Decline of the British Empire

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I've just finished reading the book "Politics of war: From Churchill to Macarthour, Australia at War 1939-1945"

Anyway it raises quite a few points on the conduct of the war by the various leaders of the Allies. Especially the tit for tat arguments between Churchill and Curtain.

Throughout the book it paints Churchill as a egomaniac who at the expense of the British Empire in the Far East made sure that no theatre of then Europe and the Middle East recieved supplies/troops that would of dminished the effort against Germany.

My question is this. Could the UK under different leadership or a more positive effort by Churchill done anything differently that could of resulted in the possible ending of WW2 that also may of prevented a rise in the power of the US militarily and kept the British Empire as the global superpower.

[Rakki]

The British Empire had its hands full with Germany and needed US support just to hang on. To expect them to divert significant men and equipment half-way around the world - would be folly.

The U.S. had the Pacific covered anyway.

[Ed the bumbling fool]

Yes strike a deal with hitler or Stalin.

Australians in general always disregard the importance of India in WW2 British defence of the Empire centered on the Bay of Bengal for mostly political reasons but also because the Japanese would be easier to hold of from Australia than in what is now Bangladesh. had India been entered by japanese troops as liberators India as a whole may have rebelled, Persia and Iraq gone to the axis in turn bringing turkey back alongside Germany.
In this scenario Suez could not be held and The vast empire would be just Britain and the Dominions. yes mistakes were made by both Churchill and the Australian government. but the writing was on the wall for the USA and Russia to become superpowers long before then. Seeley wrote a book called Expansion in 1883 from which i quote.
If the United States and Russia hold together for another half century, they will at the end of that time dwarf such old European states as france and Germany and depress them into a second class.
So in answer to the inital question the only real method would have been to Smash the USA or Russia militarily pre 1918. Hitler tried to smash Russia but was 30 years to late and Britain had taken a different cause in North America.

[number nine]

If your country is beginning to collapse, right answer is centralization, not decentralization.

British Empire was not Austria-Hungary. British had more in common with Canadians and Aussies, enough I can say for centralization effort to be successful, then Austrians, Hungarians and Slavic peoples in A/H.
Unfortunately, centralization was not made according to these lines:
One commonwealth, one nation, British.
One commonwealth, one parliament, Commonwealth parliament in London.
Practically, that would mean making Commonwealth, or at least English speaking part of it, a federation.
Keep in mind, if British were smarter, and not milking their own citizens overseas dry by taxation in 18th century, there would be no USA either. It's not taxes were high, but they were unequal. Residents of future USA knew they paid much more taxes than British.
About British Empire vs. USA conflict, that would be tremendous war, just like WWII Germany-Soviet conflict. And it's winnable by British Empire only if it is not disintegrating, but dominions are firmly on British side.

[Aussie Sapper]

I've just finished reading the book "Politics of war: From Churchill to Macarthour, Australia at War 1939-1945"

Anyway it raises quite a few points on the conduct of the war by the various leaders of the Allies. Especially the tit for tat arguments between Churchill and Curtain.

Throughout the book it paints Churchill as a egomaniac who at the expense of the British Empire in the Far East made sure that no theatre of then Europe and the Middle East recieved supplies/troops that would of dminished the effort against Germany.

My question is this. Could the UK under different leadership or a more positive effort by Churchill done anything differently that could of resulted in the possible ending of WW2 that also may of prevented a rise in the power of the US militarily and kept the British Empire as the global superpower.

Learn to spell,,,his name is Curtin,, not something that you hang on the windows.

[Opening Batsman]

That made me laugh while I had a mouth full of ice cream.

[Calanen]

Churchill attempting to divert Australian troops returning from Egypt to Malaya and Singapore just would have meant more got captured. It's good Curtin stood up to him. Otherwise more troops would have been needlessly sacrificed.

[enfant_terrible]

Hahaha! We just switched from overt to covert control! We still rule the world. p-)

[Klatuu]

My question is this. Could the UK under different leadership or a more positive effort by Churchill done anything differently that could of resulted in the possible ending of WW2 that also may of prevented a rise in the power of the US militarily and kept the British Empire as the global superpower.

