire was one of the largest Indian empire, it conquered parts of modern Afghanistan but not some of the southern Indian regions. Likewise, many southern kingdoms like Cholas expanded to South East Asia but not in North India. So no, no Indian king ever thought or tried to conquer what the religious texts described as Indian region.

[@mvalthegamer2450]

@@scientia.veritas The Guptas and Mauryas certainly tried to recreate the Bharatvarsha

[@walter6820]

You should react to history bombs WW1/WW2/Cold War/Vikings episodes. They put world events in to a rap. It's pretty cool.

[@dkc2597]

Check out the march of history marks vs mises

[@stephentoth9529]

Could you do a reaction video to the Cuban Missile Crisis?

[@addickland5656]

If you like alternate history hub I think you'il like whatifalthist just as much if not more. He goes into a lot more detail as his videos are much denser. To compare them I'd say react to/watch his "what if france colonized india" video, it's quite good imho, as are basically all his videos from the last 2 to maybe 3 years, barring a couple.

[@mvalthegamer2450]

Whatifalthist regularly underestimates India

[@urmumhuge5556]

It was! But not the whole of India. Portugals, french and many others,

[@JurasJankauskas]

When someone mentions industrial revolution and Terry goes: "Well, they don't need to industrialize..."

[@peterperez538]

Please Please pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese react to “the election that ruined everything” by alternatehistoryhub. I don’t know if you saw my comment from “what if Japan never invaded Pearl Harbor” video but I will really appreciate to know what you think about it.

[@marcodepril4888]

He already did japan never attacked p.h. very reseantly

[@peterperez538]

No, what I meant was I added a comment to the video he reacted recently about my suggestion.

[@marcodepril4888]

My apologies,i read to fast and i went to conclusions

[@mcmahon31619]

He's more likely to react to a video if you recommend it on his discord

[@konstanzaviation2275]

I'm kind if wondering: it was said that the industrial revolution may not have happened as fast or as comprehensive as it did but maybe it would have developed even quicker as the urge to reduce cost and increase efficiency was even bigger now that the Brutish didn't have as many cheap resources...

[@SinisterRecords-Udyr]

Hey Terry, can you check out a song called, you can't be neutral on a moving train, by Vinnie paz, It's said to tell a better history than 4 years in school.

[@jameswalsh2921]

6:38 2b2t?

[@shantanugade7516]

Please react to "does Britain owe a repration" by Dr. Shashi Tharoor please

[@jazsm5385]

It was inevitable anyway. We were divided AF. It ultimately made us united as a nation! The question is - how far we have come? Seven decades later, we're still finding our way, be I'm sure the future generations will be proud of being born in this land 😇

[@cianmccullough2472]

Day 38: react to irish war of independence

[@fattymcbuttcheeks7245]

You should really watch India and Pakistan - A continuing story by kraut. Its very long so you don’t have to react to it in a video.

[@ExilHesse]

Hey Mr T. There is almost in every video a annoying background noise. Maybe something with your mic? Pls. check that

[@spartan5018]

I have a small theory relating to this, If the British didn’t have India then the Americans may have beat the, to industrialization. (Although someone in the comments brought up a good point with Britain being occupied in India being a factor to Americans achieving independence in the first place so America may not exist and my whole theory would just be meaningless) So here’s why I think America could have beaten Britain to Industrialization. At the time of the Industrial revolution America had a lot of the same advantages as Britain a reason as to why they where able to catch up to the British in Industrializing. But in this timeline they have one key advantage, Southern Cotten. Now as Cody briefly mentioned Britain also imported Cotten from the Americas and not just Britain and in this timeline they will rely more on American Cotten as they don’t own India and America is closer. But this still puts them at a disadvantage as they have to export it across the ocean. The big thing here is of course the civil war. It may go the same way or maybe Britain out of need of cotton intervenes more heavily in favor of the south however I see that as unlikely as the British public did not like the south at all and they didn’t want to risk Canada. But basically my theory is in this timeline America may industrialize sooner than Britain or at the least catch up faster to Britain with southern Cotten fueling their industry this could also lead to slavery lasting longer in the south out of economic necessity. I through this out to you people of the world as I’m still fairly new to the historical field and this is based off my limited knowledge. For all I know I could be very wrong so all I ask is this, please go easy on me.

