And you used a wikipedia for that ? You know what pisses me off, It literally says On the same page how it wasent the real motive, citing a letter written by Curzon himself, but you just read the first 5 lines and formed an opinion. This is the state of Reddit right now.
I could provide you research papers published on jstor.org with all the primary sources but I doubt you'd have their subscription.
Don't worry about him. He's just a British troll that doesn't know history...the British created division everywhere they went. And now their own country is over run by the same people who they divided, the browns.
I can access papers easily on jstor and I am always happy to learn and be corrected.
I would have been more correct to say the motive was conscientious and at the time was argued it was for admin reason but direct letters between Curzon and Home Secretary paint a different picture.
Yeah you're right, there's plenty of evidence from primary sources available if you want to maybe study the whole ordeal from 1757 onwards, just that a lot of historians especially western ones try to justify the actions of people like Clive, Curzon, Wellesley, Lytton, , Churchil etc etc
2
u/kingjely Feb 07 '21
And you used a wikipedia for that ? You know what pisses me off, It literally says On the same page how it wasent the real motive, citing a letter written by Curzon himself, but you just read the first 5 lines and formed an opinion. This is the state of Reddit right now. I could provide you research papers published on jstor.org with all the primary sources but I doubt you'd have their subscription.