False dilemma.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The answer to the question as posed is "no". However, it is a poorly posed question that asks for so much as to be impractical. It also gives rise to a paradox.

Economics is the basis of what makes a "superpower" (which is why the Socialist "superpower" failed), and relieved of the necessity of it's military commitments around the world, the USA would be even stronger today. Contemporary Europe is a perfect example of this. Without the USA footing a portion of the bill they themselves could have never afforded in total over the last 60 years, Europe has been able to grow and prosper in ways that would have been otherwise impossible. Until the USA stepped in at the end of WWII, Europe was in a centuries-long downward-spiraling cycle of war and economic famine that would have culminated in either complete subjugation by the USSR, or a an economic wasteland created in averting that subjugation.

As long as there is at least one non-belligerent "superpower", like the US, anyone not in enmity to it is somewhat relieved from the burden of some portion of their defense expenditure, which not only expends funds, but draws down the economic producing capacity by diverting many of the best and brightest minds and talents. Commerce builds economies, not militarism.

If Britain were still a "superpower", and the US were relieved of the necessity of preventing large-scale wars everywhere, it would be even more prosperous, and in turn more able to be a "superpower" itself, thus the paradox.

[Ordie]

The British Empire was more of a commercial enterprise than an empire of conquest as in the case with the Spanish Empire. Much of it was govern through the local Raj, Chief, Sultan or local settlements. The overall goal was to not distrub the flow of goods with minimal effort.

Both European wars caused a paradigm shift. In WW1, many colonial soliders and witnesses including Jomo Kenyatta, Ho Chi Minh, and Deng Xiao Peng came away with the idea that the "Colonial Masters" are vulnerable. The Canadians and Australians earned thier "independence" in Vimy and Gallipoli, the Soviet Revolution, Ghandi started the Indian Independence Movemet, the Turks made the great leap forward into the 20th Century and Arab Nationalism was born.

World War Two solidified was was started in WW1 in terms of colonial priorities. After the fall of Singapore, Australia was vulnerable. Luckly, a US Aircraft Carriers was able to dispatch to the Coral Sea to thwart the Japanese. But it also severed whatever direct political - military control from Whitehall.

[Opening Batsman]

Luckly, a US Aircraft Carriers was able to dispatch to the Coral Sea to thwart the Japanese.
Whatever, we could have taken them without you.p-)

[Rictor]

I've just finished reading the book "Politics of war: From Churchill to Macarthour, Australia at War 1939-1945"

Anyway it raises quite a few points on the conduct of the war by the various leaders of the Allies. Especially the tit for tat arguments between Churchill and Curtain.


In my own rather uninformed opinion, the downfall of the British (and French, Portugese, Dutch, German, Italian) Empire had less to do with Britain loosing power and more to do with the colonies gaining power. In other words, it was not the result of Britain making a series of mistakes, bu rather all the third world countries making a series of accomplishments. An empire is necessarily a relationship between the weak and the strong, so once the weak cease being weak, even a little bit, the strong can not longer control their actions.

This is the same thing which is today happening in relation to the US. The US's waning power is not because it's growing weaker, but because viable alternatives are emerging around the world. It's not as if the countries of the world have some sort of plot to undermine US power, but the natural advances taking place in every country, be they economic, political, educational, technological, social, military etc, are moving everyone towards the middle, so an empire becomes impossible to sustain.

[Rictor]

edit: double post, sorry - the server had a hickup.

[Hollis]

Rictor, the other aspect is te decline of colonialism, it is passe'.

I dodn't think it is all a bad thing, for countries to share in the bounties or the power that this world has to offer. Sooner or later we will come to realize just how small this world is becoming and how important that it is for us all to learn to live and work together in relative Peace.

[ZeroZen]

British Empire ends itself by its people, uninterested on conquering and expanding as WWII affects on there global views of freedom for the colonies.
but the British empire didn't end in WWII but it stabbed itself during the requisition of suez canal.
The United States after WWII, its become a paranoia to protect freedom and its style of democratic institution. Even after the cold war, United States relentless persuit of military and economic might is fueled by terrorism has becoming unstoppable.

