The British Empire Thread

MarchDub

The Commonwealth is not exactly evolving as a centre for anything but disputes and dis-organization. Its days may be numbered if new leaked documents are anything to go by.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/08/commonwealth-human-rights-leaked-document

QUOTE : The organisation's [Commonwealth's] London-based institutions, the secretariat and the charitable foundation, are both in turmoil, riven by disputes over their purpose and direction, and internal wrangles over the treatment of staff.Coming soon after the well-publicised shortcomings in India's preparations for the Commonwealth Games, the latest revelations about dysfunction within the secretariat and foundation are likely to add to questions over what the Commonwealth is for. The most threatening internal rupture is over human rights. Staff at the secretariat were furious when the secretary general, Kamalesh Sharma, remained silent over a series of abuses by member states in recent years.

For example, when the Gambian president, Yahya Jammeh, threatened to behead homosexuals in 2008; when government troops and Tamil Tiger rebels were accused of widespread atrocities at the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka last year; and when a Malawi court in May sentenced a gay couple to jail for being homosexual, the secretary general [of the Commonwealth] ignored calls from secretariat staff urging him to express concern at least.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

agree mostly. Pity FDR's sentiments have been forgotten by his own country since in their seeking to improve their armaments

This will take us off topic but just let me say that it was FDR's vision of a strong USA emerging from the ashes of WWII that would end the European wars.

It was President Eisenhower in the following decade who saw that arms building could lead to what he warned was the "Military/Industrial complex" that would lead to further if different disputes. But who paid attention to that one?

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

This will take us off topic but just let me say that it was FDR's vision of a strong USA emerging from the ashes of WWII that would end the European wars.

It was President Eisenhower in the following decade who saw that arms building could lead to what he warned was the "Military/Industrial complex" that would lead to further if different disputes. But who paid attention to that one?

how quickly history changes,ike,conducted the cold war,reds under the bed and all that,he locked up 1000s of people, without trail,i was sailing to the states in the late fifties on british ships, when the ship would dock the US immigration would come aboard,and fingerprint and take photos of you,they would be question the crew to check if they were communist,if you were daft enough to say[like a crew member on my ship said] i have a hammer and sickle tattoo on my arm,he went into jail , problem is people will only remember the good bits about him, also he was no friend of ireland

Judgement Day

MarchDub wrote: »

The Commonwealth is not exactly evolving as a centre for anything but disputes and dis-organization. It's days may be numbered if new leaked documents are anything to go by.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/08/commonwealth-human-rights-leaked-document

QUOTE : The organisation's [Commonwealth's] London-based institutions, the secretariat and the charitable foundation, are both in turmoil, riven by disputes over their purpose and direction, and internal wrangles over the treatment of staff.Coming soon after the well-publicised shortcomings in India's preparations for the Commonwealth Games, the latest revelations about dysfunction within the secretariat and foundation are likely to add to questions over what the Commonwealth is for. The most threatening internal rupture is over human rights. Staff at the secretariat were furious when the secretary general, Kamalesh Sharma, remained silent over a series of abuses by member states in recent years.

For example, when the Gambian president, Yahya Jammeh, threatened to behead homosexuals in 2008; when government troops and Tamil Tiger rebels were accused of widespread atrocities at the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka last year; and when a Malawi court in May sentenced a gay couple to jail for being homosexual, the secretary general [of the Commonwealth] ignored calls from secretariat staff urging him to express concern at least.

Now here we agree on something at last. The Commonwealth concept is a good one IMO but the lack of interest shown in it by British governments down the years is typical of the lack of political savvy that led to Britain's interest in the Republic dwindling to a small patch of land on Merrion Road and the residency at Glencairn. The emasculated British monarchy maintains a keen interest in the Commonwealth and, indeed, the United Kingdom but few politicians do. The rush to retreat from Empire and the current problems of the Commonwealth is now about to be joined by the Balkanisation of Britain as a monument to the failure of generations of British politicians - 'the frocks' as Sir.Henry Wilson described them. Troublespots such as Kashmir, Afghanistan and the Middle East where Britain had years of experience and could play a useful role today have been left to the damn Americans who went from being a colony to a superpower with nothing in between and does it show. Last post - I promise.

