Abstract
This paper explains that the most notable internal factors influencing the decolonization of India is the gradual handing-over of more and more power to Indian political elites in the Legislative Councils of India in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century. The author points out how collective memory, while well-concealed during the apogee of British might in the last-half of the nineteenth century, also fueled underground resistance to British rule. The paper explores how the rise of nationalist associations and a series of reforms by the British - the 1861 Indian Councils Act, the 1892 Act and most significantly the sweeping Morley-Minto reforms of 1909 in response to the foolishness of former Viceroy George Curzon - led to India being slowly introduced to responsible government and to the parliamentary traditions, which would sustain it when it became wholly independent after the Second World War.

From the Paper
"It is axiomatic that empires cost a lot of money; it is also axiomatic that empires eventually must respond to the demands and concerns of the repressed - at least somewhat - or destructive rebellion, the disruption of trade and commodity production, and a general rise in hostilities will result. For the British, the 1857 Uprising and the subsequent 1861 Councils Act were only the first steps towards recognizing that the cultural imperialism of the past was no longer going to suffice as the twentieth century drew nigh. To wit, in 1892 a revised Indian Councils Act was passed that permitted "local comment" and criticism for legislation passed by the provincial legislative councils."

Tags:radicalized, elite, self-governing, concessions, curzon

Abstract
This paper discusses the decolonization of India, and argues that internal factors - most notably the gradual handing-over of more and more power to Indian political elites in the Legislative Councils of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century India - played as large a role as any other in the decolonization of India. Of especial import, the paper will look at how collective memory, while well-concealed during the apogee of British might in the last-half of the nineteenth century, fueled underground resistance to British rule. More than that, the next several pages will explore how the rise of nationalist associations in the last-quarter or so of the nineteenth century and a series of reforms by the British - the 1861 Indian Councils Act, the 1892 Act and (most significantly) the sweeping Morley-Minto reforms of 1909 in response to the foolishness of former Viceroy George Curzon - all led to India being slowly introduced to responsible government and to the parliamentary traditions which would sustain it when it became wholly independent after the Second World War. In the end, Great Britain was compelled to respond, albeit in piecemeal fashion, to populist agitation time and again, and each time it made a concession its once seemingly unassailable grip on India was weakened.

From the Paper
"The following paper will argue that internal factors - most notably the gradual handing-over of more and more power to Indian political elites in the Legislative Councils of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century India - played as large a role as any other in the decolonization of India. Of especial import, the paper will look at how collective memory, while well-concealed during the apogee of British might in the last-half of the nineteenth century, fueled underground resistance to British rule. More than that, the next several pages will explore how the rise of nationalist associations in the last-quarter or so of the nineteenth ..."

Tags:Great, Britain, England, East

Abstract
By 1945, as Hitler's Germany was coming to an end, the future of the European continent seemed uncertain. Soviet troops were just forty-five miles outside of Berlin, and the Allied troops were just about to cross the Rhine. The questioned remained: how would the war affect the balance of power and the political landscape in the years to come? On Feb 4, 1945, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and Franklin Roosevelt met to answer this very question at Yalta, a seaside Crimean resort on the coast of the Black Sea. While the conventional wisdom of modern historians is that Churchill and Roosevelt did not wield their collective power, this paper argues that it was Stalin who failed to realize the opportunities available to him and conceded too much. The paper shows that the negotiations can be viewed from a classic "Power-Interest-Rights" perspective. While Stalin negotiated from a position of power, FDR and Churchill negotiated from positions of rights and interests, respectively. It is the consensus of this paper that Stalin failed to use his dominant position of power, giving Churchill and FDR unnecessary concessions. The paper includes illustrations and tables.

Table of Contents:
Introduction to the Yalta Negotiations
Three Approaches to Resolving Differences
Three Allied Leaders
German Dismemberment
German Reparations
The Role of Post-War France
The Polish Question
The United Nations
Final Thoughts
The Negotiation Time Line
Value Creation Worksheet
Bibliography

From the Paper
"Roosevelt was, above all else, a consummate politician. In fact, he would not meet alone with Churchill to avoid fanning the flames of Stalin's paranoia. Few men could see more clearly their immediate objective; however, his long-term vision was impaired. In 1945, he was the leader of the strongest nation in the world. The U.S. suffered no bombing, no displacement of its population and no hardship compared to the British and Soviets. In addition, the U.S. had an enormous, well-trained military and had almost perfected the atomic bomb. Roosevelt was optimistic, upbeat and knew how to rally the country."

Tags:BATNA, Gromyko, Curzon, Lublin

Abstract
Although, certain apologists of colonialism have tried to depict colonial rule and influence as benign and even beneficial for the populations of "lesser" civilizations, the fact of the matter is that colonization of these countries was done for exploitative (economic), religious and strategic motives. This paper focuses on the problems that the two countries had to endure as a result of the colonial rule or influence, and the similarities and differences between their experiences. Issues such as the transfer of wealth, unfair trade, the opium wars and poverty are covered in the paper.

From the Paper
"Although poverty is still a shocking sight in India today, it was even worse during the colonial period. There were 31 serious famines during 120 years of direct British rule in India compared to 17 in the 2000 years before the British rule. (Mike Davis quoted in The Colonial Legacy). If you think this was due to rapid growth in population, you are wrong between 1870 and 1910, India's population grew by 19% while England and Wales's population grew by 58%. Most eyewitness accounts of India before the British colonization describe India as a rich country. ("From Trade to?"). The region is still struggling to climb out of crippling poverty after 200 years of colonial exploitation."

Tags:British, East, India, Trading, Company, Lord, Curzon, 2nd, Opium, War, Manchuria