Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Britsh Empire

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Britsh Empire
    Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 16:26

Whenever we hear about power, people always refer to Britsh empire.

 Then how could a small war (WW1), bring mightiest empire to it,s knees and despite all odds ,(small) Germany holds it,s ground.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 16:40
This is really quite simple.  Commercial power and military superiority do not automatically go hand in hand.
 
i - there was no huge gap in technology between Britain and Germany, which was clearly the case when comparing Britain to its colonies.
ii - Germany was actually second or third, economically, at the start of ww1.
iii - Germany had a large population and highly capable modern military.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 18:17
Small war........... the 3rd or 4th largest war in history.
 
I think Germany was economically number one in the world and had overtaken Britain for at least decade.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 18:32
No, Britian was Top Dog, economically, until WW1 due to its colonial resources.  WW1 bankrupted her and paved the way for American hegemony.
 
did this stuff in Standard Grade history.
Back to Top
The Gypo View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 96
  Quote The Gypo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 18:52
Along with Zagros' ideas, dont forget Britains economic resources where FAR stretched during WW1...She had colonies on all continents whose existance was protected by soldiers along with a mass scale war...
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 21:01
 
..Hello Usman Arshad..

 

..This is a vast and complicated issue to deal with but I hope a couple of comments from me might add to your thread.

 

.It could be argued that the British economy was already on the decline since before WWI, perhaps since the 1870s when industrialisation meant that other countries were competing with Britain on production in the chemical industry, and against the raw material exports of Britain..

 

..Nevertheless, in the 1930s, Britain still managed to maintain its position as the greatest (for want of a better word) world, colonial and imperial power. Contrary to many opinions, after the First World War, the imperial position actually improved with Britain gaining many new Arab and African territories.

 

.However, there was a large loss to be considered in marketing and investment. The existing Empire proved too big and expensive to maintain. I have read some reports that state WWI cost Britain 4 billion pounds in real terms at the time of the conflict However, despite this, Britain remained an economic power until WWII when economic decline set in for good.

 

.The British attitude towards Hitler in the 1930s was the same, there was moral opposition to the Nazis but it was not commercially viable for Britain to consider war and  Britains attitude  remained one of self-interest, in particular, the maintenance of the existing Empire. However, war did come and it proved to be bag of mixed fortunes.

 

.The cost of WWII for Britain was around 10,000,000,000 mainly from loans given by the United States. A financial debt was also owed to those commonwealth countries that had spent their own cash fighting on the allies side. Many of Britains assets had to be sold off to pay the debts. War may have been costly for Britain but peace also had a price tag. Britain contributed to the large investment made for the civil population of Germany to prevent the total collapse of a German economy that was needed in the new European future. Therefore, resources that were meant for Great Britain actually went to Germany.

 

.By the mid 1920s, Britain was not primarily concerned with territorial ambitions and war was felt to be harmful to commercial and financial interests. The prevailing view before the onset of World War II was that another large scale conflict would not be not be desirable and a costly venture even if Britain would win. World War I, I believe, did not bankrupt Britain, it introduced a steeper decline in economic prosperity. It was the various political and financial costs incurred in World War II and the price paid for peace that finally left Britain a bankrupt nation

 

 Book Sources....

 
F. S. Northedge. Descent From Power: British Foreign Policy, 1945-1973 (London, 1974)

 

Young. John W, Britain, and the World in the Twentieth Century (Arnold, London) 1997.

 

Bartlett. C. J, British Foreign Policy in the Twentieth Century (Macmillan Education Ltd, London) 1989.

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 05:44
Originally posted by Zagros

No, Britian was Top Dog, economically, until WW1 due to its colonial resources.  WW1 bankrupted her and paved the way for American hegemony.
 
did this stuff in Standard Grade history.
 
That explains a lot.
 
Act of Oblivion has it right.


Edited by gcle2003 - 19-Oct-2006 at 05:47
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 07:13
with these new Arab territories gained after wwi. Weren't most of them League of Nations mandates, not colonies, which makes me wonder how much of a benefit to the empire they were?
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 07:18
Originally posted by Usman Arshad

Whenever we hear about power, people always refer to Britsh empire.



