You are delibrately refusing to understand the arguements put forth by me in an effort to "win" this "debate". You have an incredibly idealistic view of world politics, and do not seem to comprehend what diplomacy is about. I suggest once again that you brush up on your history so as to be convinced that Britain (definitely) has not done anything for another nation without a hidden agenda favouring the British Crown. As for my "logical fallacies", you may engage me in your trivial wordplay but I hope you realise that the atrocities committed by the British on the Indian freedom-fighters (who, followed a path of non-violence) will serve as a reminder to coming generations of the lengths to which the English were ready to go in order to secure their political objectives. In today's world, it is probably the U.S which is following this policy of "power and influence at all costs" The attempts to encourage subversive movements in China in order to spread capitalist U.S propaganda in that country (in the name of intellectual freedom) are only evidence of this. Again, Geni your statement "...like most of the world they (Britain) weren't bothered about the rights of Africans" casts light on the Caucasian belief in their superiority over other races and even over the Asian-Aryans-who are basically of the same race as Nordic people (the "harrenvolk). You yourself have conceded that the U.K would help Poland (which was a Causasian country, in close proximity to England), but not Abyssinia. This proves that England's help was (at the least) racist in nature. I rest my case.