History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Camikaze said:
I asked my lecturer today and he seemed to be of the opinion that aiming to prevent British withdrawal was a pretty big concern, but that avoiding antagonising Indonesia was more of one in the situation, and that Australia only did intervene when it was really getting out of hand (when there were landings on the Malaysian 'mainland'; the alternative being abandoning the idea of 'forward defence' centred on Malaysia), avoiding confrontation for as long as it possibly could. Isn't the position that that's nonsensical a bit too generous to Indonesia?

Ehhhhh to return to my first point, the whole point of the Federation was to cement Britain's hold over Singapore as a naval base and ensure it didn't fall to the Barisan Socialis. Borneo was needed to assuage the Tungku and provide a necessary electoral counterbalance to this new infusion of Chinese. To an extent the British did intend to reduce its presence and that was flagged though this needs to be set against a situation where Britain was still in essence committed to Southeast Asia/Oceania hence the effort put into securing Singapore. Your lecturer is right in that limited sense, Australia was worried that Britain might be induced to withdraw in the longer run if it found the cost of defending its interests high enough. (This would happen with the Suez Crisis). But I'm not convinced that was the justification in of itself for entry into the conflict. Australia had a fair idea of what British intentions were - up to and including the rationale for the Federation...

aronnax said:
What were British attitudes towards Singaporean independence if Singapore had opted to not join the Malayan Union?

British attitudes towards independence always under Malaya varied. Lennox-Boyd, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, writing in 1956 was hostile: "Independence" for Singapore is a delusion. A trading centre and port, however important, at the mercy of world economics, with a large population and no natural resources, could have no viable place as a member of the Commonwealth or as a State of its own. The Colonial Office on the other hand was generally was willing to advance the constitutional debate with the results of the 1957 discussion for instance giving Singpaore internal-self government. The cost of that was an agreement to form an Internal Security Council (arranged as followed: 3 brits, 3 Singaporeans and 1 Malayan) which was given the power to tackle subversion and unrest, with decisions binding on the government. Moreover, the agreement still allowed the Brits to suspend the constitution if needed.

It was however recognised on the other hand the consequences of doing so would have been significant; alongside this was a huge amount of pressure by Singaporeans generally to push for still more independence, something which caused the - moderate, gradualist - PAP all kinds of electoral problems. The result was a careful attempt by the British to manage a staged independence that safeguarded British interests, while at the same placating the masses enough not to shaft the PAP. The other consideration that the Brits had to take into account were difficulties at home. 1959 in particular was a horrible year for Brit colonialism courtesy of the Hola Camp massacre in Kenya and the Delvin Report about Nyasaland. Force which would have been needed to stave of independence was possible but unsustainable in the long run.

There was a recognition therefore that Singaporean independence was in essence inevitable. All that needed to be set was the date and the nature of its exit. The hope was that it would be amicable under a 'responsible' i.e. non Socialist/Communist government and that this would be best achieved via merger with Malaya. This was motivated in part by the British realisation that PAP was the only viable vehicle for 'responsible' government available and that it was very close to electoral collapse. The result of an electoral loss would almost certainly have motivated a violent response from the Brits and PAP - lists had already been drawn up of BS members slated for arrest in the advent of a crisis for instance - though this wouldn't have changed the outcome just hurried it along. Had the BS won the Tungku had already agreed to receive Singapore provided the BS problem was dealt with first. The net result of this would have been Singaporean independence under Malayan tutelage with the PAP holding sway through moves of dubious legality.

Essentially, therefore there was not a hope in hell that Singapore could have become independent of the Federation. Maybe if PAP's situation hadn't been so hopeless, it would have been possible. But with the situation as it was and as Lee Kuan Yew himself realised, the situation was hopeless. Union become the only viable option under which Singapore could gain independence. Something that Lee Kuan Yew himself viewed with fear, he would have been happier with British bayonets to back up his rule; but couldn't manoeuvre his way out of a pro-independence position because of the tenor of public opinion at the time.
 
As nobody answered my question,I suppose the mosque just vanished except for the minaret.
 
Union become the only viable option under which Singapore could gain independence. Something that Lee Kuan Yew himself viewed with fear, he would have been happier with British bayonets to back up his rule; but couldn't manoeuvre his way out of a pro-independence position because of the tenor of public opinion at the time.

So the whole "All my adult life, I have believed that merger with Malaya yada yada and the crying was in fact a huge political move of practicality than principle?
 
As nobody answered my question,I suppose the mosque just vanished except for the minaret.
It's been what, one day since you posted? Sometimes answers take time, and sometimes, as I discovered when asking a question about Serbia ages ago, people just flat-out don't know the answer. If no-one hear is answering you, then they either don't know the answer or think the question's stupid. In your case, it would be the former.
 