This is not the case, I see people mostly referring to Chengiz khan, USA, USSR, timur, Alexander, Romans.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 17:23
Originally posted by Paul

with these new Arab territories gained after wwi. Weren't most of them League of Nations mandates, not colonies, which makes me wonder how much of a benefit to the empire they were?
 
...hi Paul...
 
..yes they were League of Nation mandates, perhaps 'colonies' was the wrong word, however, political thinking at the time would have seen that by definition, the mandate would give Britain influence in these areas....an influence that would later play a key role in British foreign policy during the late 1940's and the onset of 'Cold War'...
 
....There was a feeling that although the results of WWII had hit Britain badly, the situation was bound to improve. A rather optimistic assessment in hindsight, but optimistic it was. The previous mandates were seen as a way to consolidate Britain's diminishing influence on the global stage.....
 
....Because of Britains ailing economy, along with the development of new nuclear weapons and the realization that the conventional strength of the USSR was overwhelming compared to Britain in the Middle East, it was initially argued by Clement Attlee that it made sense to preserve a military presence and British influence in Greece, Palestine, Libya and Egypt. Criticism duly followed that Britain should not have held onto an imperial past that over-stretched its resource....
 
...Britain was very much aware that the two new 'superpowers' had gained the upper hand. Unfortunately, the initial  optimism was misplaced and the cost of maintaining the existing Empire as well as facing the difficulties in Palestine meant that Britain  stretched its capabilties too far and and i think Palestine was handed back to the United Nations in 1947...
 
..it was around this time that more 'realistic' visions of post-war Britain were beginning to take place....
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 17:33
Originally posted by Act of Oblivion

Originally posted by Paul

with these new Arab territories gained after wwi. Weren't most of them League of Nations mandates, not colonies, which makes me wonder how much of a benefit to the empire they were?
 
...hi Paul...
 
..yes they were League of Nation mandates, perhaps 'colonies' was the wrong word, however, political thinking at the time would have seen that by definition, the mandate would give Britain influence in these areas....an influence that would later play a key role in British foreign policy during the late 1940's and the onset of 'Cold War'...
 
I suppose it also ties in with the Berlin to Basra railway, war for oil theory we discussed some time back. The winner grabs the spoils of war, control of the oil, all be it by mandate, the richest prise of the war if the theory is true, but most importantly a clear path for shell-mex to dominate the industry unchallenged.


Edited by Paul - 19-Oct-2006 at 17:34
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 17:39
......"I suppose it also ties in with the Berlin to Basra railway, war for oil theory we discussed some time back. The winner grabs the spoils of war, control of the oil, all be it by mandate, the richest prise of the war if the theory is true, but most importantly a clear path for shell-mex to dominate the industry unchallenged." .....
 
..i must admit that i know nothing about this particular issue although it seems viable and does not surprise me.... 
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 20:59
The Berlin Basra theory goes along the lines.
 
Germany was industrialy very powerful but Britain always had dominance because oil had to go to Germany via sea through Suez andclose to British shore. With the increase move from coal to oil power in industry and the Royal Navy controlling oil assets became of supreme importance.
 
Germany began to construct  a rail route to ship oil straigh for Iraq to Germany, through it's ally Turkey. This would break Britain capacity to blockade, give Germany a more efficient method of shipping fuel to Europe than sea and mean British oil companies could be surpassed by German ones.
 
This is one theory of why wwi started and was the main objectives of Germany and Britain in the war.
 
 
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 02:22
That theory overlooks the fact that until just befpre the beginning of WWI it was coal that was the main strategic fuel.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 02:54
Originally posted by Paul

The Berlin Basra theory goes along the lines.
 
Germany was industrialy very powerful but Britain always had dominance because oil had to go to Germany via sea through Suez andclose to British shore. With the increase move from coal to oil power in industry and the Royal Navy controlling oil assets became of supreme importance.
 
Germany began to construct  a rail route to ship oil straigh for Iraq to Germany, through it's ally Turkey. This would break Britain capacity to blockade, give Germany a more efficient method of shipping fuel to Europe than sea and mean British oil companies could be surpassed by German ones.
 
This is one theory of why wwi started and was the main objectives of Germany and Britain in the war.
 
