Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The British Empire Thread
Options
Comments
-
Yes it did but the money that was left over (as well as Marshall aid) was ploughed into nuclear armaments further destroying Britain's economy. Should I take it that apart from that point you concede that there was no voluntary move to dismantle the empire from within the British political system?0
-
The nuclear business I would discount.brianthebard wrote: »Yes it did but the money that was left over (as well as Marshall aid) was ploughed into nuclear armaments further destroying Britain's economy. Should I take it that apart from that point you concede that there was no voluntary move to dismantle the empire from within the British political system?
Before I concede anything it would be worth considering the end of empire. Are they to be given any credit for doing it when they did. Did they do it because they had to - no other choice .
They certainly patted themselves on the back for it.
I made a generalised claim of anti-imperialism - specifics I can't give you.
I'm prepared to learn - I won't be lectured - so lay off with the aggressive attitude. I still think a balanced attitude to this imperial history is more productive than the obvious bias that can be seen here.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Yes it did but the money that was left over (as well as Marshall aid) was ploughed into nuclear armaments further destroying Britain's economy. Should I take it that apart from that point you concede that there was no voluntary move to dismantle the empire from within the British political system?
What about the Balfour declaration of 1926? I would consider that to be pretty significant. I would also place Indian independence as being the other major change as that forced the issue of republics and the commonwealth. It was a rushed job though, due in part to British financial problems. Not sure what it had to do with Churchill though.0 -
indioblack wrote: »The nuclear business I would discount.
Before I concede anything it would be worth considering the end of empire. Are they to be given any credit for doing it when they did. Did they do it because they had to - no other choice .
They certainly patted themselves on the back for it.
I made a generalised claim of anti-imperialism - specifics I can't give you.
I'm prepared to learn - I won't be lectured - so lay off with the aggressive attitude. I still think a balanced attitude to this imperial history is more productive than the obvious bias that can be seen here.
What does that mean though? You made a claim that you do not appear willing to back up now. If you can't point to specifics how can you in good conscience make that claim to begin with? It could perhaps be said that in certain countries like Ghana the British did not use extreme force to maintain their power there, but in other colonies this was not the case, so one could not say that a peaceful transition was sought by the British, nor that they wanted to allow the colonies liberation.
Also I see no reason for you to discount the 'nuclear business', Britain was only the third country to gain nuclear technology and did so at great cost. This money could have been used to stabilise the empire if the British politicians had realised that the majority of colonies were on the brink of seeking independence.
The move to dismiss another poster as using an aggressive tone is often used as a way of removing oneself from the argument without having to concede the argument, I do not presently accept that I am using an aggressive attitude. My final question would be what bias have I shown and how has my posts not been productive?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »What about the Balfour declaration of 1926? I would consider that to be pretty significant. I would also place Indian independence as being the other major change as that forced the issue of republics and the commonwealth. It was a rushed job though, due in part to British financial problems. Not sure what it had to do with Churchill though.
Equal status for dominions was not applied nor intended to be applied to the colonies. Although it might have been used as a political argument by the colonies in later decades I don't believe it was designed for that reason. As for India is certainly served as inspiration for other colonies (as Ireland had for India) but one can see that the long drawn out process of Indian independence surely only strengthens my argument that the British political system did not encourage the dismantling of the empire.0 -
Advertisement
-
brianthebard wrote: »What does that mean though? You made a claim that you do not appear willing to back up now. If you can't point to specifics how can you in good conscience make that claim to begin with? It could perhaps be said that in certain countries like Ghana the British did not use extreme force to maintain their power there, but in other colonies this was not the case, so one could not say that a peaceful transition was sought by the British, nor that they wanted to allow the colonies liberation.
Also I see no reason for you to discount the 'nuclear business', Britain was only the third country to gain nuclear technology and did so at great cost. This money could have been used to stabilise the empire if the British politicians had realised that the majority of colonies were on the brink of seeking independence.
The move to dismiss another poster as using an aggressive tone is often used as a way of removing oneself from the argument without having to concede the argument, I do not presently accept that I am using an aggressive attitude. My final question would be what bias have I shown and how has my posts not been productive?
Your nuclear references are not relevent as the empire was already fragmenting at that stage.
