Read on Twitter
Comparing the J and the H responses in the final phase of their movements for independence, the armed struggle played a critical role in both cases. Savarkar was correct in urging the H youth “to gain practice” for the impending war by participating in WW2. In the case of the J a
related idea went back to Trumpeldor, who gained experience serving the Russians. Later, many J gained experience in Polish units during WW2. This really gave their armed struggle considerable muscle and allowed them to form the ISR military as soon as the English left. After WW2
they carried out numerous attacks, killing English and their Arab or J collaborators and even took the fight to England. This was sort of like the naval revolt among the H happening at the same time. While previously the Brits would have engaged in their usual genocidal actions
WW2 had left them weakened allowing these armed movements to succeed. There were some big differences: 1. the J had a good propaganda arm in the US, which they had helped become a superpower. 2. The English had broken the M power in their region in a pre-WW2 genocidal campaign.
3. They were well-prepared to fight the Ms as soon as the English left. On the H side, the English had propped up the Ms and even after independence, helped TSP (e.g., Boucher). The H leadership was not well prepared for the war with the Ms that was to follow.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