[@andyscreechy2494]

Hey Mr Terry, just a quick funny note for you. On the "sun never setting on the British empire" comment, I had an Irish friend state that this was because "God couldn't trust the Brits in the dark" . ;)

[@andyscreechy2494]

@Peace Prevails nice one I assumed it had came from elsewhere but never got round to googling it. Cheers for the information 👍

[@trafichat]

You should see their plush video.

[@udayrathod3786]

React to Kings and General video on Ashoka

[@urmumhuge5556]

JABY KOAY? I saw you on jaby koay

[@udayrathod3786]

@@urmumhuge5556 ya

[@RaiderFox209]

Made it to class.

[@waterboys3001]

I don't agree with this analysis. The American South provided 80% of Britain’s cotton imports. In 1860, cotton represented 38% of Britain's total exports. During the Civil War, the Confederate states wanted Britain to recognize their independence and believed that it could force the issue by depriving the country of cotton. This did not happen. The result was economic hardship in the mill towns of Northern England. More than 400,000 workers either became unemployed or had to work part-time. Indian cotton was not that important to Britain, its main sources of supply were the US and Egypt. The East India Company was a public company and its annual reports are still available. Its activities were adding 2-3% to British GDP. These analyses need to be backed by numbers to be any use to anyone.

[@MrLolx2u]

Why India and China couldn't industralize has got to do with two more things too, landscape and culture. Both China and India, India especially, are more well known for their agriculture sector where they produce large quantities of items, refine it then export them out. Even without the British, this way of life would come in and hit India as they've already traded with the Dutch East Indies way before Britannia came. The Indians already knew that they are better at agriculture in planting stuff like poppy, cotton and lentils so they'll keep doing it just so that they can make a huge profit selling all these to people who needs this and in actual fact, everybody needs cotton and spices during that period. Landscape plays a big factor too and it ties down to the "Agriculture" sector too. India have alot of lands for farming due to their ideology in agriculture. With the Bengali Famine coming to mind, that shows if India was to revolutionize and totally go Industralization like what Stalin did to the USSR with the Ten Year Plan, suddenly everyone would be starving and die while good lands to be used for farming would get lesser and lesser to the point where they cannot export the amount they want out nor have enough to feed it's billion of population.

[@MrTerry]

Great points!

[@hengzhizhu7920]

It's like with the "What if Nationalist China won the Civil War" from Alternate History Hub, well at least 60 million people doesn't starve to death

[@Paul-ft9dn]

nonsense. first of all it was never 60 million, second of all, as many or more could have died from disease and starvation instead. Also, the peoples republic of china laid a lot of the ground work for the later industrial take off of china. It built infrastructure, united the country, provided mass education and basic healthcare for the first time, and gained independence from the west.

[@udayrathod3786]

Mughal dint kept the religious tolerance, except one emperor named Akbar.

[@user-uj2tk2tv3z]

Mughals were great

[@Annoitedpastorlewiswalkin]

react to whatifalthish what if the french conquered india

[@bakthihapuarachchi3447]

I was actually going to recommend this. Easily one of the best videos made by whatifalthist

[@TheB657]

One of the common misconceptions regarding the subcontinent called "Bharat" is that "Many of it's states would "not" have fought with each other". The pretext of this conclusion is often viewed from a very singular linear perspective and not really based on the ground culture, tradition and values. Most of the subcontinent following Sanatana Dharma, the unification was mostly achieved through Yagnas or rituals such as "Ashvamedha or Rajasuya" where the Kings wishing to be "Emperors" would send a prized horse with an army and emissaries to each and every nation. If in the nation through where the horse travels, it is not captured, that kingdom is showing fealty to the Emperor or in true sense, the states "accepted" the king's rule as an Emperor of the entire subcontinent. Similarly when every kingdom has shown fealty, the horse after such a long journey returns safely to the same kingdom where it is praised and kept healthy, mostly becoming the Emperor's horse. Even otherwise the horse is treated with veneration. Such Yagnas had taken place even 300 years before the Turks, hence there was always possibility of a United subcontinent in absence of colonial influences.

[@mvalthegamer2450]

To be fair, the Marathas weren't a loose confederation until the late 1770s. Only after the death of Madhavrao did the Marathas turn into a Confederacy

[@mvalthegamer2450]

@Aman Lool No, the Marathas bounced back from that, and were doing great in the 1770s. It was only the death of their leader at 27 due to TB, that caused a civil war in the 1780s and 1790s that weakened them, leading to the confederacy in the early 1800s, which was dissolved in 1818

[@dhruvilmakwana2936]

please play rome total war sometime

[@etheslimer2044]

Check discord!

