why did the British just give up and accept American domination after WW2 instead of trying to compete against the US to somewhat preserve its status on the world stage?
why did the British just give up and accept American domination after WW2 instead of trying to compete against the US to somewhat preserve its status ...
no point, Britain’s economy was worth about two shillings and sixpence after the war. After Suez the entire world knew that their empire was crumbling whether they liked it or not
I'd argue the British knew their empire would crumble after WW2 by about 1941-1942 due to the lend lease programs, after all the difference between Britain and the other democratic allied powers like France during this period was that Britain was looking at the receipts. Why do you think Britain out of all the former colonial powers put up barely anything more than a mere show of resistance to decolonisation.
And also there's the whole thing that the US made it an active policy of dismantling Britain's power globally, which arguably began even before the US' entry into the war. In short truth is, the game was rigged from the start
Once again, "Enoch was right".
He was unironically too based to live. One of my favourite quotes from any statesman is him saying
>I would fight for this country even if it were communist.
True loyalty to his country, much like Talleyrand of France.
Enoch should be venerated as a true patriot and symbol of honest politics but sadly this is his tragedy.
When he spoke out for the rights of Kenyans he was a hero.
When he spoke out for the rights of native Britons he became a national villain.
why are you brown darks so obsessed with english culture, you aren't english you just live in places built by english men
butthurt and seething
A better question is why did the US betray its European allies and allow all their former colonies to fall into disaster?
Because the world was better when they were in charge
Why would the US support obviously decaying empires which had already been humiliated and whose colonies were breeding grounds for communism?
>whose colonies were breeding grounds for communism?
You literally just answered your own question
>keep colonialism
>communism flourishes
>get rid of colonialism
>communism loses its justification
>bonus points for an ex-colony being the one encouraging decolonization
>moar bonus points for colonial empire failing miserably
>even moar bonus points for said ex-colony encouraging investment and trade between nations to raise GDP, thereby eliminating the conditions in which communism would be preferable
European brains are too pathetic to understand this
>A better question is why did the US betray its European allies
Because post-WW2 international politics meant the US didn't want to have to invade every single Third World country and control it directly. Truman and Eisenhower were both under immense pressure from the public to downsize the military (personnel-wise, at least) after WW2 and the Korean War. Eisenhower sought diplomatic means to get allies on its side without having to rely on costly and domestically unpopular wars.
This meant the US can't be seen supporting pro-colonial ventures by France/Britain because of how wildly unpopular those things were in Africa/Asia/South America and the US had to win the Cold War against communism and the USSR (which were, at the time, valid alternatives to capitalism).
It's not that hard to understand. The US and USSR both decided 19th century colonialism was over, and the Euros either had to hold onto their empires solo (a la what France tried in the Algerian War and the First Indochina War), or liberate their colonies.
It's not that hard to understand.
But why did the US betray them at Suez? US should have told sandBlack folk and vodkaBlack folk to frick off, British hold on to Suez and are stronger for it, and some of those guys might not even need our help to keep their colonies in check.
The US had faulty intelligence the Soviets would do something about the British and French intervention and told them both they were not going to support them. Mind you, this is after the British lost the "crown israeliteel" of their empire and the appalling, embarrassing French failure at Dien Bien Phu AND the beginning of the Algerian Revolt. Why on Earth whould the US lift a finger to help those morons?
>But why did the US betray them at Suez?
These posts told you why. You just refuse to accept them as valid answers and keep insisting your rationale for your alt hist take is superior.
because the alternative was sending in troops to endlessly police Euro colonies, and I don't think I have to tell you how well that went in Nam
They did, but by this point America was more powerful, the tide had turned, and the sun was setting.
The last major gambit of old imperialist Europe was the Suez crisis, this was when Britain and France unashamedly stood up to defend their empires. The result was both the Americans and the USSR outmaneuvered them and ensured any future attempts to maintain the pre-war system would be stopped.
Of course, there were death gargles after this in Malaysia and Kenya, but really this was the time the concept of empire truly died in favor of a bi-polar world.
They didn't. They, along with France, tried to exert their authority in the 50s.
But America (and the USSR) both being anti-imperialists and supporting de-colonization efforts meant the US would never support any Neo-colonialist venture. So no arms, no loans, no oil.
The Seuz Canal Crisis, where France-Britain-Israel tried to megamind a takeover of the canal failed because the US and USSR both condemned it in the UN (a rare moment of Cold War solidarity by the two superpowers) and the US threatened to stop sending oil. From then on, the British would effectively have to consult the Americans to guarantee their support or at least their neutrality. The French took it the opposite way and went De Gaulle.
>US
>Anti-imperialist
Oh sweet summer child, they just rebranded imperialism™
Yeah. No shit.
