The Death of the British Empire

magick

On the bbc website ( http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=2763&&&edition=2&ttl=20060726021618 )their talking about the Suez crisis and how it spelt the death kneel for the British Empire , i remember also looking at a documentry about the Boer War.

The commentator said that this was the beginning of the end of the British empire, what do u think?
At what point did the Empire Finally die or begin to die?

Time Magazine

1776.

sceptre

I wouldn't go for 1776 myself, mostly because it kept expanding after the Americans left (most of India didn't come under British control until the 1850s). I'd find it more justifiable to argue that the empire began to fall apart in the early days after WW2, notably with the independence of India. If I had to pick a specific date though, it'd be with the Suez crisis. It was the first time when the British simply obeyed the order of a foreign power (the US as it happens) to sod off and abandon their interest in something they had controlled. It cost Eden his position and Operation Musketeer was the last time the UK made a significant military effort without American involvement until the Falklands War. The governments of Australia and Canada, both Commonwealth members, joined the Americans in publically rebuking the UK for their actions and this was obviously pretty significant. Empires have a tendency to fade away rather than go out with a big bang and this is what effectively happened to the British one.

One could argue that what destroyed the British Empire was less territorial independence or international dependence (on the US) but more the arrival of "empire for empire's sake" after the heavy industrialisation of Germany and the US and hence date the beginning of the end to the 1870s at the start of the Long Depression of 1873-1896 but given that this happened before the mad scramble for Africa as part of the New Imperialism even started I doubt many people would accept that one.

Mind you, there are those who would contend that the last day of the Empire was the day the Union flag was lowered in Hong Kong. There aren't very many of those and I wouldn't see it as a justified date given that there are still 14 overseas territories dotted about the planet that are still officially crown colonies (AFAIR they're called "British Dependent Territories" for the last few years but that isn't as catchy a name).

One vote for 1956 then.

Carry

Angry Banana wrote:

1776.

Right. Though it was just a minor downfall. Britain was still expanding to the East and South, especially East India and went on to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and the rest of the vulnerable world, like Mauritius, some islands in Indonesia, and they compensated themselves with the loss of parts of North America (the US) with further parts of Australia, Africa, China, the Indian sub-continent and the far East.
The 19th Century was the peak of the British Empire, not the downhill road after the American independence.

Not everything is about US-of-America, though in some way they did succeed over there, be it with language, be it with culture.

The downfall of the British Empire started imho with Gandhi, the very first successful movement for independence by a country, then a British colony, which was outside of Europe.
After the Second World War the Empire crumbled big time - and left a terrible mess we are still dealing with.

Like after the First World War: they lost some island west of their splendid motherland, but not all of it. Was that the true beginning of the end with a legacy? Just wondering ...

Anyway, the Brits still try to come to terms with their loss. Their only consolation is their last victory, and that was over Nazi-Germany (with the help of the Yanks). They stick to it, are obsessed with it. Now that even Scotland, Wales and probably in the foreseeable future the North of Ireland is lost.
But there is always Gibraltar ... and some other islands in the sun ...
Sad, innit?

Does anyone really care about Britains loss of Empire? Any Empire?

justfortherecor

I've always found this interesting:

Ireland 1830 population: 8million.
Britain 1830 population: 13million.

Like them or loath them, the British knew how to run an empire. They were fantstic delegators of power and took their colonies for all they were worth, Ireland included. They controlled one-quarter of the worlds land area at the height of their power and were able to enforce their ideals pretty effeciently on their colonies. English, Law systems, Sports etc.

lostexpectation

justfortherecor wrote:

I've always found this interesting:

Ireland 1830 population: 8million.
Britain 1830 population: 13million.

Like them or loath them, the British knew how to run an empire. They were fantstic delegators of power and took their colonies for all they were worth, Ireland included. They controlled one-quarter of the worlds land area at the height of their power and were able to enforce their ideals pretty effeciently on their colonies. English, Law systems, Sports etc.

13million ? in 1830 and now 65 million?

wow

justfortherecor

Industrial Revolution

DadaKopf

You can't look for a single explanation of the decline of the British Empire. And it's important to look systemic causes for its decline.

I reckon a lot of it had to do with the political, economic consequences of WWI and WWII, which were themselves connected with the emergence of the nation-state and the global expansion of industrial production. You could even say WWI and WWII were one was with a lull in the middle.

What broke Britain's back, ultimately, IMO, was a decline in Britain's fortunes post-WWII and consequently a crisis of the legitimacy of its rule in the colonies and its European and American counterparts.