[@Paul-ft9dn]

its important to realize, that India was a major source of military power for the british as well. Not only did it provide bases, but it provided the man power and paid for all of it. Britain would not have been the dominate Asian or middle eastern power without india, as the british army alone was too small. Nor would it have had the wealth to fund as big a navy, as opium from british india largely paid for the royal navy. Also important to remember that bengal (what is now eastern india and bangladesh) was just as urban as europe and nearly as wealthy. It had a greater % of its economy devoted to manufacturing than europe did even in the late 18th century, and made superior ships,metallurgy, and textiles.

[@Paul-ft9dn]

@Aman Lool well that's the point, European powers were much more efficient centralized nation states than anyone else, especially britain. That's why it was able to compete successfully against France for example, a country 3 times larger in population or conquer India with a much smaller army.

[@Paul-ft9dn]

@Aman Lool centralization allows for a much more efficient fiscal military state and ability to allocate wealth toward the military. Thats why britain could outspend France despite having less than half their economy.

[@pranavjayakumar696]

As an Indian history student, I can assure you that the division between Hindus and Muslims was negligent before the British Empire. We can see the evidence of Muslim officers in higher positions of power in the Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagara Empire. Also mixing of Hindus and Muslims in Bahmani and Gondwana kingdom which had vastly muslim populations. The British introduced divide and conquer policy to keep Indians in check and rule them easily. We can see that the unity had nearly cost them the empire in the first war of independence in 1857. The policy worked wonders in keeping the Indians under control by putting two parties or kingdoms against each other and the British controlling one by allying themselves with the party. About the industrial revolution in India, it would have happened even if the British were not present. Did you know that rocket launchers were invented by Tipu Sultan of the kingdom of Mysore. There would have been technological advancements even without the British involvement. Trading can also help with the industrialization process. However, these are all theories of what ifs. Good to know that people have interests in Indian history.

[@imaXenoX]

Absolutely not , Hindus & Muslim were aĺways in drift

[@yj9032]

It’s better if you react to extra history’s “conquest of India” first.

[@tormentor6737]

United India was an old concept, it was locally called Bharat

[@GOD.OF.ARGUMENT]

Marathas ruled most of the India and Pakistan for nearly 70 years before British gained power.

[@SoSoEmelia]

GB or Britain is the bloody island. The country is the U.K. which is comprised of four different nations. I get annoyed when this gets butchered. When someone says, “I’m British, they talking about where they came from, not the nationality.

[@wolf-man-bear-pig-torque]

With India, then most likely the British would have focus intensely on North America. This is just one out of thousands of possibilities.

[@RavenKnight18]

Please react to puppet history and ruining history!

[@mint8648]

Your point on india not industrializing makes no sense. You say its because india has a lot of people, but that’s only true when you look at india as a singular entity. Certain regional kingdoms of india, like Mysore and Bengal, had populations comparable to individual european countries in the 18th century, and this is mostly true for most indian regions. There’s no reason to assume india wouldn’t industrialize. In fact, proto-industrialization had already begun in mysore and bengal before the british came.

[@harshagrawal1000]

Additionally Half of Empire's army came from India only...so...no big empire..

[@Ashley-lm4nv]

Britisch East India Comp. more like Exxon Mobile.

[@Anmol.singh.10]

The Problem didn't originate with Britain, the problem lies with the Turkic Invasions, lack of political unity,regional conflict. The idea of an Indian nation did exist, to be precise India was always more than a nation. It was a Civilization that influenced the globe far exceeding its boundaries. There was literally a cultural continuum between India and Europe along with China and SE asia. India was the most scientifically advanced nation during the Gupta Period and lately during Harsha's Empire when Chinese came to visit. After the Vardhan Empire, there was a period of lack of unity and a lot of regional conflict. India did thrive in terms of trade,architecture. Cholas,Palas,Gurjara Pratiharas were efficient rulers but they couldn't politically unite Bharat the way Chandragupta Maurya did. Chandragupta Maurya along with Chanakya had a dream of AKHAND BHARAT and they almost achieved it. Even the Kushans,Gupta,Satvanahas maintained Unity and trade and culture was flourishing. After Harshvardhana there was only one leader that had the vision of a united India and that was Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with the idea of Swaraj which was later adopted Gandhi. So if the later Maratha Peshwas along with other Confederacies made an Alliance. And trust me people we finished a whole cycle. This is exactly how democracy in the Republic of Bharat worked. You had the Mahajanapadas that had 16 states and they maintained a Cultural and Political Unity much like the United States. So yeah India would be a Rising star if the Turks didn't invade or the rulers of that time resolved all their conflicts and formed a Confederacy of States or Mahajanapadas

[@mint8648]

stop blaming the turks. they spread islam, and the islamic kingdoms of mysore and bengal were some of the most proto-industrial states in india, rivalling england in living standards and gdp per capita.