MarchDub

Judgement Day wrote: »

Troublespots such as Kashmir, Afghanistan and the Middle East where Britain had years of experience and could play a useful role today have been left to the damn Americans who went from being a colony to a superpower with nothing in between and does it show. Last post - I promise.

Yeah - it's awful when the peasant-colonists get to be in charge. The nerve of them rising above themselves! One thing you can say about the Brits - they may have been SOBs but they knew which fork to use.

Fratton Fred

I would very much like to see some sort of link to back up the assertions made by Brian and MarchDub about nuclear weapons, Churchill and the demise of the British empire. This is the first time I have heard these claims.

Obviously Britain developed these because it wanted to regain it's place in the world order and had nothing whatsoever to do with the massive military might of the red army that occupied half of europe and threatened to take over all of it.

it sounds to me that our respected historians are letting their own political beliefs cloud their opinions and have gone from historical discussion to a political one.

Judgement Day

MarchDub wrote: »

Yeah - it's awful when the peasant-colonists get to be in charge. The nerve of them rising above themselves! One thing you can say about the Brits - they may have been SOBs but they knew which fork to use.

I can't believe that you actually read that from my post. You've a lot of baggage but then I suppose I do too.

MarchDub

Judgement Day wrote: »

I can't believe that you actually read that from my post. You've a lot of baggage but then I suppose I do too.

I was only jesting - I got it from your statement:

'the damn Americans who went from being a colony to a superpower with nothing in between and does it show'

The imagery it brought to mind was of the perennial Old Boys' Club talk.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would very much like to see some sort of link to back up the assertions made by Brian and MarchDub about nuclear weapons, Churchill and the demise of the British empire. This is the first time I have heard these claims.

Obviously Britain developed these because it wanted to regain it's place in the world order and had nothing whatsoever to do with the massive military might of the red army that occupied half of europe and threatened to take over all of it.

it sounds to me that our respected historians are letting their own political beliefs cloud their opinions and have gone from historical discussion to a political one.

No need to be smart I'm not a historian as if you didn't know. I'm not going to post a link, do some research for yourself on this one. I didn't suggest any reason for developing the weapons only that they did develop them, anything you added there was just your own political beliefs.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would very much like to see some sort of link to back up the assertions made by Brian and MarchDub about nuclear weapons, Churchill and the demise of the British empire. This is the first time I have heard these claims.

Obviously Britain developed these because it wanted to regain it's place in the world order and had nothing whatsoever to do with the massive military might of the red army that occupied half of europe and threatened to take over all of it.

it sounds to me that our respected historians are letting their own political beliefs cloud their opinions and have gone from historical discussion to a political one.

Well speaking for myself, I don't see it as an isolated event that was a sole contributor to the demise of Empire. Not by any means. In my posts I pointed out the economic realities and the political circumstances that existed at the end of the war which made the build up of weaponry an expense too far.

Britain was no longer in an economic position to offer a major offensive to the USSR. This is not opinion - this is based on the economic reality that existed after WWII.

walrusgumble

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!:p Fight! Fight!

Ah come on lads, this is getting good. Please, for the sake of debate, both of ye put some links and arguments/counter arguments, in your own time, of course.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

No need to be smart I'm not a historian as if you didn't know. I'm not going to post a link, do some research for yourself on this one. I didn't suggest any reason for developing the weapons only that they did develop them, anything you added there was just your own political beliefs.

I didn't know that actually, i thought you were a History grad.

MarchDub wrote: »

Well speaking for myself, I don't see it as an isolated event that was a sole contributor to the demise of Empire. Not by any means. In my posts I pointed out the economic realities and the political circumstances that existed at the end of the war which made the build up of weaponry an expense too far.

Britain was no longer in an economic position to offer a major offensive to the USSR. This is not opinion - this is based on the economic reality that existed after WWII.

You are mixing up events and contexts and coming up with an answer that makes perfect sense....60 years later.

Lets go back to the yalta conference. three world leaders, all with very very different objectives on what to achieve and differing views on post WWII europe.