The norms and power relations of international politics shifted decisively, it therefore became more difficult to rule and profit from their colonies in the same way so they needed new strategies which required a so-called 'democratisation' of the world system. Power shifted away from imperial structures towards commercial power, and latterly, financial power.

Driving this was America, the only empire in the West that remained. All other empires also collapsed, but Britain was just the last to go.

Empire of that sort was just not capable of surviving in the post-WWII world system.

Sand

The spread of modern nationalist doctrines and the proliferation of small arms supplied by either superpower?

The British Empire was held together by a country that typically fielded a standing army 40,000 strong prior to WW1, and relied mostly on prestige, technological superiourity and local satraps. Nationalism reduced the effectiveness of the divide and conquer status quo, small arms eliminated the technological gap and then suddenly the UK was skating uphill...

ateam

Symbolically at least, the death of Winston Churchill in 1965 mirrored the end of the British empire.

Hagar

lostexpectation wrote:

13million ? in 1830 and now 65 million?

wow

Yes but 18 million are Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi. Who is taking over who?

mike65

Er make that 2 million Hagar. Its Britain not France!

Mike.

Hagar

Sorry I think that should have read 1.8 million.:o
Still a sizeable amount.
The ethnic minority in France is of Arabic rather than Indian-like origin.

Victor

Ireland marked the begining of the begining of the end and India was the end of the of the begining of the end.

But as DdKf says the political and economic consequences of WWI and WWII, where the balance of power moved from London, Paris and Berlin to Washington and Moscow, was the killer.

Crown Dependencies http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/crown/bg-info-crown-dependencies.pdf
Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man

Overseas Territories,
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1013618138295

Anguilla, irrelevant
British Antarctic Territory, irrelevant
Bermuda, irrelevant
British Indian Ocean Territory, irrelevant except for the current court cases and the American bases
British Virgin Islands, irrelevant
Cayman Islands, irrelevant
Falkland Islands, irrelevant
Gibraltar, - Empire
Montserrat, irrelevant
St Helena and Dependencies (Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha), irrelevant
Turk and Caicos Islands, irrelevant
Pitcairn Island, irrelevant
South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, irrelevant
Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus - Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_colony

zuma

Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus - Empire

After Cyprus joined the EU I had thought that these would have been returned to Cypriot control.

When are the British obliged to return this land?

sceptre

zuma wrote:

When are the British obliged to return this land?

Never as far as I know. The Treaty of Establishment that made Cyprus independent (and allows the UK, Greece and Turkey to intervene militarily to protect their interests) doesn't have a best before date. Once upon a time they paid rent but they haven't paid up since about 1964. The parallel with Guantanamo is obvious but the key difference is that Castro doesn't cash his cheques whereas the Cypriots (the Greek Cypriots at any rate) want back rent of anything from a few hundred grand to a billion quid depending on who you ask and occasionally demand their land back as well. There's also a reasonable parallel to the Irish Treaty ports given that the Cyprus bases were kept for much the same reason.

zuma

sceptre wrote:

Never as far as I know. The Treaty of Establishment that made Cyprus independent (and allows the UK, Greece and Turkey to intervene militarily to protect their interests) doesn't have a best before date. Once upon a time they paid rent but they haven't paid up since about 1964. The parallel with Guantanamo is obvious but the key difference is that Castro doesn't cash his cheques whereas the Cypriots (the Greek Cypriots at any rate) want back rent of anything from a few hundred grand to a billion quid depending on who you ask and occasionally demand their land back as well. There's also a reasonable parallel to the Irish Treaty ports given that the Cyprus bases were kept for much the same reason.

The British control a fairly large portion of the overall landmass of Cyprus with these bases and the Cyprus government has been pushing to get more of it back....for housing and such.

Personially I think the land should be returned to Cyprus and the British should start paying rent or leave...simple.

Hagar

On a related note, any sign of them "un-occupying" Germany? The war is long over.

Flex

Hagar wrote:

On a related note, any sign of them "un-occupying" Germany? The war is long over.

No, you see they cant do that because if they end the occupation of *country's name* and withdraw, then there will be a civil war, so its in the peoples best interst that the occupation be maintained for the foreseeable future and *country's name* must remain an integral part of the empire.

Carry

Hagar wrote:

On a related note, any sign of them "un-occupying" Germany? The war is long over.

