Ricardolito previously said:

Their genocidal policies in the Indian subcontinent ..well I think I have heard everything now ..the partition was agreed to by the British because of the demands of the Muslims and the Hindus and you can blame which ever of the two that you want to ,,,the simple fact was that it the two religious organisations could not live side by side ,,,even pleas from Ghandi who wanted a single India had no effect . You can not blame the massacres on the British .
In relation to ww i it must be remebered that again it was not the British that solely took the decisions after the war ...there were numerous huge conferences in Paris to determine boundaries etc ,,previously Turkey had such a ferocious and cruel hold on much of the war area and the French were desperate to retain their influence there that it was difficult to produce a plan that Faisal and Lawrence had wanted and which is so well documented in the SevenPillars of Wisdom.

But all this off the subject ....Australia is now a multi cultural society that works moderately well although influence still remains with the establishment which is basically of English stock

RoyStone previously said:


Arguably there would still be traditional Taino communities alive today had Hispanola been colonized by the British, and there would not be traditional Australian Aboriginal communities had Australia not been colonized by the British. Certainly the Australian continent would not have remained uninhabited by anyone but the former stone-age inhabitants.

Lautaro previously said:



Nope, it would be just another post-plantation hellhole a la Jamaica or Haiti, so I'm glad they didn't. The best thing that could have happened to this island was the fact that Cromwell's ironsides failed in their attempt at taking it on 1655.

cibaeño75 previously said:


There have been attempts by Hispanics in the South and Southwest to garnish a more illustrious position in American history books for Galvez and his expidtion but detractors are quick to point out that Galvez and his troops were serving the Spainish crown and her interests and not American liberty. But the same charge can be labeled against the French/Haitian forces that participated in the battle of Savannah. They were there because of orders from there mother country and no other reason.