Zompist Bboard Again

We'll just have to agree to disagree I don't have so terrible a view of the evils of the man, is all.

See also: Wiston Churchill. Saviour of the country, or imperialist bigot?

I think I'll light up a stogie, pour myself a Scotch and sit that one out.

alice wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:35 amSee also: Wiston Churchill. Saviour of the country, or imperialist bigot?

Don't those go hand-in-hand?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:56 am

alice wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:35 amSee also: Wiston Churchill. Saviour of the country, or imperialist bigot?

Don't those go hand-in-hand?

Um, not specifically so in that case, no.
*reaches for the bottle*

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:58 am

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:56 am

alice wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:35 amSee also: Wiston Churchill. Saviour of the country, or imperialist bigot?

Don't those go hand-in-hand?

Um, not specifically so in that case, no.
*reaches for the bottle*

So what's the scenario under which the UK successfully fends off Nazi Germany without having any colonies abroad to exploit?

You are right, but an alternate history without the British empire is so wildly divergent there wouldn't even have been a Nazi Germany to worry about.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:11 amYou are right, but an alternate history without the British empire is so wildly divergent there wouldn't even have been a Nazi Germany to worry about!

I guess you mean an AH with no British Empire at all. But what about simply one where the wave of successful anti-colonial movements had taken place a generation earlier?

I'm really not sure about that, so take this with a grain of salt.

But one of the components of Nazism was colonial empire envy: a part of the theory was that since France and Germany owned half the world, Germany might as well grab the rest before its WWI enemies did.
Another point is that the Nazis went after Britain precisely because it was a major threat, which in turn was because of the colonial empire

EDIT: yet another point. Anti-colonialism succeeding a generation earlier implies a change of mainstream views on race before that. Not sure if Nazism could have worked with that in mind. (A factor in the rise of Nazism is that it took most leader a very long time to figure out there was something off about the Nazis. Most of them shrugged it off, or even admired the manly military discipline.)

EDIT2: Oh, yet another point (You really shouldn't feed the AH bug!): anti-colonialism probably wouldn't have worked without communism or an equivalent rival ideology having a secure foothold somewhere.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:19 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:11 amYou are right, but an alternate history without the British empire is so wildly divergent there wouldn't even have been a Nazi Germany to worry about!

I guess you mean an AH with no British Empire at all. But what about simply one where the wave of successful anti-colonial movements had taken place a generation earlier?

Both of you have a point, but mainly this discussion makes me think how interrelated and contingent history is, and how probably most alternative histories work only because we don't know enough about their periods to find them absurd.

I take LB to be mainly making the point that Britain would have been screwed in WWII without India. India provided two million troops, and so many resources that Britain owed 1/3 of its war debt to India after the war.

At the same time, "what if anticolonialism, but 1920s" doesn't make much sense. Of course the anticolonial movement existed in the 1920s, but you're talking about it succeeding then. To put this in perspective, that's just after Amritsar, well before the satyagraha movement, well before provincial elections. Plus the Brit government in the 1920s was almost entirely Tory.

Admittedly there would be a certain charm to an alternate history where the first PM of India was Annie Besant.

The hypothesis seems to me to be saying, "What if Britain decided to be anti-imperialist precisely at the point when imperialism was at its strongest?" We can imagine anything, but this is where Ares Lands' point comes in: things would be very different indeed if the strongest empire in the world was instead anti-imperialist. It's not just a matter of moving up some bureaucratic timetables. Things would have had to be different far earlier, in the 1800s, and then yes, you can't just slot in modern German history as if nothing had changed. That German history was strongly determined by the world being what Britain wanted it to be.

More narrowly, to get an alternate history where Britain doesn't hold India, or not all of it, you could probably get it if your point of divergence is the 1750s. You'd have to prevent Plassey, as the resources of Bengal, under British exploitation/management, were sufficient to conquer the subcontinent. This is not as easy as it sounds, since British strategy was stupid but persistent: if a state was too strong to take over at time X, it could be taken over fifty years later. My solution would be to get Haider Ali, of Mysuru, somehow in charge of Bengal. He was perhaps the most efficient and forward-minded of the 1700s princes. This works much better than, say, having the French win. The French decided, probably correctly, that India was a liability.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:25 am I'm really not sure about that, so take this with a grain of salt.