And trying to bully your points home because you cant prove them is clear to all posters, not just indioblack in this case.0 -
Decolonialisation was a messy and somewhat irresponsible process, but a simple comparison between the British model and the French one should be evidence enough of how willing the Brits were to cut and run. Whether they had to dismantle their Empire when they did (Frankly I believe they could have stretched another 20 years out of it before it became politically, economically and militarily unfeasible) is besides the issue really. The fact is they did, and did it rather hastily, and the subsequent history of Africa bears testament to the dangers of leaving artificial states in the hands of profoundly divided countries with a rather small educated caste to take over the bureaucratic burden. Look at the Congo and Belgium, where a country the size of Europe was left in the hands of a people with only a few thousand college graduates between them. The legacy of decolonialisation is as toxic and dangerous as the hideous spectre of the colonialisation itself.
Cutting loose so quickly was always fraught with danger, and with the benefit of Captain Hindsight, a staggered more gradual process would have been better.0 -
I think it showdown a number of things to be honest. As Britain became more left wing after wwii there was a move towards anti imperialism, but there was also the understanding that breaking up the empire would lead to a power vacuum that could lead to lots of internal conflict.0
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »I think it showdown a number of things to be honest. As Britain became more left wing after wwii there was a move towards anti imperialism, but there was also the understanding that breaking up the empire would lead to a power vacuum that could lead to lots of internal conflict.
As Brian has already stated, the British left was never really anti colonialist, well the mainstream left at any rate. Frankly I think the dismantlement of the Empire was driven by economic need - Britain didn't want the burden - more than any humanitarian desire. I would contend that the way decolonialisation was handled was an utter disgrace, it did nothing to help emerging states form constitutions, create a viable education system, develop a political infrastructure. A simple case of 'the moneys gone, lets get out'. None of the European powers could sustain their Empires any longer. The loss of the east Indies for example had a profound impact on the Netherlands, with all the white 'pieds noir' returning 'home' from the far east.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Your nuclear references are not relevent as the empire was already fragmenting at that stage.
And trying to bully your points home because you cant prove them is clear to all posters, not just indioblack in this case.
Em, what? The nuclear armament of Britain was a key feature in the need to dismantle the empire, whether you think that's somehow bullying to point it out or not the fact remains the same. Are you sore because I closed your nazi thread or something?0 -
Advertisement
-
I find this thread interesting but as someone who believes that, on balance, the British Empire was a good thing I'm not going to get involved in a slagging match - especially with a Mod. My parting thought tonight is that why is it, if the British Empire was such an awful thing that most of its original constituent countries have chosen to remain in the Commonwealth which has the British Queen as its head? Not only that, but some countries that were never part of the Empire - Mozambique and Rwanda - have now joined it. They are all out of step except Ireland. :rolleyes:0
-
above is sensible comment, i would consider myself a nationalist however, i also appreciate all that was sone here by the british/commonwealth. lets not have polarised view. lets all take a step back ..............0
-
Judgement Day wrote: »My parting thought tonight is that why is it, if the British Empire was such an awful thing that most of its original constituent countries have chosen to remain in the Commonwealth which has the British Queen as its head? Not only that, but some countries that were never part of the Empire - Mozambique and Rwanda - have now joined it. They are all out of step except Ireland. :rolleyes:
You know if you are purposively trying to rile up some of the other posters on this thread/forum then I suggest you think twice about that particular plan of attack. If you have a problem with another poster in a different thread and you are carrying it around or trying to annoy them here then I suggest you stop.
Mod.0 -
Judgement Day wrote: »I find this thread interesting but as someone who believes that, on balance, the British Empire was a good thing I'm not going to get involved in a slagging match - especially with a Mod. My parting thought tonight is that why is it, if the British Empire was such an awful thing that most of its original constituent countries have chosen to remain in the Commonwealth which has the British Queen as its head? Not only that, but some countries that were never part of the Empire - Mozambique and Rwanda - have now joined it. They are all out of step except Ireland. :rolleyes:
When you look at those remaining, how many are in the european union, or considered first / western world countries? ie Canadia, New Zealand, Australia ..... Would it be more beneficial for the likes of Rwanada and Mosambique to be part of some form of union with a wealthy country as oppose to say the African Union? The Commonwealth of today is nothing like the Empire pre WW10 -
Judgement Day wrote: »I find this thread interesting but as someone who believes that, on balance, the British Empire was a good thing I'm not going to get involved in a slagging match - especially with a Mod. My parting thought tonight is that why is it, if the British Empire was such an awful thing that most of its original constituent countries have chosen to remain in the Commonwealth which has the British Queen as its head? Not only that, but some countries that were never part of the Empire - Mozambique and Rwanda - have now joined it. They are all out of step except Ireland. :rolleyes:
That's because the role of the Commonwealth began to change, meaning that it became legitimate for such nations to join.When Ireland seceded it was more so an expression of British imperialism.0 -
Judgement Day wrote: »I find this thread interesting but as someone who believes that, on balance, the British Empire was a good thing I'm not going to get involved in a slagging match - especially with a Mod. My parting thought tonight is that why is it, if the British Empire was such an awful thing that most of its original constituent countries have chosen to remain in the Commonwealth which has the British Queen as its head? Not only that, but some countries that were never part of the Empire - Mozambique and Rwanda - have now joined it. They are all out of step except Ireland. :rolleyes:
When you look at those remaining, how many are in the european union, or considered first / western world countries? ie Canadia, New Zealand, Australia ..... Would it be more beneficial for the likes of Rwanada and Mosambique to be part of some form of union with a wealthy country as oppose to say the African Union? The Commonwealth of today is nothing like the Empire pre WW1. Don't see why you are putting Ireland into that category.
