'special relationship' rejuvenated??

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

It's a nice myth, but it doesn't really stand up to examination. The transfer of power from London to the colonies actually began in the 1830s, with the idea of 'responsible government' which saw increasing levels of self-rule. This process continued and expanded due to internal pressures. By the 1870s, it was an apparent trend whose merits were heavily debated - with the conclusion being that it was in Britain's interest to undertake a managed, staged transition from empire to trade bloc.
1830s? 1870s? OK, you are right. Imperialism and colonialism are myths. Race for Africa never happened. So-called "Age of Imperialism" never took place. Britain was trying to promote self rule in the lands they ruled but it took them 200 years to arrange that. 

The Imperial Conferences began to discuss decolonization in 1887.
Yeah, decolonisation, sure. You just revolutionised the 19th century history single handedly. Well maybe together with neo-cons like Niall Ferguson.

Yes, they did continue to expand the empire. At the same time as exploring decolonization. A simplistic analysis does not serve understanding well here. By the late 1800s, Britain's status as the predominant industrial power was being challenged and it was losing ground in export markets; it desperately needed to develop new export markets and consumer bases outside of Europe and America. Decolonization was seen as the answer.
To the contrary, one of the main reasons behind the increase in the colonialisation rate was the rush for new markets. Not decolonisation.

Not only that, but the economic model of empire that had served Britain so well to that point became maladapted to changes in industrial capitalism. Domestic producers - for instance, the agricultural sector - began to suffer.
Agricultural sector amounted to nothing in Britain in 1900s. You are right about that direct rule became non-feasable, but it was something USA and USSR have noticed and applied before Britain did. That's why post-war 20th century imperialism is different than the pre-war colonialism. Some circles in British government may have anticipated what was going to happen, but dismantling of their empire was in no way a voluntary British policy. They only did it when they had to.

It is no coincidence that the abandonment of empire in the 50s and 60s also saw unprecedented economic growth and increases in living standards in the UK itself.

This is irrelevant and also wrong. If you want unprecedented growth (both absolute but especially relative to the rest of the world) in England, you should look into the 19th century. In the 1950s and 60s everybody had grown, it was not a Britain-specific thing. In the 19th century, pint-sized Britain was the 'world's workshop', they dominated the global economy. After what you call 'unprecedented' growth period Britain hardly had a global economic reach.

There had always been hostile natives, so they did not suddenly 'turn hostile'.
So according to you INC had nothing to do with Indian independence. Gandhi and Nehru and others do not mean anything. It was all a benevolent gift to the Indian wogs from their white masters, right? The fact, however, is, subject peoples turned against their foreign overlords all around the world during the 20th century as modernity, nationalism and marxism spread to the non-european portions of the world. Greatest weapon of the imperialists in the 19th century was the apathy of the subject peoples, which was destroyed in this period. 

And yes, they had no money, which is actually a reason not to abandon empire, if it were true that it was a lucrative proposition. If empire had been a profitable proposition at this point, Britain could have solved not only its economic crisis, but prevented the social and economic problems that were attendant with decommissioning its troops, by keeping it. The empire was not profitable, however. The economic crisis merely made the ideal of empire a luxury Britain could no longer afford to indulge.
Your model is wrong. The Empire is extremely beneficial, but it is high-maintenance. If you can meet the high maintenance costs, you will reap great benefits. If you can't meet the costs, however, you can not scale it down so that you pay half the cost and get half the benefits. This is what happened the Britain. They did not have enough money to pay the maintenance costs for their Empire. Because they were bankrupted by the wars and because the maintenance costs themselves became astronomical thanks to local independence movements.     

Alternative/fantasy history doesn't change what really happened. If it wasn't the Romans it could have been the Carthaginians or something, but that's not history, it's fantasy.
Swedish PM brokered many deals during the Cold War. If you are interested in Historical Fantasy, you should look at your 'superpower Canada calling the shots in Cold War' story.

Besides which, it is not necessarily true at all. Canada had a rather unique relationship with all the parties (Israel, Britain, the US, and Egypt) involved. The Swedes and Danes were just not in the same sort of position - in fact, nobody else was.

I don't deny that the Canadian PM made a good job of cleaning up the mess, but the situation was resolved by the USSR and USA, like most other situations during the Cold War.