But one of the components of Nazism was colonial empire envy: a part of the theory was that since France and Germany owned half the world, Germany might as well grab the rest before its WWI enemies did.
Another point is that the Nazis went after Britain precisely because it was a major threat, which in turn was because of the colonial empire

EDIT: yet another point. Anti-colonialism succeeding a generation earlier implies a change of mainstream views on race before that. Not sure if Nazism could have worked with that in mind. (A factor in the rise of Nazism is that it took most leader a very long time to figure out there was something off about the Nazis. Most of them shrugged it off, or even admired the manly military discipline.)

EDIT2: Oh, yet another point (You really shouldn't feed the AH bug!): anti-colonialism probably wouldn't have worked without communism or an equivalent rival ideology having a secure foothold somewhere.

The German colonial empire was very weak. IIRC the Western colonial powers were Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain and possibly Portugal. The Nazis did not want to attack Britain because Hitler thought the English and the Germans were blood relations like Arabs and the Jews. What he wanted was for Germans to claim the same destiny in the east as the English by clearing out riffraff like the Russians. Et cetera.

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:47 pmAdmittedly there would be a certain charm to an alternate history where the first PM of India was Annie Besant.

Given how Sonia Gandhi was shot down just for not being Indian-born, I don't think there is any scenario where a British woman (however appealing, popular, and well-qualified) could realistically become PM in India especially just after independence. I'm not sure she would even want to be PM.

Vijay wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:34 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:47 pmAdmittedly there would be a certain charm to an alternate history where the first PM of India was Annie Besant.

Given how Sonia Gandhi was shot down just for not being Indian-born, I don't think there is any scenario where a British woman (however appealing, popular, and well-qualified) could realistically become PM in India especially just after independence. I'm not sure she would even want to be PM.

In our timeline, Besant seemed to be quite popular— when she was imprisoned in WWI for advocating home rule for India, Congress and the Muslim League both protested. Just after her release (1917) she was president of Congress for a year. She wasn't the first non-Indian to take this role, though she was the last.

My original point was that the independence movement was way too weak to achieve its goals at that time. To get an alternate history with India independent at this time, you would have to change quite a few things, and Congress either wouldn't exist or would be a far different institution.

I just scheduled the second dose of my vaccine and unfortunately it comflicts with my work schedule. Since I just took a week-long vacation and the appointment is this week, they won't let me have the day off. That means it will be an unexcused absence and probable grounds for firing and even blacklisting.

malloc wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:05 pm I just scheduled the second dose of my vaccine and unfortunately it comflicts with my work schedule. Since I just took a week-long vacation and the appointment is this week, they won't let me have the day off. That means it will be an unexcused absence and probable grounds for firing and even blacklisting.

Can you reschedule, or take it as a long lunch?

All of the openings were on days I have to work, so rescheduling is hardly an option. And they only allow half-hour lunches, not long enough to drive there and back and get the vaccine.

If you're at all in a position to do so, it might be time to look for a new job. This is a major health concern, not the frivolous matter they are, by all appearances, making it out to be.

I managed to resolve the time-off situation. Unfortunately, they are using a different vaccine this time so I have idea whether this will even work. It seems they made a mistake or something. Checking the invite email, it turns out that it specified Pfizer and I just didn't catch it. Not even sure what to do now.

Edit: Just checked my vaccine card and it says my first dose was Pfizer after all, meaning I am getting the right vaccine for my second dose. Looks like the Mandela effect, because I swear the card said "Moderna" when I first got it.

Since my last dentist's appointment, I seem to have a small cleft between two of my teeth that is ideal for bits of food to get stuck in. Or perhaps it had already been there before and I've only noticed it now.

This is a stupid thing to vent about, but after I moved the clock initialization code out of the kernel of zeptoforth, at least on the STM32L476 (I have not tried it with the STM32F407 or the STM32F746), the serial interface stops working properly after I load the multitasker - even though before I load the multitasker it works fine, and even though the clock initialization code is practically the same as the old in-kernel clock initialization code.