[@Anmol.singh.10]

@@mint8648 Mate the culture of Arabs isn't the problem. It is also a rich religion that once held World's Greatest Knowledge in Baghdad. The problem is these Turks weren't as noble as the sophisticated Persians or Abbasid Caliphate. Turks were Nomads of Central Asia who in the name of culture would fulfill their own motives. The problem isn't that Turks introduced a foreign culture. The Problem is On the day Bakhtiyar Khilji burned Nalanda University, India Lost Everything. And around that period Renaissance happened

[@Anmol.singh.10]

@@mint8648 Also Mysore got industrialized mostly because of the French. It allied with the French during the Carnatic wars. He even made a deal with Napoleon to overthrow British. While Mysore was a pure British Vassal state after. India was already destroyed by then

[@mint8648]

@@Anmol.singh.10 ok

[@ishaanupreti6438]

@@Anmol.singh.10 It was also the central asians who burned baghdad.

[@vexaris1890]

I think that Alternate History Hub makes a mistake here: It's an imagined timeline where the UK does not conquer India - but what about the other colonial powers? They could have conquered India. That makes this much more complicated, though.

[@birbseesall1529]

I think he went with this one for simplicity. Though other powers would inevitably grab pieces of India that scenarion would be far harder to predict. Who knows? India could have wound up like China, getting off with unequal treaties but not annexation. He did also say in the video he would go with no european nation conquering india because it would be uninteresting.

[@mint8648]

France

[@raullimon4210]

No one dies from famine

[@bruhbruhh1488]

Laughs in Churchil😂

[@ShaanSalwan2003]

If Hindus and Muslims united against the British in the early 20cen...WHAT WAS THE POINT OF DIVISION?

[@mint8648]

they did during the sepoy mutiny

[@chrismathewjoseph1283]

One of the reasons was that Britain feared India would be too powerful by itself so they tried to break India into fragments as much as possible...

[@SCP.343]

What if India conquered Britain?

[@Yuva_Maddy]

It's has nothing to offer to India, They had Poverty, illiteracy and Shitty food 🤢.

[@AleksandrPodyachev]

The Irony of India industrializing is that today, the PM of India is trying to get companies to open factories in India

[@Dynamikcheese]

We are still paying the price for the East India company. We pay reparations. Its never spoke about but if you go deep into the British finances and GDP you will see.

[@user-uj2tk2tv3z]

Wrong

[@AshishKumar-ul5ki]

Those reparations are literally nothing compared to 45 trillion dollars that were stolen from india if you sell britain 9 times today that is what it will be worth. We don't need a single penny what indians will feel happy with is that british accepting that colonization was a bad thing which ruined a great civilization and they teach their children about colonization in schools too is that too much to ask.

[@otakugamer616]

That map is Wrong bruh as an indian

[@gandalf1423]

Well, India is not for hindu Indians. It was secular, and it still is. Whereas Pakistan's minority population has dwindled since it's formation. Which , in hindsight is a little unfortunate, as India would have been able to achieve more unity nad cohesion.

[@claywolf8878]

Hey, lol

[@swastiksengupta3286]

Hello I am so early

[@jjmayank]

India was never for Hindu Indians, rather that Pakistan was exclusively Islamic.

[@reactDevelopment]

India was no divided because of hindus want hindu rashtra or any thing some extreme muslims wanted a muslim rashtra like pakistan but india is alla about aal religion everyone can stay here but some extremist hindus didn't egreed that they want hindurastra . that's why they killed gandhi

[@imaXenoX]

It's our land of Dharmic religion ofcousre India would be Hindu Rashtra

[@noahburger7804]

Mr. Terry: India is the most diverse country Yugoslavia: Allow me to introduce myself

[@mazumdar1000]

Nah, still more diverse here 😅

[@darthplague6173]

Sorry mr. tito it wasnt strong enough to last

[@EdgyMemer_]

Lol.India is actually more diverse than the entirety of Europe.