Roosevelt, on his last legs, wanted the United Nations as his legacy and a complete withdrawl from europe of US troops to prevent any more loss of US life if the europeans kicked off again. Although the UN was supposed to prevent this.

you then had Stalin, who wanted to build a soviet empire and create a nice big buffer to protect himself from the west. he also wanted to increase soviet influence on the world stage.

lastly, you had Winston, who by this time had little left to bargain with. Britain was on it's last legs and basically was caught in the middle between the US and the USSR. Churchill's objectives from Yalta were mainly to keep the US in europe, to help rebuild it and prevent the spread of communism, but this wasn't by any means guaranteed. remember, at this time there was no NATO.

nuclear weapons were being developed by the USSR and by the US. Britain and france were the only two countries in europe that had, albeit remote, chance of facing up the USSR if the US pulled out, so from that prspective, what else were the British and French supposed to do?

Add to this the building of the Berlin wall and the Berlin blockade, it is, in my opinion, understandable why Britain spent so much on developing nuclear weapons. This was not an imperialist move, it was one of self preservation and as we are not speaking Russian, one you could argue worked.

Whilst all this was happening at the time the empire was being dismantled, i don't think it is related. The world changed enormously during WWII.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I didn't know that actually, i thought you were a History grad.

Ok fair enough. I did history for my degree and a interdisciplinary MA but I'm not a historian.

nuclear weapons were being developed by the USSR and by the US. Britain and france were the only two countries in europe that had, albeit remote, chance of facing up the USSR if the US pulled out, so from that prspective, what else were the British and French supposed to do?

Add to this the building of the Berlin wall and the Berlin blockade, it is, in my opinion, understandable why Britain spent so much on developing nuclear weapons. This was not an imperialist move, it was one of self preservation and as we are not speaking Russian, one you could argue worked.

Whilst all this was happening at the time the empire was being dismantled, i don't think it is related. The world changed enormously during WWII.

Yes but the point I was making was not why he wanted nuclear power or what the purpose of it might be, only that the cost of it along with everything else effectively bankrupted the country and led to the British government taking its eye off the ball empire wise. If my posts suggested that I thought nuclear arms was the only reason why the empire fell apart I'm sorry that it came across like that. I was only suggesting one of the key reasons.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You are mixing up events and contexts and coming up with an answer that makes perfect sense....60 years later.

Lets go back to the yalta conference. three world leaders, all with very very different objectives on what to achieve and differing views on post WWII europe.

Roosevelt, on his last legs, wanted the United Nations as his legacy and a complete withdrawl from europe of US troops to prevent any more loss of US life if the europeans kicked off again. Although the UN was supposed to prevent this.

you then had Stalin, who wanted to build a soviet empire and create a nice big buffer to protect himself from the west. he also wanted to increase soviet influence on the world stage.

lastly, you had Winston, who by this time had little left to bargain with. Britain was on it's last legs and basically was caught in the middle between the US and the USSR. Churchill's objectives from Yalta were mainly to keep the US in europe, to help rebuild it and prevent the spread of communism, but this wasn't by any means guaranteed. remember, at this time there was no NATO.

nuclear weapons were being developed by the USSR and by the US. Britain and france were the only two countries in europe that had, albeit remote, chance of facing up the USSR if the US pulled out, so from that prspective, what else were the British and French supposed to do?

Add to this the building of the Berlin wall and the Berlin blockade, it is, in my opinion, understandable why Britain spent so much on developing nuclear weapons. This was not an imperialist move, it was one of self preservation and as we are not speaking Russian, one you could argue worked.

Whilst all this was happening at the time the empire was being dismantled, i don't think it is related. The world changed enormously during WWII.

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of what is being said here - by me anyway. This is just looking at the track of recorded events. I am not doing a 'things could have turned out whatever' senario. I really don't care about 'what ifs' or 'might have beens' at all.

What you say in your opening sentence is absolutely right. Looking back with the hindsight of 60 years does make everything clearer. Yes! That is what historical research tries to do in order to try and understand the past and where events/decisions led to.

jonniebgood1

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes but the point I was making was not why he wanted nuclear power or what the purpose of it might be, only that the cost of it along with everything else effectively bankrupted the country and led to the British government taking its eye off the ball empire wise. If my posts suggested that I thought nuclear arms was the only reason why the empire fell apart I'm sorry that it came across like that. I was only suggesting one of the key reasons.

1.Could you please back up your assertion that seeking nuclear capacity bankrupted Britain.
2. If you can do that can you then elaborate on just how that would have anything to do with the end of the empire (considering the most significant parts of the empire were in process of leaving or had already left)

A casual observer would think that WWII had bankrupt Britain so you need to back up your statements with what you are basing them on.

jonniebgood1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11670247
Perhaps Britain will go bankrupt again Brian- ending the commonwealth?