It is a folly to suggest that Ireland's hands were clean during the expansion of the empire. Our towns and cities profited from the comings and goings of the Empire's armies. Their factories did well when the empire was at war (eg In Athlone, the wollen mill got a lucrative contract to make some of the Russian Army clothing - thus why many towns were hostile to Republicans in 1916, self economic interest) Men went to war under the British flag, whether in India or the Boer to the Middle East. Some men did very well for themselves out of these ventures.
However, it is strange however this debate. Many, like Fratton (whom I do not always agree with, but fully respect and accept knows his stuff), raise the issue that "what about the other empires". Fair enough. Funny though, that whataboutery is swung in some regular's favour when issues like the north is mentioned, when the said regular posters then try shout down others. There is no accusations of bully/lecturing then.
If people wish to debate in these areas, they should damn well be able to discuss and debate all issues freely and respectively and fight their corner on matters which others clearly are not prepared to argee with their view. Acting like one is raising their hands or running off with the football does not help. Neither does charging another person as been aggressive when the written word could suggest many tones. History, particularly, the history of this country and Britain contains many paradoxs, uncomfortable truths and facts. On other issues, people keep preaching that one should look at history at a mature and emotionless point of view. Fair enough, but the preacher should do like wise.
Was the Empire all bad? No, we can all now imagine the great scene in Life of Brian with the People's Front of Judia or the Judia's People's Front. Does Ireland have bad feelings from it? Yes, naturally, thus a majority/fair majority of the country's contempt for the Empire or any Empire (finally seeing the light with the Roman Catholic Empire, though lets face it, the influence in same has been on the wane since the 1990's). Is Ireland the only ones? Hell no. The British Empire was no better or no worse than the French, Spannish, and German's attempts in Africa.0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »Our towns and cities profited from the comings and goings of the Empire's armies. Their factories did well when the empire was at war (eg In Athlone, the wollen mill got a lucrative contract to make some of the Russian Army clothing - thus why many towns were hostile to Republicans in 1916, self economic interest)
It's inaccurate to state though that as an ongoing situation Ireland benefited from the Empire as a given. Our economic history does not bear this out. Our economy was perennially under the control of Westminster and English economic interests and suffered as a result. The various Wool Acts of the seventeenth and eighteen centuries seriously curtailed the production of Irish wool and the Cattle Acts did the same. These Acts were passed for the precise purpose of protecting English economic interests - at the expense of Ireland. There were laws put in place that prevented Ireland from exporting and thereby possibly posing a threat [competition] to English goods in foreign markets.
When the [Protestant] volunteers of the eighteenth century began to make demands for Ireland - it was demands for Irish free trade that they made the most noise about. We were NOT economically free nor did we benefit at any time at the expense of the English economy. Our economic needs were always a subservient consideration.walrusgumble wrote: »The British Empire was no better or no worse than the French, Spannish, and German's attempts in Africa.
of course! But permit me to say that this is not an argument in favour of anything. They were all set up to ensure the mastery and prime economic interests of the Motherland. To say that one was as bad as another is to say that they were all equally bad - all acted in their own economic interests and if this sometimes meant throwing their colonies under the bus - then under the bus we went.0 -
As Brian has already stated, the British left was never really anti colonialist, well the mainstream left at any rate. Frankly I think the dismantlement of the Empire was driven by economic need - Britain didn't want the burden - more than any humanitarian desire. I would contend that the way decolonialisation was handled was an utter disgrace, it did nothing to help emerging states form constitutions, create a viable education system, develop a political infrastructure. A simple case of 'the moneys gone, lets get out'. None of the European powers could sustain their Empires any longer. The loss of the east Indies for example had a profound impact on the Netherlands, with all the white 'pieds noir' returning 'home' from the far east.
