did Britain have to let their empire go?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23880
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 13:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: did Britain have to let their empire go?
Posted By: Guess
Subject: did Britain have to let their empire go?
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 00:38
|
Were the british capable of maintaining their empire and was there any economic benefit to keeping the empire?
did they let it go due to WW2 and they did not feel they could conquer people after fighting the germans? |
Replies:
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 01:26
|
I think they were exhausted financially as well as just outright exhausted. You can only hustle on a treadmill for so long. As they said: "the sun never sets on the British Empire". Eventually its outright exhaustion and tiredness. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Guess
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 02:25
| didn't the empire generate alot of profits for England? If not, why would they want it? |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 06:36
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 08:38
|
The WWII ended any hopes of the Empire. THe Yanks made it clear that the empire had to go, esp the Roosevelt administration. I mean pretty hard to argue that you are fighting for "freedom" and then have half the world as a colony. ------------- |
Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 10:22
True but Empire's become expensive especially when a power is facing a financial crisis. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 11:53
|
It shouldn't be overlooked that the first steps to dismantling the Empire as an Empire took place well before WW2, with the 1931 Statute of Westminster, formally creating the Commonwealth, being perhaps the best symbolic date. There truly was a strong hope from that point on through the forties and fifties for creating the Commonwealth as a bloc of independent states symbolically linked through recognition of a common Head of State, and more practically by preferential trading agreements and keeping sterling as a reserve currency. It kind of partly worked out in that the Commonwealth still exists as a meaningful group of countries with at least some common standards, but it didn't work out as fully as hoped, primarily because of countries preferring trading agreements with local partners (including establishment of the EEC), and partly because some of the newly independent states degenerated into racism and dictatorship. By the majority of the population in the forties and fifties however, the move towards independence for the remaining colonies was basically just seen as what ought to happen. It was a moral issue rather than an economic one.
------------- |
Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 22:12
|
From a moral point of view yes. Imperialism being a reprehensible ideology for the most part. However Britain had to let it go also for economic reasons. WWII basically bankrupted them. In Greece (and although not a colony) the British had to ask the Americans to take over their post war duties because they could not afford to keep them up themselves. Other places too. Also it was not viable in the post war world. ------------- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 22:33
|
After fighting to Liberate Europe, and then having the cheek to ask Russia to ensure the nations she marched through be given their freedom, the idea of Britain having a massive Empire made them look kinda ridiculous.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 00:56
|
If the British were capable of maintaining it they would have. If out of their benevolence they decided to end their tangible imperialism they would have done it all at once, don't you think instead of incrementally over 40 odd years? Sorry if I am being a little simplistic here. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 10:08
Apology accepted
 The process had to be a longish one since not all the colonies and other territories were at the same stage of economic/political development, and also WW2 got in the way. It started in 1931 (perhaps earlier with the Irish Free State) and the change of status of the truly colonised territories (Australia, Canad, etc.) moved on through India (where what held things up for years was the inability to find a solution to the Hindu-Muslim division, and where also WW2 intervened). In a little over 15 years from the end of ww2 the present situation was more or less established - with a few hiccups like the unilateral declaration of independence in present-day Zimbabwe.
So it took a little more than 30 years, with a world war in the middle. In terms of achieving such a massive political change reasonably peaceably - apart from India and Pakistan - that seems pretty fast to me. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 11:18
| Yeah I agree its a moral issues especially after some actions in an attempt to keep the empire i.e. Kenya, so eventually I think Britian would have had to sucombe to international pressure anyway, I mean does any country have that many colinies any more? |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 09:15
| Britain |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 09:58
|
Those who think that all Brits wanted an empire are wrong, most whigs supported American independence, Adam Smith was strongly against colonialism or any notion of an empire and he supported giving the US independence and many radicals of the liberal party also argued strongly against keeping an empire and they achieved success when Canada was created in 1851. Of course India was another issue altogether but even there some still supported leaving it. After the disaster of WWI which exhausted Britain so much, the rest of the political elite coupled with the newly enfranchised masses and the sharp rise of the labour party all contributed to the process of decolonization which began before WWII but was accelerated by it.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 15:36
|
But why end 200 years of colonialism and imperium? It had proven so fruitful afterall, the reason in a nutshell stemmed froma realisation that a growing sense of nationalism and self determination among subjugated peoples could no longer be managed and a 'tactical withdrawal' had to be made. the French did not have such foresight or deleuded themselves into thinking that they could indefinitely control the lesser peoples of places like Algeria and Indo-China. How wrong they were, eh? ------------- |
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 13:29
|
ww2 gave a taste of the types of war that could follow, in the face of modern war machines, defending an empire from threats without, let alone threats within was an impossible task into for future for little old britain.
