Political Crossfire Forums

philm · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 82 Location: cumbernauld

My own theory is that the Irish Question was a big factor.
When a small nation like the Irish asserted their independance, terretories with far larger populations - India etc, began to realize that the British Raj was not omnipotent the demise of Britainia was inevitable.
The World Wars dealt the death blow but the seeds of destruction had already been sown.
Perhaps the British Empire should have copied Rome by admitting Colonials to the House of Commons?
Welcome all opinions/theories.

thundertaker · Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject:

The contradictory philosophy of British Imperialism. The British espoused liberalism and liberty as virtues, and many of the colonial elite (many of whom were British educated) pondered the irony of a country that made a virtue of freedom and self-determination being a colonial power.
Of course, without the financial pressures of the world wars, most colonies would probably have become self-governing dominions, like Canada. Rather than completely independent republics......

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

I'd say all of the above with one added element, and this may sound stupid: the Empire collapsed when its subjects decided it should end. Taking India as an example, Britain could not have hoped to govern 350 million people with a military garrison of 50,000 and 50,000 British civilians unless those hundreds of millions either wanted to be under British rule or at least were reasonably ambivalent. The Indian Home Rule movement after WW1 wanted Dominions status, as enjoyed by the 'White Commonwealth'; only during WW2, specifically from 1942, did the "Quit India" movement gain any ground, calling for total Indian independence. Why did the ruled then wish to dispense with the rulers? I'd agree with both Philm and Thundertaker - Irish Home Rule in 1922 demonstrated that Britain would not and could not hold on indefinitely if the local 'subjects' did not wish it and were willing to take up arms (definite echoes of 1775-1783) and the paradox at the heart of the British Empire - love of liberty tied with subjugation and denial of democratic rights. WW2 really was the cherry on the cake - showing Imperial subjects that the British were not invincible against non-Europeans - the fall of Singapore was probably the biggest single event in the end of the British Empire, IMO.

Then, after WW2, Britain just couldn't afford it.

philm · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 82 Location: cumbernauld

to DSWAIN,
Yes the fall of Singapore was incredibly significant.
It showed that UK power could not extend beyond India. Yes I agree with you it had a dominoe affect.
India fell. Eventually despite UK efforts to partition(much like Ireland) with similiar sectarian conflicts, although on a larger scale.
Soon after WW2, the House of Commons voted Australia, Canada, New Zealand full automy and gave their their parliaments full constitutional authority.
Personally I feel that the UK lost its status as a World Power, along with France, when they allowed the USA and USSR to force them to withdraw from the Suez Canal in the 1950's.
The moment the retreat happened, the UK and France became nothing more than vassal states of America.
A status that France has shown more resentment of than us I dare to suggest.l

Mr.Bill · Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 5115 Location: NY

WW I put the British Empire on it's knees.. WW II finished the job.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject:

Mr.Bill wrote: WW I put the British Empire on it's knees.. WW II finished the job.

Acutally it was the Suez Crisis that killed the British empire.

Both wars expanded british terrority and millitary abilities more than ever before.

Winning wars tends to do that.

To be honest though, it never really died it just gradually evoloved into the commonwealth a process started with canada and the Constitution Act of 1867.

Mr.Bill · Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 5115 Location: NY

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Mr.Bill wrote: WW I put the British Empire on it's knees.. WW II finished the job.

Acutally it was the Suez Crisis that killed the British empire.

Both wars expanded british terrority and millitary abilities more than ever before.

Winning wars tends to do that.

To be honest though, it never really died it just gradually evoloved into the commonwealth a process started with canada and the Constitution Act of 1867.

The weakness Britain showed during WW II in protecting her territories didn't help. After WW II she was broke and weak and the world knew she was just a shell of her former self.

MG1962 · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 9761 Location: Sydney

Quote: Soon after WW2, the House of Commons voted Australia, Canada, New Zealand full automy and gave their their parliaments full constitutional authority.

Huh, Australia became a nation on the 1st Jan 1901

thundertaker · Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:52 am Post subject:

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Soon after WW2, the House of Commons voted Australia, Canada, New Zealand full automy and gave their their parliaments full constitutional authority.

Huh, Australia became a nation on the 1st Jan 1901

Britain still retained residual powers over Australia until the Australia Act of 1986.........

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

Indeed - one mustn't overlook Suez

philm · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 82 Location: cumbernauld

Australia became a Dominion in 1901, but it was only shortly after the war that constitutional responsability was transferred from the London House of Commons, to its Australian, Canadian etc counter-parts.
Admittedly this was merely an accademic move, as their is nothing that the UK could have done had the former colonies taken this action unilaterally.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

reminder to British posters - second part of the Suez docu-drama on BBC2 tonight (Monday) (9pm)

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7892 Location: Petah Tikva

Had the Suez operation been carried out at a much quicker pace on the British and French end then it is highly possible that it could have been a sucess from the Britisn and French perspectives and perhaps a different or atleast slightly different world political picture.

MG1962 · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 9761 Location: Sydney

Quote: Australia became a Dominion in 1901, but it was only shortly after the war that constitutional responsability was transferred from the London House of Commons, to its Australian, Canadian etc counter-parts.
Admittedly this was merely an accademic move, as their is nothing that the UK could have done had the former colonies taken this action unilaterally.

Sorry Australia was never a Dominion. The Commonweath Of Australia was created under the The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 passed by the British Government on July 7 1900 and enacted Jan 1 1901

About the closest we came to a Dominion was the The Federal Council of Australasia Act, 1885 which was sort of inbetween self governing colony and Dominion.

I will grant you that emotionally we were clearly still a Dominion, but in the strict legal sense of the word, we were not

sully111 · Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 57

To vague a question all factors helped inits demise, try looking at the causal factors, triggers pre conditions and nesseray causes to create substance to your question.

philm · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 82 Location: cumbernauld

as the author i think this post has run its course.
Administrators please take note
Apologies to all contributars for my ignorance and obstinance.
Stay happy

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

Simple, they collapsed because their time was up. It happens to all the dominant empires.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

philm wrote: as the author i think this post has run its course.
Administrators please take note
Apologies to all contributars for my ignorance and obstinance.
Stay happy

?? A decent idea for a thread, philm; as for the poster who posted 'too vague' - well, his post wasn't that full and comprehensive either.

Don't be too hard on yourself - you should see some of the stuff that people post around here. Keep it up.

marapets · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 8

The british empire undoubetdly collapsed for a huge number of reasons but he most important was ww1 and ww2. There is a huge range of very long incitful books if anyone is interested. :ok:

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

philm wrote: My own theory is that the Irish Question was a big factor.
When a small nation like the Irish asserted their independance, terretories with far larger populations - India etc, began to realize that the British Raj was not omnipotent the demise of Britainia was inevitable.
The World Wars dealt the death blow but the seeds of destruction had already been sown.
Perhaps the British Empire should have copied Rome by admitting Colonials to the House of Commons?
Welcome all opinions/theories.

I do not believe they did, but rather decided to take the path of controlling others through economics rather than military strength. Lenin was good for pointing out how expensive imperialism was to the imperialists, and how much of that price was borne by the domestic working class. But regardless, in the case of England, their capital took flight, and America became the world's cop, so they got off from under. I should remark how much two world wars broke the country, but that part was easy enough to load onto working people. But in a country which had little to export except a form of government and corrugated steel sheeting, what is the reason for selling at the point of a gun? When they could no longer justify the brutality it took to hold the empire together- to themselves and the world they were done. It was a very loose empire to begin with. All the little kings got to keep their crowns, which reminds me of a funny story.