Denerick

To be fair, the nuclear expansion and the maintenance of a large military were only symptoms of Britains fiscal crisis, they racked up gigantic public debts during WWII and also went about forming a welfare state on a shoestring budget. Brian is making way too much hay out of the nuclear thing.

MarchDub

I think a central key to this discussion is the character of Churchill himself. As more documents are released - including diaries of those who lived through these events - the shine is coming off. One aspect of his personality that comes out is repeated comments on his lack of judgment [or maybe erratic judgment ] , his unwillingness to listen to advice - but with a total belief in himself.

Lynn Olson writes in The Rebels who Brought Churchill to Power that a colleague of Churchill's once rose in the House of Commons to complain about his attitude. He complained that Churchill "walks in, makes his speech, walks out and leaves the whole place as if God Almighty had spoken...he never listens to any man's speech but this own'. Loud cheers were reported from both sides of the chamber.

On another note Lloyd George said in correspondence: "Poor Winston ...a brilliant fellow without judgment which is adequate to his fiery impulse. His steering gear is too weak for this horse-power'.

Denerick

The shine was always going to come off Churchill as the years come by, the Irish are more aware than most of how flawed a character he was with regards to his handling of the War of Independence.

The important thing is that the Brits have their national hero. All countries have them. Most Britons only know two things about Churchill - that he was the inspirational PM during WWII and that he gave some wonderful speeches (i.e 'we will fight them on the beaches...' and 'never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few...')

Less is known of his fetish for Boer concentration camps, his warmongering past, his cock up at Gallipoli, his admiration of Mussolini... But again, he is a national hero, and this stuff is irrelevant in the grander scheme of things :P

ejmaztec

I think that the "stitch-up" by the Americans, during and after WW2, did more to finish off the empire than anything else. Sterling being replaced by the Dollar as the major world trading currency was probably the final nail in the coffin.

At the present time, the Americans seem to be fighting tooth and nail, the Chinese suggestion of an "oil currency" change, as this is the last thing the US wants.

who the fug

Shock & Awe

The left found proof that Winnie was not perfect, I do love it when they catch up with us :rolleyes:


Denerick

You forgot his campaign against independence for India, his crushing of the communists in Greece , or his sending Russians back to Stalin or his support for Lloyd George when it came to introducing State pensions, or his criticism of Kitchener in the Sudan, support for Irish independence, commissioning of the Beveridge Report, acceptance of the welfare state/ nationalization in 1951


A very annoying person, but was there when the glass was broken

MarchDub

To be fair to English historiography - much of the work being done that chisels away at the Churchill myth is actually coming from within England. [As is the dismantling of Whig history versions of British history.] Christopher Catherwood comes to mind when he took on the Churchill role/responsibility in the 'development' of modern day Iraq in his book Winston's Folly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/nov/27/featuresreviews.guardianreview7

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

To be fair to English historiography - much of the work being done that chisels away at the Churchill myth is actually coming from within England. [As is the dismantling of Whig history versions of British history.] Christopher Catherwood comes to mind when he took on the Churchill role/responsibility in the 'development' of modern day Iraq in his book Winston's Folly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/nov/27/featuresreviews.guardianreview7

I'm sure it's not intentional, but your last couple of posts have come across as a tad patronising.

Churchill is considered a national hero for the role he played in WWII, but other than that, it is very common knowledge the role he played in Gallipoli (for example) and what a pompous arrogant git he could be and don't forget, he lost the 1945 election by a landslide.

I have to add though, the fact that the roles he played in places like Iraq and
south Africa have been analysed and commented on so many times is a tribute to the guy. If he wasn't considered a national hero, no one would care less about his career.

DublinWriter

Denerick wrote: »

The shine was always going to come off Churchill as the years come by, the Irish are more aware than most of how flawed a character he was with regards to his handling of the War of Independence.

True, but I think you could have only countered a megalomaniac Austrian tee-totalling non-drinking Codeine addict with an English brandy-quaffing cigar-smoking arrogant-git.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm sure it's not intentional, but your last couple of posts have come across as a tad patronising.