[Primus Severus Aemilianus]

Rictor, by 1918 the (small) German colonial empire was already over, essentially (but not only) thanks to British military operations.
The Italian one lasted a mere five years and it was established against the British will, only to be demolished by British (colonial) troops.

[perdurabo]

My question is this. Could the UK under different leadership or a more positive effort by Churchill done anything differently that could of resulted in the possible ending of WW2 that also may of prevented a rise in the power of the US militarily and kept the British Empire as the global superpower.
strike on germany in first weeks of september 1939, they had no real units on west all their resources where in Poland also Soviets prabably wouldn't attack PL on 17sept39 seeing reaction of allies, war in europe would end by winter 1940 at max no war in africa and full resources to defend in asia in 1941 from japs win-win situation, sadly western alies choosed stay behind maginot line and wait...

[oldsoak]

Unfortunately, we couldnt strike in that time. We had no troops on the continent, and getting them there takes time. The French were better placed, but their government was slow to act ( no disrespect to the French - their prophets were ignored and without their brave defence of Dunkirk to enable the BEF to evacuate , our war may have ended on the beaches there ). I think we were too convinced of the stupidity of war to believe that Hitler would actually invade Poland.
No chance of stopping the decline of the British empire. People were better educated and more radical in their thinking to tolerate its continued exisitance when it put one country at the head of a host of nations, particulary when most of those nations did not have a majority anglo-celtic tradition. Also, the political representation of colonies was not wisely carried out. Colonies should have had far greater say in Empire policies and diplomacy to ensure they felt part of the club.

[California Joe]

Why you gotta be like that Min? Always with the hardon for the US? Why does the US have to be subjugated in history for the Brits to continue as a world power?

[Dakota435]

Why you gotta be like that Min? Always with the hardon for the US? Why does the US have to be subjugated in history for the Brits to continue as a world power?

This Canadian is VERY happy that the US replaced Britain as the world power, especially after Britain became infected with wet left wing post modernism after WWII. Who on earth would want to live in a world where the seas were dominated by the Russians or Chinese???

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Why you gotta be like that Min? Always with the hardon for the US? Why does the US have to be subjugated in history for the Brits to continue as a world power?

Purely for intellectual discussion Joe.

[big_les]

This Canadian is VERY happy that the US replaced Britain as the world power, especially after Britain became infected with wet left wing post modernism after WWII. Who on earth would want to live in a world where the seas were dominated by the Russians or Chinese???

Oh, get a bloody room.

[Dakota435]

Oh, get a bloody room.

LOL. Wuzzat mean?

[oldsoak]

Why you gotta be like that Min? Always with the hardon for the US? Why does the US have to be subjugated in history for the Brits to continue as a world power?
:lol:
- I had to read that twice. I always understood that to have an, ahem, hardon for something meant you liked it. Mebbe its the transatlantic thing or age.

I dont think there was a chance of the US being "subjugated" - unless it meant no AWI. Even then, you'd be a superstate because you'd probably be one country with Canada - so even bigger than you are now. Maybe its good we lost...:-P .
I think I understand Min - what could have been done to preserve the Empire. It wasnt all bad and it did get a lot of different countries under one flag. Could we have had a more stable world had we been able to continue ? I dont know - too many ifs and buts.

[Opening Batsman]

I would rather you didn't continue, thanks all the same.p-)

While it may have united countries around the world, the entire purpose was to exploit other nations for the gain of the base country. It did some good things, but also many bad things.

[oldsoak]

I would rather you didn't continue, thanks all the same.p-)

While it may have united countries around the world, the entire purpose was to exploit other nations for the gain of the base country. It did some good things, but also many bad things.

Exactly - some countries should have been left as pristine wilderness :-P

[AgentX]

Exactly - some countries should have been left as pristine wilderness :-P
I wonder if Romans thought the same. p-)

[oldsoak]

Absolutely - leave the Celts alone. :-)