Decline and Fall of the British Empire

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,879
Portugal
I gave both of them (or anyone) the benefit of the doubt. mm?
Not what I said. You wrote an articulated post and I understood it.

And you're wrong…
Sorry, A quote of yours now, like this one:

No, you are.
could be used, but I just really wrote my previous post to say to you that was the first post that I understood your perspective. And it seems that I was not the only one. I didn't post here to enter in the dance "And you're wrong"/"No, you are."
 
Jun 2019
35
ru
British raj was one of the most strangest empire for us Afghans.

Imagine a rural boy in his early teens from afghanistan when British took over bengal, by the time he was something like 40 whole of India was under british rule... A small nation tiny population from 15000 or more kilometers away! In single generation !
it seems, Britain have special treatment to afghans. It could be related with aryan history, which is not loved by british elit. Something similar was with Turkestan, at the time of "Big Game"

I think, it's because they remember parthians and scythians, that were major enemies of Rome and greeks
 
Last edited:
Jan 2017
1,308
Durham
This is a real book title:

https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-British-Empire-1781-1997/dp/0307388417

This topic is one of the most intriguing and controversial topic of contemporary history.
Due to the British Empire and the USA, English remains one of the most widespread languages of the world.
The British Empire also left many notable legacies.
Then, glory isn't forever; the British Empire started suffering since the end of the Boer's War.
After World War I, the British Empire might have achieved its greatest extent; it was quite hollow and brittle.
An interpretation for appeasement is that the British Empire could collapse if it faced another war.

Why did the British Empire crumble and fall?
What legacies did the British Empire leave?
Could the British Empire develop its colonies better?
It was inevitable given the resources and population of the United States. Similar work ethic and ideas but 6 times the size in terms of people.

But, it was accelerated by the decision to enter WW1. We borrowed heavily from the Americans and the final advantage we'd held prior to that was wiped out in a few short years.

After 1918, we may have had a large land mass but we'd lost our bargaining power, which meant everything.
 
Jan 2017
1,308
Durham
The most far-reaching legacy of British pseudoempire was huge genocide in North America and Australia. This also had some indirect consequences -- author of Mein Kampf openly admired this giant achievements.
Nonsense. The people who formulated Nazi policy hated both Britain and the United States because they'd cynically concluded both nations were degenerate and a threat to European culture (they weren't the first Germans, nor Europeans, who believed that by a long chalk). The only thing Hitler admired about Britain, well two things: the upper classes and their disdain for everyone else, i.e. arrogance and care-free with it, and the ability to control a huge nation such as India with civil servants. Apart from that, Hitler's Germany and Britain were polar opposites. They hated our commercial outlook and liberal attitude.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,603
Florania
Nonsense. The people who formulated Nazi policy hated both Britain and the United States because they'd cynically concluded both nations were degenerate and a threat to European culture (they weren't the first Germans, nor Europeans, who believed that by a long chalk). The only thing Hitler admired about Britain, well two things: the upper classes and their disdain for everyone else, i.e. arrogance and care-free with it, and the ability to control a huge nation such as India with civil servants. Apart from that, Hitler's Germany and Britain were polar opposites. They hated our commercial outlook and liberal attitude.
This is similar to imperial China "rule of the scholarly upper elite";
they hardly value the contributions of the lower classes.
Anyone else who do the dirty works belongs to the "muddy leg class".

Such rule works so long in China that was not questioned;
even the Republic of China worked by such rules.
Why was the rule of elites a common, workable "fiction"?

Yuval Noah Harari, the Homo sapiens who called human structures fictions,
revolutionized our perceptions of the world.
Is it true that human society works by myths and fictions?
 
Jun 2017
2,967
Connecticut
Nonsense. The people who formulated Nazi policy hated both Britain and the United States because they'd cynically concluded both nations were degenerate and a threat to European culture (they weren't the first Germans, nor Europeans, who believed that by a long chalk). The only thing Hitler admired about Britain, well two things: the upper classes and their disdain for everyone else, i.e. arrogance and care-free with it, and the ability to control a huge nation such as India with civil servants. Apart from that, Hitler's Germany and Britain were polar opposites. They hated our commercial outlook and liberal attitude.
Tbh both us(Americans) and the British have kind of whitewashed the 1930s to make ourselves more admirable heroes. Truth is the British public was dragged into the war(as in actual fighting not the pamphlet bombing)kicking and screaming by Churchill(despite his other moral faults) who had no ability to go on the offensive after 1940 after and engaged in revisionist history once the war was over. We(the US) would never have attacked the Nazis if they hadn't declared war on us and probably never even touch Europe if there's no Soviet threat. Nazism was also just as mainstream in our upper class(though they of course get credit for realizing the error of their past and shoving it into their closets) as the Brits. Also I don't think given Hitler's experience with the Prussian aristocracy he would admire a country because of that, Fascists/Nazis were a literal right wing replacement for those folks. Think it was all the racist stuff and the empire's success.
 