IMHO the Left were anti imperialism in principle, if not in practice. Apart from having the opportunity to go off and fight a war in some remote sandy place, the average working class Joe was not affected one way or the other by the Empire, so it was never a burning issue.
With regards how decolonisation was handled by the British, I think they handled it relatively well compared to their peers. It wasn't perfect, but with the goal of making the best of a bad deal, it generally worked quite well.0 -
It's inaccurate to state though that as an ongoing situation Ireland benefited from the Empire as a given. Our economic history does not bear this out. Our economy was perennially under the control of Westminster and English economic interests and suffered as a result. The various Wool Acts of the seventeenth and eighteen centuries seriously curtailed the production of Irish wool and the Cattle Acts did the same. These Acts were passed for the precise purpose of protecting English economic interests - at the expense of Ireland. There were laws put in place that prevented Ireland from exporting and thereby possibly posing a threat [competition] to English goods in foreign markets.
When the [Protestant] volunteers of the eighteenth century began to make demands for Ireland - it was demands for Irish free trade that they made the most noise about. We were NOT economically free nor did we benefit at any time at the expense of the English economy. Our economic needs were always a subservient consideration.
of course! But permit me to say that this is not an argument in favour of anything. They were all set up to ensure the mastery and prime economic interests of the Motherland. To say that one was as bad as another is to say that they were all equally bad - all acted in their own economic interests and if this sometimes meant throwing their colonies under the bus - then under the bus we went.
I would not dispute any of that. Neither am I suggesting it, on a nationwide stage, nor take it as a given, the rise of trade unions / socialism (Irish style) in Dublin and Belfast makes this clear. Nor is it in anyway a suggestion to justify the Empire's rule in Ireland.
You refer to the lack of fiasical autonomy, I agree (obviously) It is one of the major differences between the Treaty of 1921 and the previous Home Rule Bills.
Sure, look at Dublin, supposedly considered to the the Second City of the Empire, yet Belfast (town as it was then) and Derry had more to offer. Dublin had a few biscuit factories and booze distilleries. But look at the slums and I think it had one of the highest child birth death rates in Europe, yet, the Rotunda, (according to the sign near same) was one of the first maternity hosptials in Europe.
What I should have made more clear, is that the big business people or middle class - small shop keepers (do not like using that word) did well out of it. I can assure you business in small towns like Athlone was booming in the lead up to WW1. The big farmers did not do too badly out of the rise of the WW1, in the sense that Britian became more dependent on food stuff etc.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Em, what? The nuclear armament of Britain was a key feature in the need to dismantle the empire, whether you think that's somehow bullying to point it out or not the fact remains the same. Are you sore because I closed your nazi thread or something?
A little bit sore, Silly to close it down just when it was getting interesting! It would be churlish to let that influence my opinion on a thread on the British Empire.
Thats not the point here though.
I dont understand how you think that the nuclear armament of Britain had anything to do with dismantling the empire. Once the empire had started to break up it was never going to stop as different states all had nationalistic ambitions long before end of WWII.
Irish independence started this in 1920's, India 1947.
Therefore to state that nuclear armament (say 1946- 1960 era) caused the empire to breakdown is absurd.
That you try to argue such nonsense at the same time as trying to throw your weight around as a 'mod' against 'Judgement day' shows more about you than we need to see on an opinion based forum. If you disagree with someones opinion you should try and prove them wrong rather than simply telling them to stop.0 -
Advertisement
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »A little bit sore, Silly to close it down just when it was getting interesting! It would be churlish to let that influence my opinion on a thread on the British Empire.
Thats not the point here though.
I dont understand how you think that the nuclear armament of Britain had anything to do with dismantling the empire. Once the empire had started to break up it was never going to stop as different states all had nationalistic ambitions long before end of WWII.
Irish independence started this in 1920's, India 1947.
Therefore to state that nuclear armament (say 1946- 1960 era) caused the empire to breakdown is absurd.
That you try to argue such nonsense at the same time as trying to throw your weight around as a 'mod' against 'Judgement day' shows more about you than we need to see on an opinion based forum. If you disagree with someones opinion you should try and prove them wrong rather than simply telling them to stop.
Ok a number of important things here.
First a mod warning to another user is one of the roles of the mod.