It was also vital in order for britains prosperity, we suffered various turmoils in the seventies and eighties, finding our new role but the jobs been done now, and our stars are rising again.
All european powers had to disband there empires during this time, that period was over and it was crystal clear to all concerned (some sooner than others)
Even the mighty russians caved in eventually, now if we can just ditch the eu i would be thrilled. ------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 19:20
|
That's a valid perspective too, in my opinion. ------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 06:56
|
The British Empire wouldn't have been reduced to what it is today unless they could manage it. All other reasons for dismantling the Empire are the "niceties" and "good sounding" words spoken to make people comfortable with themselves. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 11:00
|
It's true that if nothing had changed nothing would have changed.
That doesn't get you very far however. ------------- |
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 13:46
|
The facts are evident, the A bomb spoke.
Defend a global empire against that if you can, we struggled against ships and planes and barely scraped through by the skin of our teeth.
Trying to keep the empire would have been very foolish.
And luckily we are not.
Now we have a wonderfull commenwealth, much more usefull and sustainable.
If it was possible to keep the empire and make it work for us im very sure it would have been kept.
As we know however that was not the reality of the time.
It was the greatest empire of its kind, but at the end of the day nothing lasts forever, religions, royal households, empires even entire species and the earth itself, everything has a shelf life, including the shelf. ------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 15:05
Not to the British government. It was a huge financial toll. For a few private companies, though, it was pretty profitable. 
The U.S. involvement in Iraq is a similar situation. A few companies make a huge amount of profits out of the occupation while the nation pays the bill. ------------- |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 16:34
|
After WW2 Britain was in bankrupt, two new power were rising, and Americans were anti-imperialists. Another problem in keeping its empire was the struggle between USSR and USA and the Cold War. I do not think it would be profitable, since the Americans would probably build bases in their colonies - against the Soviet Union ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 10:39
|
The world was beginning to slip through their fingers. Financially, the Empire was starting to fail as an institution. As more countries felt the need to become more independent, the harder it became to keep the money flowing into the vast coffers. Most outside countries (U.S, Russia/USSR, Germany) were competing the same markets and providing alternatives to those who opposed British rule. Industrially, by the 1880s, they were surpassed by the United States. This is no surprise as the western states were starting to "fill up" so to speak. And the nearly endless natural resources made the expansion all the more ripe. Most of the oil in the world was not controlled by the British. This was probably one of their largest "failings". They imported mostly from the U.S and were just as much at the mercy of the oil market as everyone else. Finally, military. As so many pointed out, they were exhausted. The psychological damage left behind from the world wars left some scars that could not be healed. The concept of "empire" was fading away. It's purpose was becoming a primitive institution. The military was, in the end, broken. No money to support it. No reason to have one anymore. I think Churchill knew it was drawing to a close. For that sake, he passed the torch to the Americans and settled the United Kingdom as a close ally of the U.S. against the Soviets. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 18:10
More likely, Britain just couldn't stand the idea of unified European continent under one power. It's always caused problem for Britian. Napoleon, Hitler... they didn't want Stalin to join the club. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 19:52
It might be worth recalling when Rudyard Kipling wrote:
It was in 1897, at the time of the jubilee, when the British Empire has generally been held to be at its peak. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 20:03
Poetry can explain everything. Sic transit gloria mundi. ------------- My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 18:21
|
Britain held on to some portions of the Empire and let some go. I think they basically looked at which colonies were worth keeping, in terms of cost of maintenance, and which were more trouble than they were worth or judged to be already far enough on the road to self-government that they could be cut loose. India is somewhere in between, a very complex case. Burma was basically both - Burmese political consciousness had already awoken from the 1920s onwards, and there was not point keeping Burma if they weren't going to keep India, anyway. Those they kept - Malaya and Singapore, for instance - mostly had economic (Malaya's tin, rubber and oil) or strategic (Singapore's location and port) value. On the whole the British did realise that the days of empire were waning, and left a lot more gracefully than some of their fellow European colonial powers. |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 22:07
|
Some can argue Britain is an empire in decline. For example, it was only less than 10 years ago that Hong Kong was handed over to Mao China. In essence, they have weakened, but I need to see a list of their overseas colonies. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 22:48
|
People seem to forget President Eisenhower putting the Brits in their place during Sinai...