Jan 2017
1,308
Durham
Tbh both us(Americans) and the British have kind of whitewashed the 1930s to make ourselves more admirable heroes. Truth is the British public was dragged into the war(as in actual fighting not the pamphlet bombing)kicking and screaming by Churchill(despite his other moral faults) who had no ability to go on the offensive after 1940 after and engaged in revisionist history once the war was over. We(the US) would never have attacked the Nazis if they hadn't declared war on us and probably never even touch Europe if there's no Soviet threat. Nazism was also just as mainstream in our upper class(though they of course get credit for realizing the error of their past and shoving it into their closets) as the Brits. Also I don't think given Hitler's experience with the Prussian aristocracy he would admire a country because of that, Fascists/Nazis were a literal right wing replacement for those folks. Think it was all the racist stuff and the empire's success.
I didn't mean to imply that 'Nazism was mainstream' in the British upper-class. It certainly wasn't. There were a few bad apples, but they were few and far between.

And, I'm not sure how we've whitewashed the 1930s. Assuming you mean the policy of appeasement, then everyone is aware of this, but then a cursory understanding of British foreign policy would tell anyone that this policy was continuation, not change. It was the same tactic we'd employed for centuries as we were unwilling to get involved in continental European wars. WW1 was an aberration in that it was unusual for us to send an army to continental Europe at the outset of war.

And, I'd be hugely surprised if Nazism was mainstream in the US upper class - it's simply not that sort of country, the US doesn't hold those ideals.
 
Jun 2017
2,967
Connecticut
I didn't mean to imply that 'Nazism was mainstream' in the British upper-class. It certainly wasn't. There were a few bad apples, but they were few and far between.

And, I'm not sure how we've whitewashed the 1930s. Assuming you mean the policy of appeasement, then everyone is aware of this, but then a cursory understanding of British foreign policy would tell anyone that this policy was continuation, not change. It was the same tactic we'd employed for centuries as we were unwilling to get involved in continental European wars. WW1 was an aberration in that it was unusual for us to send an army to continental Europe at the outset of war.

And, I'd be hugely surprised if Nazism was mainstream in the US upper class - it's simply not that sort of country, the US doesn't hold those ideals.
No appeasement was rational by the standard of the 1930s. Most people in most times pursuing Chamberlain's policy would be right. It just so happened Hitler was what Churchill said he was. The UK though despite Churchill's rhetoric was able to do little except hold on to what it already had(and take Italian North Africa). They needed us to stop Hitler, without the US, the UK would have just been able to sit across the Chanel exchanging bombs for the foreseeable future. And us(Americans) did not either enter the war or liberate Western Europe out of the goodness of our hearts. We did it because Hitler declared war, no proof we would have done that on our own, and we attacked France because we thought the Soviets could take all of Europe and we didn't want that. And you can say well the Soviets would have stopped Hitler's genocide anyway, I don't think the Soviets would have managed to liberate all of Europe without at least the invasion of Italy, think they were running on exhaust fumes and the advance halts in Eastern Europe and a peace eventually struck.

By Nazism I mean 'scientific" racism. Largely buoyoed by the discovery of evolution. I consider Nazism to be the desire for an ethno state so maybe I should rephrase to more of that sort of ideology Hitler had. In the 1920s that was very popular among the upper middle class, in the UK as a justification for colonialism in the US a justification for segregation. But there were riots against blacks at the time(Black Wall Street key example), not even limited to the south but elsewhere. The man who preached self determination and served as a liberal(geopolitically at least) in contrast to the feudal aristocratic system, Woodrow Wilson was the most racist President in post Civil War US history and that was standard of the era.

The characters in the Great Gatsby a period novel talk about this in the first or second chapter. That book was written in the period and can't really hide a mindset you're more often to see in original period works that people weren't able to cover up. It's why you hear mumblings "so and so was sympathetic to the Nazi's" because they shared many of those "scientific" racist tropes. Examples would be Edward VIII in the UK and Prescott Bush or one of the Rockefeller's(forgot which one) in the US and those were not aberrations, those were common sentiments with the Nazi scientific slant being more common in the upper class. Why do you think occasionally when we are arguing race someone comes in here talking about some Oxford or Harvard paper or study from back in the day(I got shellacked for this by a Brit a few weeks back who was trying to tell me I was insulting Oxford blah blah blah) that says hideous things? There was also at least one Nazi rally though (Swastika's and all) in Madison Square Garden(and yeah it makes watching Knicks games very very weird).

Part of why the aftermath of the Holocaust was so important it is served as a slap in the face to these elites as to where this sort of thinking had the potential to lead. That generation quickly shoved those 1920s and 1930s ideas into their closet and is responsible for the entire human rights movement. Before that we like to think we were vastly different and perhaps from Hitler and people seeking a "final solution" we were, but that is our modern selves speaking more so than the past. While most elites from this era didn't see race as a dominant issue nor had an ambition to do what Hitler did, the worldview that made those atrocities possible were widespread among the elite at the time especially in the English speaking world.

And yeah this comes off as conspiratorial but it was part of our history and instead of pretending we were heroes we should confront that. Because it's very important in stopping this behavior from ever getting to that point.