Second, questioning mod decisions in thread is not allowed according to boards rules, so for you to do so again will lead to infractions or bans. Do not refer to mod decisions as nonsense.
Third the nuclear armament period in Britain that I am specifically referring to is from 1945-1952. That is was of huge cost is indisputable. That that money could have been used elsewhere is indisputable. To claim the empire was already crumbling is shortsighted, only India had shown serious demands for independence, African colonies appeared closer to the empire than ever. For you to suggest I think it is the only thing that caused the empire to breakdown is a misrepresentation of my posts.
Fourth, your above post is rude and aggressive and I will thank you to stop using language like abusive and nonsense and claims of throwing weight around as your debating technique because it is not on. I have made a number of points on the history of the British empire, you have not rebutted them, you have just called me names. Stop it.0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »
Sure, look at Dublin, supposedly considered to the the Second City of the Empire, yet Belfast (town as it was then) and Derry had more to offer. Dublin had a few biscuit factories and booze distilleries. But look at the slums and I think it had one of the highest child birth death rates in Europe, yet, the Rotunda, (according to the sign near same) was one of the first maternity hosptials in Europe.
What I should have made more clear, is that the big business people or middle class - small shop keepers (do not like using that word) did well out of it. I can assure you business in small towns like Athlone was booming in the lead up to WW1. The big farmers did not do too badly out of the rise of the WW1, in the sense that Britian became more dependent on food stuff etc.
The title 'Second City of the Empire" has taken on the aura of an urban legend. The origin of that dates to the eighteenth century and had more to do with the building boom of that period than the stark economic factors that lay under the reality of that century and especially after the Act of Union.
Small shopkeepers do not an economy make. The reality is that the Ulster region - most especially Belfast and Derry - did better economically because the thriving linen industry did not in any way pose a challenge to English interests. No laws were passed curtailing the production or export of linen. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the country where wool and cattle suffered over the years because of the laws curtailing their production and export. But finished products from industrialised England were shipped INTO Ireland for purchase. We were a targeted market for their exports.
This was not a situation unique to Ireland. Gandhi wore his Indian cotton clothes as a protest against the British laws against the production there of cotton cloth. Raw cotton was being taken out of India and sent to the cotton mills of Yorkshire where the industry thrived. The cotton cloth was then shipped back to India - all this on British ships - as a finished product for Indians to purchase. As Ghandi said "The only Indians who profit are a few lascars who do the dirty work on the boats for a few cents a day."0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »
I dont understand how you think that the nuclear armament of Britain had anything to do with dismantling the empire. Once the empire had started to break up it was never going to stop as different states all had nationalistic ambitions long before end of WWII.
Irish independence started this in 1920's, India 1947.
The nuclear armament of Britain was a foolish economic enterprise considering the other economic realities. From papers released over the past 10 years or so it had become obvious that Roosevelt hated European Imperialism and wanted to end the "European wars" as he saw WWI and WWII from the American perspective of the late 1930s and early 40s.
In order for the US to enter the war [and clean up the European mess as the Americans saw it] - this was the Lend-Lease agreement of 1941 - Roosevelt forced the British to surrender all their commercial assets in the US and turn over all their gold. FDR actually sent the US ship the Quincy to Cape Town to pick up the last 50 million of British gold reserves when the British looked like they were diddering. There was also the Bretton Woods agreement on Free Trade which essentially ended all the European Imperialists method of favouring the mother country in trade at the expense of the colonies. This was pure Roosevelt. A flat earth policy of economic trading emerged from this - and this was probably the most damaging economically for the British, the French etc. going forward. Holding onto their empires was virtually impossible with these new open and more egalitarian trading rules in place.
So continuing to to behave like a world power - arming with expensive weapons - was not going out work out on this new economic stage. The centre simply could not hold.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »
Third the nuclear armament period in Britain that I am specifically referring to is from 1945-1952. That is was of huge cost is indisputable. That that money could have been used elsewhere is indisputable. To claim the empire was already crumbling is shortsighted, only India had shown serious demands for independence, African colonies appeared closer to the empire than ever. For you to suggest I think it is the only thing that caused the empire to breakdown is a misrepresentation of my posts.
I have made a number of points on the history of the British empire, you have not rebutted them, you have just called me names. Stop it.
I would prefer to discuss the issue at hand if that would be OK.
You missed the main point of my post so I will expand on it as follows with dates as accurate as I can manage:
Canada left British Empire in 1867. (dominion status)
Australia left British Empire in 1901. (dominion status)
New Zealand left British Empire in 1907. (dominion status)
Ireland ....
Egypt left British Empire in 1922.
Indian independence movement through 1930's leading to 1947 independence.
The WWII capitulations of colonies only confirmed the feelings of the weakness of the Empire being at an end.
This is my evidence that the empire was already crumbling before their nuclear armament.
If you were to focus on their overall military spending going back to the earlier dreadnoughts building races with Germany prior to WWI you may have a point. But I dont think the 'Nuclear cost' link is relevent in any significant way to the dismantling of the empire as I have evidenced here.0 -
The nuclear armament of Britain was a foolish economic enterprise considering the other economic realities. From papers released over the past 10 years or so it had become obvious that Roosevelt hated European Imperialism and wanted to end the "European wars" as he saw WWI and WWII from the American perspective of the late 1930s and early 40s.
....
So continuing to to behave like a world power - arming with expensive weapons - was not going out work out on this new economic stage. The centre simply could not hold.
agree mostly. Pity FDR's sentiments have been forgotten by his own country since in their seeking to improve their armaments0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I would prefer to discuss the issue at hand if that would be OK.
You missed the main point of my post so I will expand on it as follows with dates as accurate as I can manage:
Canada left British Empire in 1867. (dominion status)
Australia left British Empire in 1901. (dominion status)
New Zealand left British Empire in 1907. (dominion status)
Ireland ....
Egypt left British Empire in 1922.
Indian independence movement through 1930's leading to 1947 independence.
The WWII capitulations of colonies only confirmed the feelings of the weakness of the Empire being at an end.
This is my evidence that the empire was already crumbling before their nuclear armament.
If you were to focus on their overall military spending going back to the earlier dreadnoughts building races with Germany prior to WWI you may have a point. But I dont think the 'Nuclear cost' link is relevent in any significant way to the dismantling of the empire as I have evidenced here.
The colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand should not be considered in the same way as the African colonies, since they were certainly not treated in the same way. Also political trends of the mid nineteenth century cannot be used to prove the empire was crumbling for over a century. The fact is that decolonisation of the majority of the colonies came within a short period of time after WWII and can amongst other things be attributed to the fact that the country was flat broke, which was due to the combined effects of WWII and squandering money on nuclear arms after WWII that could have been used as stimulus for the empire.
The long drawn out process of the Indian drive for independence which ended in a British rush job only serves to confirm that they were doing everything in their power to maintain the empire until the end of WWII when it simply was no longer economically feasible to pump money into direct political control.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »What? Honestly what is that based on? The only real move by politicians in Britain to 'dismantle' the empire came after WWII when Churchill bankrupted (even further) the country in search of nuclear arms and Britain had to give up the remaining colonies. Even the British left was not strongly anti-Imperialist, there was virtually no internal protest or dissent about Britain's colonial 'properties'.
Atlee was the leader of the UK when the bomb was being built, so the bankrupting was done by a Labour party, in order to keep the UK at the top table.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »The colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand should not be considered in the same way as the African colonies, since they were certainly not treated in the same way. Also political trends of the mid nineteenth century cannot be used to prove the empire was crumbling for over a century. The fact is that decolonisation of the majority of the colonies came within a short period of time after WWII and can amongst other things be attributed to the fact that the country was flat broke, which was due to the combined effects of WWII and squandering money on nuclear arms after WWII that could have been used as stimulus for the empire.
The long drawn out process of the Indian drive for independence which ended in a British rush job only serves to confirm that they were doing everything in their power to maintain the empire until the end of WWII when it simply was no longer economically feasible to pump money into direct political control.
You are correct that the colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand are to be treated differently than african colonies. Together with India they formed the main revenues to the Empire. When these revenues left the empire it was dismantling. All of this was happening before Britain spent money on nuclear weaponry. Nuclear spending was irrelevent as the direction previously taken by India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand had already ensured that the empires time was over.0 -
i do not think they did a bad job of supervising the colonies to inderpendance,most still wish to remember their british heritage,in the form of the commonwealth,and many without any british background want to be part of it,0
-
Advertisement
-
who the fug wrote: »Atlee was the leader of the UK when the bomb was being built, so the bankrupting was done by a Labour party, in order to keep the UK at the top table.
It began under Churchill and was restarted or continued under Atlee. The country was already broke by the time Atlee was in government. Its an interesting point however and shows that the British Left were willing to continue British imperialism if possible (which it clearly wasn't by that time).0
Advertisement