I assumed the question about the Great Library was a rhetorical one to answer (sort of a people don't really know type answer).
 
Why did Somalia's government collapse twenty years ago and what were the factors that caused it?
 
Why did Ceaușescu change Romania's official name from "The People's Republic of Romania" to "Socialist Republic of Romania" upon taking power?
 
Why did Ceaușescu change Romania's official name from "The People's Republic of Romania" to "Socialist Republic of Romania" upon taking power?

Ceausescu also changed the Constitution at the same time. AFAIK, it was part of Ceausescu's program of building up support for himself as a worthy successor to Gheorghiu-Dej while at the same time proclaim a new era in Romanian history with himself at the center. The name change was symbolic; the constitution change somewhat less so.

Why did Somalia's government collapse twenty years ago and what were the factors that caused it?

Short answer: an unhealthy mix of dictatorship and tribalism. Siad Barre tried to impose central control on the clans (variously by means of negotiation, propaganda, resettlement, and massacre). Not surprisingly, he was not very successful. The Ogaden War, the outsize military expenditures and subsequent drought that hit the Horn in the 1970s and 1980s did not exactly help the situation. Eventually this gradually became civil war by the late 1980s.
 
Seems it wasn't "destroyed" but simply slowly fell into decay over the centuries, once the capital of Abbasids was returned to Baghdad...
I mean, mud bricks and carved stucco aren't the most durable of construction materials - and properly maintaining/renovating a building so huge would have cost a fortune.
 
Given that "tsar" is just a slightly less Anglicized version of "emperor", what exactly differentiates Russia before and after Peter's proclamation of 1721? What's the substantial difference between "Russian Empire" and "Tsardom"?
 
I'm not really qualified to answer the question, but I only understood it more as a historiographical name instead of something substantial. Just like the United Kingdom was referred to as British Empire to describe its character depite the fact that it's not its official name.

If there's another reason, I'd be interested in it as well.

---

How much impact did the various Slavic incursions into Greece in the early middle ages have on its population structure?
 
I'm not really qualified to answer the question, but I only understood it more as a historiographical name instead of something substantial. Just like the United Kingdom was referred to as British Empire to describe its character depite the fact that it's not its official name.

If there's another reason, I'd be interested in it as well.

---

How much impact did the various Slavic incursions into Greece in the early middle ages have on its population structure?
Plenty in the North. Not so much elsewhere. Certainly not as much as the Turkish occupation. In fact, the Slavic incursions seem to have driven "Greeks" - they can't really be seen as an ethnicity outside of the linguistic sense - ahead of them, meaning that the number of Greek-speakers in southern Greece may actually have increased while the North received Slavic immigrants.
 
Given that "tsar" is just a slightly less Anglicized version of "emperor", what exactly differentiates Russia before and after Peter's proclamation of 1721? What's the substantial difference between "Russian Empire" and "Tsardom"?
He took the title Imperator, actually. It's, theoretically, an indication of the Westernization of the Russian polity, which ceased to be a tsarstvo and was now an imperiya. I'm sure there's also some garbage about the tsarist title being too indicative of provincial Great Russia instead of the sea-to-shining-sea, we-are-trading-with-friggin-China-at-Kiakhta, we-run-part-of-the-old-Swedish-Empire New Russia. But yeah, basically just a cosmetic change.
 
Given that "tsar" is just a slightly less Anglicized version of "emperor", what exactly differentiates Russia before and after Peter's proclamation of 1721? What's the substantial difference between "Russian Empire" and "Tsardom"?

It stopped being Rus and became Rossiya.
The difference is akin to difference between "England" and "British Empire".
 
It stopped being Rus and became Rossiya.
The difference is akin to difference between "England" and "British Empire".
Nope, that was back in the fifteenth century, with Ivan III. Who also used "imperator", sometimes, although the title fell into abeyance.
 
Oh, I thought you were talking about the difference in the name of the state, which is actually connected to the title of tsar and is therefore relevant to the discussion, as opposed to the linguistic expression, which isn't.

The Rus:Russia::England:Britain simile isn't any good if you look at it your way, so I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. :)
 
I would say that the difference between "Rus" and "Rossiya" is no less significant that the difference between "tsardom" and "empire".

To this day, "rossiyanin" mean "Russian (citizen)", while "russky" means "(one who is ethnically) Russian" and native speakers don't mix them up. In English, this difference does not exist, though.

Transition from Rus to Rossiya marked transition from "ancestral lands of ethnic Russians" to "(colonial) empire of Russians/ruled by Russians". Maye the "England" vs "British Empire" analogy doesn't really convey that, but I couldn´t think of anything better atm.
 
I'm not saying it's completely irrelevant to everybody everywhere, I'm saying it's irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand, namely, the titulature of the Rurikid-Romanov state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom