Why did Britain give back Pondicherry and other French outposts in India after the various wars of the 18th and 19th Centuries? Surely it would have been advantageous to knock out the French from trading in Asia permanently, and pretty easy to do?
Why did Britain give back Pondicherry and other French outposts in India after the various wars of the 18th and 19th Centuries? Surely it would have been advantageous to knock out the French from trading in Asia permanently, and pretty easy to do?
Why would that be advantageous?
And why would Britain want to do purely what would be advantageous?
Because those places were bargaining chips, used to obtain other concessions. And the British did eventually wind up taking them anyway, just later rather than sooner.
Unless I'm mistaken, France kept its 1789 Indian possessions until the 1940s.
If Britain had done it, say, in 1815, France would not have had any ports in Asia. That would have prevented further colonial expansion there.
If Britain had done it, say, in 1815, France would not have had any ports in Asia. That would have prevented further colonial expansion there.
Unless I'm mistaken, France kept its 1789 Indian possessions until the 1940s. I appreciate they're bargaining chips, but they didn't seem to play very large in peace treaties.