 
 
..interesting theory...thanks for the info Paul...i have tracked down the original thread and will take a read.....
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 03:20
Originally posted by Sparten

That theory overlooks the fact that until just befpre the beginning of WWI it was coal that was the main strategic fuel.
 
Well, that's rather the point. It was the switch to oil that changed strategic objectives in the Middle East.
 
While I agree with Paul's assessment, it is also true that after WWI just as for the century and more before it, another dominant goal for Britain in the area was still control of the sea route to India.
 
Ths significance of 1956 and Suez also shouldn't be overlooked. When Britain was forced to back down by the Eisenhower administration's threats to squeeze the pound, it became for the first time unignorable that Britain - despite its nuclear arsenal - was no longer in the major power league. Even so, it would not be until 1967-8 that the Wilson government finally gave up keeping a military presence 'east of Suez'.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 09:11
In 1911 Winston Churchill, minister for war made one of the least known and most important political decisions of the 20th century. The Royal Navy would switch from coal to oil.
 
So..The most powerful military force on earth, keeping open the merchant sea routes not just for British trade, but global trade, favouring its allies, the US, France, Russia, Holland and Belgium in pursuit of their imperialist policies, Belgium Congo ivory trade, Spanish American War ect. With the ability to cut off the oil and trade to any country on earth and most importantly check the power of the sausage eating Hun.
 
Instead of getting its coal from the security of Welsh coalmines, where the worst that could happen was a male voice choir. Britain was dependant on oil from the most unstable region on earth. A region which Britain had just spent the last decade exterminating and suppressing,  every national independence minded movement in, free and democratic or not.what a coincidence.
 
Its also the reason why Britain has spent 45 of the last 95 years either at war with or occupying Iraq.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762
  Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 07:50
Originally posted by Usman Arshad

Whenever we hear about power, people always refer to Britsh empire.

 Then how could a small war (WW1), bring mightiest empire to it,s knees and despite all odds ,(small) Germany holds it,s ground.


How come "whenever we hear about power, people always refer to British Empire" ?  Says who? Maybe this is your oppinion. When I recall "Power" in my mind I think of Caesar, Alexander, and HitlerWink

WW I was a "small war"? Please look up some numbers, some history, please. It was the biggest war in humanity's history untill WW II, causing an approximate total of 8 MILLION casualties amongst the combatant nations. It changed the face of warfare for ever and the societies it involved for the next few generations. A small war? Excuse me for asking this, but are you European? Do you have any idea of what you're talking  about? This is known as the "Great War" on this side of the Atlantic. Have you heard about the trenches? The gas? The dead eaten by rats, knee-deep in the mud, eating molden bread, burying parties, execution parties, recon parties, machine guns, no-man's land, up to 60% casualties in some units? Close to 1,500,000 French and German casualties in only THREE months at Verdun ( summer 1916)? Read some of the poetry written during the period and you'll get a feel forthe magnitude of the conflict. France lost a whole generation of men, seriously. Please have some respect for the dead; they did not die in a "small war".


Who ever told you that the end of WW I brought the British Empire to its knees? Altough Britain lost 800,000, a large portion of its 35.000.000 population, she still lost the least among the Entente. And regardless of the fact that internally the society was scarred and class distinctions intensified for a while, Britain internationally emerged stronger than before: her fleet was undamaged while that of Germany's disbanded, she enlarged colonial possesions with addtion of German East Africa, and received reparations from Germany that helped her settle veterans and their families.


Who told you that 1914 Germany was small? It was larger than France (it included territories now lost for ever, Prussia, Sudetenland, Western Poland), at least as industrialized as Britain, and with a superb chemical and munitions industry. And the odds at the beginning were not against the Central Powers; by 1915 gains had been made both on the Eastern and Western fronts and with the introduction of submarine warfare the CP seem to hold a slight lead. The disintegration of Austria-Hungary was a little ahead in the future.

You seem to have some misconceptions about the general setting of the times; read some books. Martin Gilbert's "The First World War: A Complete History" is a good start. MG does an excellent job of interspersing the overall account of general plans with letters and descriptions of combat that carry a chilling immediacy.        


Edited by konstantinius - 22-Oct-2006 at 08:00
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.