[@shadow2608]

And don't forget most of british soldiers were indians

[@theaces3697]

if it wasnt for World War 2 we would probably still control India, we had to focus our resources and soliders on the war giving India the chance to rebel, although i have seen many Indian people say it was both a good and bad thing that we were there, on one hand the way we treated them was fucking awful it was as bad as when france used indian soliders in WW2 as pretty much human shields but i have also heard a fair amount of indian people say that the country was a divided mess before we controlled it and becuase of our control they were able to come together to fight us off giving them union, also another good thing we did for india was outlaw 'forced' widow burning

[@Anmol.singh.10]

There are various other outcomes. If the Brits didn't invade India. Probably the Industrial Revolution would never have happened. All the Scientific,Technological and Industrial advancements Britain had was because of India. Britain literally took India's knowledge of science and technology and that is how it all happened. They destroyed India's education so that it wouldn't progress in future. With the wealth and knowledge India had it wouldn't have taken long for them to develop the technology

[@davidhuber2029]

A little known fact, the Mughal Empire gave rise to the word Mogul. That's how rich they were.

[@rossfindlay7760]

We didn't really conquer India it was more a colonization by stealth and yes we did a lot of bad things. Ask yourself this if you had to be colonized would you rather it was by us the British or by Belgium, France or Germany? You'd take Britain every single time.

[@udayrathod3786]

True, look at all the countries that Britain left, they are mostly still stable, secular and believes in democracy. So I would give this one to you.

[@mazumdar1000]

That’s because Britain mostly ruled indirectly through princely states and governors who had to know the regional language. Many Indian kings and princes supported the British crown hence it was easier to gain control over such huge population. Whereas, France or other colonial nations enforced direct military rule. So yeah, Britain may have been tad bit better than others.

[@Egilhelmson]

“Colonization” is putting it too far. They never had large British populations moving there, just small groups technically just acting as the local rulers’ agents, like Jews were used in Eastern Europe as rent collectors.

[@updown9697]

@@udayrathod3786 democracy is overrated and the best thing in order to make your country develoepd is dictatorship just look at Singapore and korea

[@unsungheroes9140]

@@updown9697 They are small countries...look at what the dictatorships did in the Brazil and Russia...nationalization of natural resources, censorship for gays and other minorities, corruption. No!! The system needs to be renewed. Because democracy is bad, but is a necessary evil. P.S.: Sorry for my bad English.

[@pudgeboyardee32]

Any chance you can stop doing the simple history and what if videos? Theres a lot of good stuff from channels like historia Historia Civilis and extra history and id rather you watch something that actually happened. I dont watch these ones ever because wild speculation is how children approach history. Its not a coincidence that futurama, a cartoon with a writing room with no less than 6 doctorates at any given time(google it, theyre smart), used the 'what if machine' as a way to mock those so preoccupied with what may have been. Simply put, this is boring. I watched the first few, tried to get into this one but i dont care about things that didnt happen. Not even slightly. Please go back to extra history and historia civilis. I block simple history and the what if channel because i dislike their half-histories. You are now dragging them back into my feed and im to the point of unsubscribing just to get their videos(by way of your channel) out of my feed yet again. Please, less videos games and speculation. Just watch some in depth history videos.

[@54032Zepol]

If Britain never conquered India they would never have railroads, electricity, basic human rights etc.

[@mazumdar1000]

James Lopez Many countries have built railways, have basic human rights without having been colonised. The industrialisation of Britain was based on the de-industrialisation of India. Our gdp was 23% of the world before Britain came to our shores and when they left it was below 4%. Don’t blabber nonsense without knowing the actual facts, it only shows your ignorance.

[@ryanjuguilon213]

Thus stupidity still exist. Those train tracks were used to EXTRACT AND STEAL indian resources. India produced the raw materials the British used to create the finished goods to sell in Europe and the colonies. Do u knw what they did to the weavers of Bengal? They cut their hand so they cant weave. They even taxed salt. They can only buy manufactured goods from the British at extravagant prices. Thus the wealth of the colonies flowed thru English coffers

[@updown9697]

India would have adopted industrial anyway just like how the japan industrialised wihtout the British rule

[@MamtaSingh-il4lk]

India would have better while the sun would have set on the empire

[@ishaanupreti6438]

So you believe that the land of Buddha and Krishna was taught human rights by a colonial empire that treated people with cruelty.

[@trafichat]

You should see their plush video.