Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 18th, 2016, 11:34 PM   #21

TotalAaron's Avatar
No Relation. to stalin
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Hunnic Empire
Posts: 4,471
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
he means that nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Ah i see thanks
TotalAaron is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 19th, 2016, 12:08 AM   #22

Offspring's Avatar
Internet Zombie
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Romānia
Posts: 7,154
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by WITSEND View Post
Your numbers are a little flawed. They only account for National GDP. Add Empire GDP to the UK and they are first across the board and add Dominion GDPs and the lead is extensive.
The numbers are from Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict among the Great Powers from 1500 to 2000.

Anyway, my point was that it wouldn't have been able to maintain its empire anyway, after 1941.
Offspring is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 05:40 AM   #23
Academician
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: Germany
Posts: 65

Britain maybe could have kept the empire (longer) if it had done more to avoid the WWI because that's the big changer. In 1941 it would have been really stupid to make peace because, even if we neglect the disgusting moral aspects of accepting Nazi rule, with someone like Hitler and the nationalsocialistic system a safe coexistence in the longer run would have been unrealistic. Hitler admired Britain but who knows what he would have done if he ruled the continent?

And even if there was such a chance, would the empire have been worth it? The struggle for freedom in many colonies started before WWI and it would have been difficult to deal with it. Sometimes less is more. Germany for example, although it lost two big wars, some territory and the colonies, today politically is in a much better position than in any time between 1870 and 1945. I think Britain spared itself a lot of trouble by quickly accepting the loss of the empire after the 1950s.
geala is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 05:41 AM   #24

Offspring's Avatar
Internet Zombie
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Romānia
Posts: 7,154
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by geala View Post
Britain maybe could have kept the empire (longer) if it had done more to avoid the WWI because that's the big changer. In 1941 it would have been really stupid to make peace because, even if we neglect the disgusting moral aspects of accepting Nazi rule, with someone like Hitler and the nationalsocialistic system a safe coexistence in the longer run would have been unrealistic. Hitler admired Britain but who knows what he would have done if he ruled the continent?

And even if there was such a chance, would the empire have been worth it? The struggle for freedom in many colonies started before WWI and it would have been difficult to deal with it. Sometimes less is more. Germany for example, although it lost two big wars, some territory and the colonies, today politically is in a much better position than in any time between 1870 and 1945. I think Britain spared itself a lot of trouble by quickly accepting the loss of the empire after the 1950s.
I agree.
Offspring is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 07:54 AM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,545

The idea of a German dominated continent has been a threat to peace and stability of Europe since those barbarians first threatened the frontiers of the Roman empire and remains as much of a threat today as it ever has been. A German dominated continent would have eventually subdued and oppressed Britain, it may have taken a generation or two, but the barbarian hoards would have eventually made it, once again, across the channel. Peace with Germany was not an option, regular wars to contain the Hun are the fate of Europe and I can't see that anything has substantially changed in this regard in the last 2000 years. As it has been before it will inevitably be again.

Britain's failure was not in fulfilling the duty of civilized man to stand against the barbarian hordes, but in capitulating to them. Not to the German barbarians, they were defeated and their threat diminished for many decades, nor the Russian barbarians, they too would fall before the western alliance and are a second-rate power today. But Britain did fail to subdue the the Indian and African barbarians, she embraced the decadence of free money and a nanny state at the expense of her Imperial duties. She became more obsessed with preserving the lives of her subjects than the glory and lands of her Empire.

So to answer the OP, no, I don't understand the British today (but, to be fair, I don't really understand most Americans anymore either). But I do understand the British of the 19th century. They were different men, a more noble race, they understood the great virtues of duty, honour, and empire and did not place an unmanly emphasis on their own safety and well being. They were sure of their place in the world and would subdue by the sword anybody who questioned it. Some people suggest that the loss of the empire caused a cultural crisis for Britain, but I think they have it backwards; it was when Britain started to entertain dangerous and evil ideas from the continent, ideas like egalitarianism and self-determination, that an age of cultural decay and decadence set in, it was this cultural decay that lead to the loss of the empire, not the other way around.
constantine is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:21 AM   #26

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,295

Didn't Britain contribute to those ideas?
notgivenaway is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 09:48 AM   #27
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Greater Manchester
Posts: 200

Vote Leave on 23rd June.
Warwolf is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 09:56 AM   #28
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Greater Manchester
Posts: 200

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offspring View Post
I'm not going to argue the part about exceptionalism or the parts about immigrants, since I'm not interested in a debate about that. I am curious about the part related to keeping the Empire.

In 1870, it was 3rd in GDP (behind the US and Russia) and 3rd in military expenditures (behind Russia and France). When WW1 started, Britain was 4th in military personnel, 4th in GDP and 3rd in military spending. It's also questionable if it was wise for Britain, at the time, to export so much capital instead of investing it in the home industry. Protecting the Empire was already more of a burden than an asset. You also have the rise of nationalism. I don't think having peace in 1941 would have saved the Empire.
In 1870 Britain had the largest economy in the world followed by France.
Warwolf is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 10:24 AM   #29

Offspring's Avatar
Internet Zombie
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Romānia
Posts: 7,154
Blog Entries: 8

Deleted.

I apologise. My browser had a glitch.

Last edited by Offspring; May 23rd, 2016 at 11:11 AM.
Offspring is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 10:25 AM   #30

Offspring's Avatar
Internet Zombie
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Romānia
Posts: 7,154
Blog Entries: 8

Deleted.

I apologise. My browser had a glitch.

Last edited by Offspring; May 23rd, 2016 at 11:10 AM.
Offspring is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
british, understand



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do we understand sex? Robespierre Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 109 July 18th, 2011 07:08 AM
My Lai. Do People Understand? Son of Cathal Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 23 April 14th, 2009 08:23 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.