Sweethearts, Germany is long "un-occupied", since 1994 methinks. Anyway, the occupation didn't mean that Germany was part of the British Empire. Unless you count that we exported their royalty. Good riddance!
The few British, and US-American, military bases still being present in Germany are part of the NATO or such like.

We are free to have our own little civil war for ages now. And what happens? Nil. Not even a tiny revolution. Gosh, aren't we just civilized?

zuma

Hagar wrote:

On a related note, any sign of them "un-occupying" Germany? The war is long over.

I think when they need to allocate monies to more pressing matters the German bases will be the first to go as they are pointless.

Unlike the American bases, the British have no excuse for their presence on the context of distacnce as my flight from Stansted to Lubeck took 70mintes.

On the other hand those British/US bases help out the local economy greatly and Germany has no problem in spending less on Defence.

zuma

Carry wrote:

Sweethearts, Germany is long "un-occupied", since 1994 methinks. Anyway, the occupation didn't mean that Germany was part of the British Empire. Unless you count that we exported their royalty. Good riddance!
The few British, and US-American, military bases still being present in Germany are part of the NATO or such like.

We are free to have our own little civil war for ages now. And what happens? Nil. Not even a tiny revolution. Gosh, aren't we just civilized?

Whats the total population of the British/US military in germany these days?

Rammstein is still a very important source for the local economy so I think its here to stay for the duration of the "War On Terror" anyway.

Hagar

zuma wrote:

Rammstein is still a very important source for the local economy...

Not if you download their albums....:D

mike65

The UK military presence in Geramny was mentioned in parlament only a few days ago. I think the view is they need to free up troops for Afganistan.

Mike.

Carry

zuma wrote:

Whats the total population of the British/US military in germany these days?

Rammstein is still a very important source for the local economy so I think its here to stay for the duration of the "War On Terror" anyway.

It's getting a bit OT, but what the heck ...

Don't know how many military personell of the former Allies are still using Germany as a NATO-base. They are getting less and less. Basicly the US are just using a few of their former airports. Other former military airports are occupied by Ryan Air - the Irish Airforce, innit?

The British army is almost invisible in Germany, always has been. They weren't allowed to mix with the locals (unlike the Yanks), as in going to Clubs or even worse to fraternize (or Frolleinize). Probably they thought that Hitler is still roaming the streets ... The way they are still obsessed with Nazi-Germany you might think they still cling to their last victory in history as an empire. After Germany they went downhill.

And Ramstein: The place is called Ramstein, one m. And it's a US-base.
Rammstein are these people who make noise and are downloadable and are big in Russia at the moment.

Bookee

... What about Mannheim... ? And the "General Walker' hotel - wonder is that still there...? Different forum, probably....

Victor

Carry wrote:

The British army is almost invisible in Germany, always has been. They weren't allowed to mix with the locals (unlike the Yanks), as in going to Clubs or even worse to fraternize (or Frolleinize).

Do you mean Fräuleinise? According to the ARRSEpedia its quite common, appreciated by the troops and all round good fun, e.g. http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Germany,

Aside, also see http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Women, http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/IRA , http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Gazelle , http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/CVR%28T%29 , http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Best_Jobs

zuma

Enought with the RaMMMstein jokes......please :rolleyes:

Carry

Victor wrote:

Do you mean Fräuleinise? According to the ARRSEpedia its quite common, appreciated by the troops and all round good fun, e.g. http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Germany, also http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Women

Yes, sorry, I meant Fräuleinise. Frollein is a local vernicular corruption of Fräulein. Sometimes I slip back into my own language.

Re your link: I can only say, well, Tommy, dream on. I grew up in Berlin (in the American zone - in the western part of town there were the Americans, the English and the French). The Americans were great fun - when you are young and not aware of politics yet. They organised barbecues, festivals, imported musicians, frequented clubs and so on. The French did some organised fraternization as well, but France and Germany are neighbours anyway and the very young French guys in the army weren't exactly as charming as rumour has it.
The English were in the very southwest of Berlin, the most boring and unimportant part of town. They never ventured out, dreamed of Fräuleins, heard of free sex, but you know, well, what can I say? Big mouth but no substance :rolleyes:

Pity that the Irish never occupied Germany ...
Though they do it quietly. Do you know that Berlin is the place with the most Irish pubs after Dublin?

Victor

Carry wrote:

Though they do it quietly. Do you know that Berlin is the place with the most Irish pubs after Dublin?

Actually there are precious few Irish pubs in Dublin (of either kind )

A Dub in Glasgo

What people call Irish pubs abroad are not really Irish pubs