The decline of The British Empire

[pofigistka]

Was interested in what people perceive as some of the key events that have led to the decline of the British Empire? Am also combining this with the fact that the sporting empire has outlived the political empire, anyone have any comments on why this could be?

[BluffTHIS!]

WWII bankrupted the British Empire. That along with their colonies seeing that the great white Englishman wasn't invincible sealed the empire's doom. However many former colonies saw and still see a lot of benefit from being in the Commonwealth of Nations, which includes a lot of British type sporting events, if that's what you mean by the sporting empire (who else would play rugby and cricket with them?).

[iron81]

Obviously, the death knell was WWII. Britain was fighting for its life and suffered severe economic reprecussions, so they couldn't spare the troops to keep their colonies under control. I'm not sure, but I think there might have been a moral component as well: that the Brits believed it was wrong to subjugate other countires.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, the death knell was WWII. Britain was fighting for its life and suffered severe economic reprecussions, so they couldn't spare the troops to keep their colonies under control. I'm not sure, but I think there might have been a moral component as well: that the Brits believed it was wrong to subjugate other countires.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmm, no. Troops in WWII were not a major issue, thanks partly to conscription; all of the independences happened after WWII, although they temporarilty lost some colonies to the Japanese. As for them not believing in subjugating other people, do us a favour. They had the biggest Empire the world ever saw and brutally put down resistance to their rule, both non-violent and violent, well into the 1960s. Simply put, the Empire wasn't profitable and they couldn't afford it, and things like Suez and the spread of nationalisms deprived them of political clout to enforce their view of things.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, the Empire wasn't profitable and they couldn't afford it, and things like Suez and the spread of nationalisms deprived them of political clout to enforce their view of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Money was the key. The UK spent a ton of money and a ton of lives on WWI, barely got back on their feet before getting economically creamed by the Depression, then segued directly into a protracted and fantastically expensive war. The Britain of the 1950s was not the Britain of the 1900s or even the 1920s. They had neither the means nor the will to engage in any serious fighting overseas, and once the independence snowball got rolling, there was no credible opposition.

Even had they been capable, I seriously doubt whether they could have done anything. France fought to the bitter end to retain its colonies in Indochina and Algeria, and they were routed.

[peritonlogon]

Not to be too abstract, but I would venture a guess that the fundamental causes for the colapse of the British Empire lay primarily in information technology and the widespread desemination of manufacturing technology. As in, it was less caused by political and economic events and more by changes that resulted from technology.

Controling a people from a far when they do not have telephones, newspapers, trains and cars is far easier than when they do. A movement like Ghandi's would be quite difficult orchestrate if word of mouth was the primary means of conveying it.

[canis582]

Their post WW1 occupation of iraq shouldn't be overlooked.

[nicky g]

Maybe that's part of it but I don't think it's the major reason. Lot's of past empires had risen and fallen without significant technological changes.

One possible factor is that all empires tend to sow the seeds of their own destruction in their evolution from more compulsive and commerical entities towards more centralised affairs. To a signinificant extent, the British empire started out as a series of individual and commercial ventures in the form of colonies with some government backing and encouragement but limited central government control of them or direct involvement. (I don't wish to suggest that that meant they were benign; far from it). For example India and the East India company.

However as it and other empires evolved, empire went from a series of commercially oriented ventures to centrally controlled empires that governments felt the need to control and expand as a matter of prestige, out of rivalry with other European empires, and as the discourse that justified empire (civilising mission etc) increasingly took on a life of its own. Along with that went an increasing tendency for empires to go from being profitable or at least self-financing to being drains on the imperial powers' finances, as commerical motives and realism became increasingly replaced by ideological motives.

Combine that with intra-imperial conflict and the rise of nationalism and you don't have a recipe for sustainability.

[Bill Haywood]

The rise of Third World nationalism.

[goodsamaritan]

Bad dental hygiene