The US and USSR both moved away from the direct-control age of the 1800s colonization/empire model to proxy governments and allied nations (with agents infiltrating at every major decision-making level). With the US advocating freedom and self-determination and the USSR fighting against the capitalists empires, both superpowers were ideologically against imperialism. They were anti-imperialists in the sense that they were against the old imperial model of economics and asserting direct control over territories to extract resources.
>imperialism with capitalistic characteristics
>not imperialism
Pick one, glowie.
Your inability to differentiate between a matter of public policy and actual implementation reflects your staggering intellectual deficiency.
God I wish the US was as pro-imperial as tankies pretend it is
I note that the Brits and French didn't incinerate and blast millions of civilians to death in the name of freedom and democracy.
>What is the First Indochine War
>What is the Algerian War
Okay. I guess fighting to hold on to a collapsing empire is a more noble goal.
>What is Brits riding along with the Yanks on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Brits are basically a de facto US state with healthcare and angry tv chefs.
Bear in mind that the single largest protest in the city of London's history was against the Iraq war invasion.
Also bear in mind that Blair had his own ambitions, namely he wanted to be for Labour what Thatcher was for the tories i.e. completely revolutionise the country. His idea was for the war on terror to be his falklands war and that he could rest on the laurels of a successful military campaign to further his policies such as replacing the Pound with the Euro.
Britain didn't follow America into every war it fought before nor did it after the Iraq and Afghan fiasco partly because the public were so against it.
Fair point about the frogs, not for Bongs, who voluntarily (correctly) retreated from empire with unprecedented speed. However point holds for mutt cluster bombing, napalming, WPing, and orange-agenting millions of Asians. World cop, Derek Chauvin style I guess?
But they did?
Because the British didn't win WW2
They dunkirked outta Europe and Singapore and then cowered on their island until America saved the day
By 1945, they were just as powerless as Germany and France
They weren’t defeated, and marched on nazi territory then occupied Germany
How is that not winning lmao
This is an exaggeration but the first half of WW2 and being bailed out by the US was a massive humiliation for Britain and a loss of prestige that led to the fall of the Empire.
>that led to the fall of the Empire.
Being humiliated by Americans sucks for anyone, but it's not what killed the empire. The Indians suddenly becoming nationalist and the war bankrupting Britain is the real death knell of the empire. Can't really hold the Raj together when they start becoming mutinous.
>cowered on their island
Brits had per-capita combat deaths higher than the US. Die of bowel cancer, c**t.
So you're saying british are worse at fighting than americans? Sounds plausible.
One thing for sure, British leadership always seem to be trained by whomever is Britain's current enemy, because it always destroys Britain. I mean, allying with vicious genocidal enemy Russia against vicious but non-genocidal (at the time) non-enemy Germany? Fricking nuts.
>"Our Italians'', the post.
>cowered on their island until America saved the day
I hate this historically ignorant bullshit
Combining ignorance and arrogance in a unselfconsciously obnoxious way is a central-North American speciality. CNA ("USA") was the Donald Trump of nations long before the individual became First Puppet.
Boy, you should see the kind of moronation europeans spew
>Preserve status
Meaningless endeavour. Canada has no "status" as a superpower, yet their lives are good and people live in peace and prosperity.
>Fight the USA
With what? The British Empire was "India + some other little colonies we grabbed so we could protect India". Once India became independent in 1947, there was nothing to be done, the rest of the Empire was a burden to be discarded.
The best route the UK could have taken post war would be trying to emulate something like Japan's economic success and innovation.
You ever live here in Canada?
You ever lived outside of it? First worlders are like spoiled brats who were born into wealth. You have no idea just how bad most of humanity has it. Canada is a fricking Eden compared to 98% of the earth.
They did it after Suez, and Churchill's second run as PM in regards to imperial policy was basically him in denial about just how small a role Britain was to play in the future.
nope
nowadays the brits are looking to become the largest arms manufacturers in the world by slowly buying up subsidiary companies of other arms manufacturers through BAE systems. It's honestly quite fascinating going through and seeing what they own.
From the British perspective, it was just one Anglo country taking the reins from another. This was especially true when America had a WASP elite.
America was barely 50% anglo by 1945
>self survey of americans picking their nationality and calling themselves something quirky like german american as english is the default
Look at the surnames of Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents up until then. It was still dominated by descendants of Brits, and if not then, then just a few Dutch and Germans.
That being said, the idea that the British elite felt any sort of "Anglo pride worldwide" with the Americans is absurd. Churchill was alone in his Yankeephilia (because he himself was half American). The majority of the British would have been horrified at the prospect of American supremacy and would probably unironically prefer a stronger France. They're still Europeans after all.