Churchill is considered a national hero for the role he played in WWII, but other than that, it is very common knowledge the role he played in Gallipoli (for example) and what a pompous arrogant git he could be and don't forget, he lost the 1945 election by a landslide.

I have to add though, the fact that the roles he played in places like Iraq and
south Africa have been analysed and commented on so many times is a tribute to the guy. If he wasn't considered a national hero, no one would care less about his career.

God forbid that I'd be patronising - so let me add that the role he played in WWII is also coming under the microscope amongst English historians -and I don't just mean Taylorites - as had been disussed on another thread here in the past.

Edit: You're right though, I certainly didn't mean to be 'patronising' and didn't get what you meant.

InTheTrees

Churchill was voted out of office by huge margins twice wasnt he?

I think thats part of his mystique; he wasnt much of a politician. He was a soldier, and when called upon to fight he performed right up there with Nelson, Wellington etc etc.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

God forbid that I'd be patronising - so let me add that the role he played in WWII is also coming under the microscope amongst English historians -and I don't just mean Taylorites - as had been disussed on another thread here in the past.

Edit: You're right though, I certainly didn't mean to be 'patronising' and didn't get what you meant.

No worries, just me being menopausal again:D

InTheTrees wrote: »

Churchill was voted out of office by huge margins twice wasnt he?

I think thats part of his mystique; he wasnt much of a politician. He was a soldier, and when called upon to fight he performed right up there with Nelson, Wellington etc etc.

Churchill got things done. He gave people the tools they needed to get the job done, and he helped motivate people.

For example, He was approached about problems with the D-Day landings. He was warned that the allies needed vast amounts of fuel and also needed harbours, of which none were available. Churchill's response to this was to provide the necessary resources to the mulberry Harbours and Pluto projects, which were a great success.

PatsytheNazi

who the fug wrote: »

Shock & Awe

The left found proof that Winnie was not perfect, I do love it when they catch up with us :rolleyes:


Denerick

You forgot his campaign against independence for India, his crushing of the communists in Greece , or his sending Russians back to Stalin or his support for Lloyd George when it came to introducing State pensions, or his criticism of Kitchener in the Sudan, support for Irish independence, commissioning of the Beveridge Report, acceptance of the welfare state/ nationalization in 1951


A very annoying person, but was there when the glass was broken

His support for Irish independence :eek:. I don't think that any British govt offical at the time did as much to block Irish independence than that criminal. Part of the cabinet that put down the 1916 rising, sent in the Black and Tans and Auxillary's, defended the indiscriminate murder, looting and burning by the British army across the country, negotiated and forced through the Treaty with direct threats. I'm afraid son you need to read a history book sometime.

He also invaded Iran in WW2 to take hand in hand with Joe Stalin's Red army. Like Dev said, " to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean that Britain’s necessity would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count….this same code is precisely why we have the disastrous succession of wars… "

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No worries, just me being menopausal again:D



Churchill got things done. He gave people the tools they needed to get the job done, and he helped motivate people.

For example, He was approached about problems with the D-Day landings. He was warned that the allies needed vast amounts of fuel and also needed harbours, of which none were available. Churchill's response to this was to provide the necessary resources to the mulberry Harbours and Pluto projects, which were a great success.

And don't forget as you pointed out on the military forum, he said never surrender after Dunkirk. But they forgot about that at Singapore

MarchDub

InTheTrees wrote: »

Churchill was voted out of office by huge margins twice wasnt he?

I think thats part of his mystique; he wasnt much of a politician. He was a soldier, and when called upon to fight he performed right up there with Nelson, Wellington etc etc.

The question before historians is this - and I'm not looking to shake things up here, just reporting on where the history narrative seems to be going - was he actually 'called upon' to fight or did he manipulate the situation where he got what he wanted, which was war. And then live to regret it when he saw the outcome?

I think as newer generations of historians come along the question of how the British Empire collapsed, the economics involved, the price of war etc. becomes more central. As more documents come to light - cabinet minutes, memoirs, diaries etc. it becomes easier to see the period in a clearer light.

Churchill himself had grave misgivings about WWII when it became obvious what the cost was - he wrote that when he was asked by President Roosevelt what the war - WWII - should be called he replied cynically, '''The Unnecessary War' - there never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle".

Just what did Churchill mean by this? A huge question.