Why did Britain lose the American War of Independence/Revolutionary War?
The British were not yet an unstoppable empireSome ice, some desert, and a small slice of India In 1776, the British were one of several Great Powers in Europe who were all roughly equal in power. These were them, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Below them were a few middle powers including Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal. Out of these strong nations, the British were known for their naval prowess but had one of the weaker and smaller ground armies - France was the expert here. As a result, when the 13 Colonies declared independence, the British were forced to ship soldiers 3,000 miles away and feed and supply them - no mean feat back then - to fight in an environment they were not experts in, ground wars. So this explains why they had difficulty against just the colonists alone. Now let's look at the international situation. 13 years before the Revolution, Britain and Prussia defeated France, Russia and Austria (there were also smaller allies on both sides) in the 7 Years' War. In the aftermath, French colonies from North America to India were seized by the British, which upset the balance between the Great Powers, frightening much of Europe. The British also spent a huge pile of money, which started them on the path of taxing the colonies which started the war in the first place. As a result, when the 13 Colonies declared independence, France was eager for an opportunity to even the score with their rival. Soon after the war began, France was bankrolling the American bid for independence. In the first year, France supplied enough muskets and uniforms for 30,000 soldiers (Larger than the initial size of the Continental Army) and 10 pounds of gunpowder per soldier. Then, France joined in the war openly with a navy that was at the time, roughly equal to the British one. They were eventually joined by the Spanish and Netherlands who brought even more money and soldiers to the table.tl;dr The British Army was never that strongIt was half of Europe and the USA vs Britain
What forces pushed the indians to become independent from Britian?
Churchill and the Conservatives declared that the British people had died for their empire so the empire should remain intact. However they lost the 1945 General Election and was booted out to be replace by Labour, headed by the socialist communist liberal French pansy Clement Atlee, who said that India should get independence. He was supported by the Viceroy of India, war hero Admiral Louis Mountbatten, who had a lot of political sway.
Did World War 2 play any role in the Indian independence?
Q : Did World War - II play any role in the Indian independence?A : World War - II only played the major role in Indian independence in absence which even today i.e. 2017 we would have had British Raj. After defeat of France a military major in Europe, Winston Churchill realized that it will not be possible for UK to control and defeat Nazi Germany single handed. Any military tie up with Soviet Russia would have been futile and hence Churchill had to approach USA President Franklin Roosevelt for active military support in Europe. President Franklin Roosevelt was aware that Churchill has no other way out but to accept whatever conditions could be imposed on UK. He therefore, put forward draft of Atlantic Charter which was not at all acceptable to Churchill, however, he had no option. Unwillingly Churchill had to accept and sign the Atlantic Charter.Read all the clauses carefully - they clearly requires UK to decolonize Asian territory.Of course America was not making a charity or doing this for the sake of humanity. The hidden intentions were very clearOnce USA was a colony of UK and by signing this charter there was an intention of humiliating UK.UK was to utilize all the resources including manpower of their colonies keeping their own blood intact. With decolonization this intention of UK was to get defeated.Above all UK had the supreme to effect foreign trade within their colonies and reaping profits out of these deals. USA was not getting any benefit of dealing with the colonies. Once UK decolonizes USA would get direct entry in the independent nations and start reaping benefits.UK would be unable to pay of the cost of the war at the cost of colonies but would have required to use its own resources.UK’s status as a super in the world thus gets damaged and it remains a no more superpower in EuropeUK would have remained under political obligation of USA.USA had this opportunity of getting recovered the cost of damages in terms of Sterling Pound.Accordingly Churchill unwillingly allowed political independence to India.Hence, Indian independence is the result of Atlantic charter.Indians should, therefore, respect and be thankful to Adolf Hitler.
American Revolution and signing of the Declaration fo Independence?
If I recall, part of the problem was that King George was fighting a war against France and it was draining his coffers. He raised the taxes on the colonists which of course angered many. They attempted to appeal the increase but had no legal representation in the British government. They were citizens but didn't have the same voice as citizens that lived in England. This brought out the cry "No taxation without representation". England started raising taxes on items shipped to the colonies also, tea was as important to the colonials as coffee is to most Americans today. As a means of protest, a group of men dressed as Indians in a thin disguise boarded a British freighter and dumped bales of tea into the Boston Harbor. This act of course brought reprisals by British soldiers which further infuriated the locals. As open rebellion was becoming more and more obvious, the local British rulers decided it would be in their best interest to disarm the colonists. He sent a contingent to empty the armory at Concord-Lexington. Word got out to the colonists and they met the soldiers at a bridge. History is unsure who fired the "shot heard round the world". Put all this together with the independent nature of citizens born here and you have a powder keg touched off by the shot on that bridge. The rest, as they say is history. Here's a link that gives you some easy to understand explanations: http://www2.lhric.org/pocantico/revoluti...
Explain the road to revolution. How did the British respond to the colonists after their victory in the French?
The colonists were used to not paying taxes. All of a sudden England demands they pay taxes. The English say they protected American butts from the French and the Indians. Massachusetts was one of the best educated colonies. They had Harvard College. So the Sons of Liberty, a group of people in Boston that protested the tax laws, dressed as Native Americans and threw the tea in the harbor. The British responded by closing the Harbor and sending troops.
In 1947, did British decide to leave India or were forced to do so?
Britishers were forced to leave India. Many people will say that Gandhiji's mass movements triggered it, some will say world war 2 triggered it but the actual reason was something else.Gandhiji's movements definitely brought people together and that was needed to unite everyone for forming a free nation. But the movements didn't force britishers to leave India. Quit India movement was launched in 1942 and was not actually a success and India gained independence in 1947. So, the non violent movements were not actually the cause of Independence but were the cause of the unity of Indians.And about world war 2, yes it had an effect on the Indian independence but not a direct one. It was not that british economy was severely damaged and so they were forced to leave India. Same thing happened during the first world war and britishers, instead of leaving India, increased their cruelty by forcefully taking increased taxes and many other things.If you remember, before the “Sipahi Vidroh” there was company raj and not the british government raj. Before and after the “Sipahi Vidroh”, the britishers were ruling the country using army of Indians. There were about 50000 british soldiers and above 300000 Indian soldiers in the british army during “Sipahi Vidroh”. And so when Sipahis started Vidroh company raj was shown hell and the queen of england had to take over the control.Same thing happened after 1945. First the navy, then the air force and army started mutiny. And it was not the effect of Gandhiji's non violence movements. It was because of actions of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. When he formed the Ajad Hind Fauj in Germany and after that led the INA to fight for the Indian independence, the Indian men in the british forces were triggered to start mutiny. They were inflamed by the Red Fort trials. Mutiny was never the ideology of Gandhiji. And at that time there were only 40000 british troops in India who were eager to go home and in no mood to fight 2.5 million battle hardened India soldiers who were being demobilised. It is under these circumstances that british decided to grant independence to India.Most Indian history text books about freedom struggle are dominated by Gandhiji's non-violent movements but very little is mentioned about Netaji's and INA's contribution.