So why did they let Churchill do his thing instead of appointing somebody else?
Because winning the war against Germany became Number 1 priority and there was nobody else who had the capacity to lead. Churchill only became PM after the war began because the previous administration had fricked it up so badly that we lost Norway, the low countries, and France within a 2 month period.
Churchill was replaced by 1945 with Clement Attlee, and Attlee recognized reality. He dropped India like a hot potato, immediately re-started a British atomic bomb program independent of American support, and created the British welfare state because otherwise there would unironically be a communist revolution in Britain.
>there was nobody else who had the capacity to lead.
This confirms my suspicion, that to properly understand the collapse of the british empire someone has to understand the societal erosion in the british upper class that preceded WWI first. Just what happened? Does anyone have any good sources?
*WWII
Because the transnational financial powers that controlled Britain could get a better deal via American world domination. Britain's actual interests didn't factor into the equation and hadn't done so for a very long time.
Anthony Eden, a WW1 veteran and stateman who helped guide us through the Second, sank into a complete, black depression after the Suez. He never recovered from it, resigning his prime ministership.
We were tired, and wanted to be left alone. Picture Frodo at the end of the Lord of the Rings going to the Grey Havens. That's us on the macro level. We'll see if we rebound from the existential funk of 5 million dead and wounded.
This pretty much, WW1 and WW2 broke us as a nation and we've never recovered since.
>*almost starts WW3 while off his face on amphetamines and painkillers*
Yeah I'm thinking it was based
>Eden
That's what you fricking deserve for abandoning the Spanish Republic.
I bet Azaña put a fricking Hex on him or some shit.
Troon spotted
>get involved in our wars! You HAVE to!
Fricking continentals, man. What a bunch of hysterical, narcissistic women you are.
No, I would rather we stay at home and be fat hobbits than see another generation thrown into a meat-grinder for the sake of ingrates. To hell with Spain, Greece, Poland, Germany and West Germany (France), the Baltics & Balkans, or Ukraine. Literally none of it is our business until you decide to build a navy big enough to be a threat.
Why did you make this thread again?
Honestly, it's a fascinating topic. Unfortunately, it attracts the worst sort.
There wasn't much they could do.What is there to discuss?
Because there was literally no other choice besides going communist. America had won and Britain was in debt and in rubble, it's not rocket science.
Theoretically: Given the weakened position of the US nowadays, could the British just reclaim their empire by annexing a bunch of states in the Commonwealth (that the crown normally still owns anyway)?
No because America is not even close to that weak and also because there's no guarantee the commonwealth states would accept annexation.
And why would the British accept "no" for an answer?
Because it would make the territory gained worthless due to the cost of maintaining it
They could just not maintain them themselves, just establish working administrative structures and offer loans with insane interest to control them financially, similar to what the chinese are doing.
>public opposition because nobody wants to be sent oversees to reconquer some land they were trying to outright annex
>local opposition from nations that are fairly big and far away so have fun with fighting them
>opposition from allies wondering what the frick happened to their political leadership to do something so blatantly moronic, especially from the US which will remind Britain who the boss is especially in its own backyard
>global opposition especially from the likes of China since its free pr to nations
I mean the last point seems valid, but I think you underestimate how utterly broke some of these states are. Even if it doesn't make for a good look, it probably would be the much wiser decision to go back under european patronage, because at least that means being able to live in a democracy(tm) and not falling under CCP bugmen autocracy for the next 200+ years or so. But yeah, we all know how smart third worlders are, when it comes to making decisions like that.
Wow we annexed Jamaica, now we can really flex our muscles guys!
The answer is no. The relevant Commonwealth realms are legally independent since the 1980s, and London had already recognized them as "equal partners" in the 1930s. Australia and Canada are 100% separate and cut off from the UK, the Elizabeth Windsor is their queen independently of her position as queen of the UK, it's like how Charles V was king of Spain and Archduke of Austria but the two realms were never the same country.
Euros always fold to advanced states they can only bully underdeveloped brown people, an impossible to invade white empire is a nightmare to any european puny state that wants to rule the world order.
The British elite and American elite are literally the same people.
>"It's not just us I swear! It's all anglos I'm German-American by the way but I swear it's just the anglos it's not us Americans only the Anglo Americans please believe me!"
Seppo cope, it's not all anglos it's you homies.
I didn't say it was all anglos, just all British.
>I didn't say it was all anglos, just all British
Yeah sure buddy, the Brits are why we have BLM and LGBT shit despite it all originating in America
see
After WWII the elite are one and the same under British leadership.
That also has to do with Brits, really all Europeans, being incredibly naive and moronic
They were in a clear 3rd place behind the States and Ruskies.
>Fall in line behind the Americans
>Get fricked by the Soviets
those were their options.