------------- 
|
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 08-May-2008 at 02:39
|
I doubt it had anything to do with British benovolance or principal. Fact of the matter was, World War II destroyed Britain, and if it wasnt for the Americans and the Soviets, Britain literally was toast as the Germans basically finished them off. They were in no position to be an ''empire'' anymore.
The other points definately catalyzed and sped up the process were:
American insistence
Changing world reality after World War II
Britains promise to its Muslim Subjects in South Asia(who helped the British fight against the Germans in return for the establishment of Pakistan as agreed to with M.A. Jinnah- indians/hindus boycotted and refrained from helping the british)
financial obligations
Bankruptcy
|
Posted By: TotemSoul
Date Posted: 08-May-2008 at 05:39
|
By the start of the 1900's Britain was still the world's greatest empire with 1/4 of the worlds population and an empire covering 1/4 of the surface of the earth. I don't think Britain HAD to let their empire go they just realized the rules of the game had changed so much, the empire as they new it could no longer trudge along doing "business as usual". The Great War had cost a million lives so obviously they wanted to avoid another war if possible. They did what they could do initially work with Hitler. Besides, the Dominions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia & South Africa had become seperate members of the League Of Nations after the Great War. The Brits found themselves entering the 20th century with a lot of uncertainty surrounding the realization their Empire could not survive the modernization of Europe without taking on inevitable changes. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-May-2008 at 06:37
Co-sign
I also think that the British Empire enter its crisis because of WWII. And it is pretty clear that the compromisses British acquired during the war forced it to let its colonies go.
It wasn't the case of France, for instance, that was defeated by Germany and freed with the help of the allies, so when they recover the control they continued oppresing Algiers, Vietnam and other places that like French Guyana, still are under French control.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-May-2008 at 11:42
Sometimes you just have to laugh.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-May-2008 at 17:30
|
^
Er, glce2003. The above is all true. Britain may have survived WWII, its empire did not. No WWII, no withrawl from India. And even after the war there was that attempt till the 1960's to craft a new empire based around Africa. ------------- |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 27-May-2008 at 17:41
| They also kept Cyprus which only gained independence in 1960 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 27-May-2008 at 20:05
What I was driven to laughter over was 'bankruptcy' and 'destroyed' and 'toast' and 'the Germans basically finished them off', all of which are nonsense. I don't think the UK has ever been out of the world's top five economies, and it still is in fifth place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
It's been among America's major creditors for around 30 years.
On your other more sensible points: dominion status (and eventual independence in the Commonwealth) giving India the same status of Australia and the other Dominions was under way before WWII, and was mostly hung up by (apart from the war itself) the near impossibility of getting the Hindu, Muslim and secular parties to agree on anything.
I don't know where you get the stuff about crafting a new empire around Africa in the '60s from. The only problem Britain had was in getting some colonies to agree to accepting black particpation in government (especially of course in Zimbabwe and the abortice Central African Republic that the UK government wanted to set up).
South Africa was thrown out of the Commonwealth by 1963. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 07:18
|
Britain didn't give up its empire in one move. It didn't give up a colony when it granted it independence. It needs to be remembered that just because Britain doesn't have military forces in a country, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have control over, and reap the benefits from that country. I can't say when the shift started, but gradually over the last 100 years Britain has been swapping military control, to economic/political control. Some countries from that point have attained independence, some of those colonies have been "handed" to the Americans. I mean, at exactly which point did Australia & Canada become independent? Are they independent? Or are they still a part of the Empire? Did India & Pakistan actually get independence on midnight of the 14th of August? What about the continual British presence in both armies for many years after? England didn't just say, "Oh its been fun" and hang up the coat and go home. Britain is still reaping the benefits of its Empire, and it is still punishing people who would try to brake free of its soft "empire". ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 17:42
|
I don't disagree entirely, though I think you exaggerate. There certainly was no magic moment of change from complete colonisation to complete independence (except maybe in Southern Rhodesia as was).
However, how does it 'punish' people who want to leave the Commonwealth? In fact, who wants to? Mozambique even joined voluntarily even though it was never a British colony. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 17:46
|
I would say Pakistan was independant economically very quickly; for the simple reason that this place had no real economy, except soldiering. All industry and almost all irrigated agriculture dates from after 1947. ------------- |