What would the world be like had the British empire survived to the 21st century?
>comes to history forum>asks about what did not happen
We are literally living in one of the better "timelines" for the British Empire, OP.It was realised by many British politicians that the Empire could not really continue to be maintained as-is long before WW2, arguably before even WW1. It was realised that Britain could not pride itself on democratic and responsible governance while imposing any policies or conditions on their colonies.Then, Ireland happened; a protracted guerrilla war which British polite society couldn't stomach suppressing, a rushed political settlement that left basically nobody happy, and many dead British troops/officials.They realised that a million more of these exact conditions awaited them if they didn't get things in order, so>Settler ColoniesThe likes of Australia, Canada, etc were granted de-facto independence with close political and economic ties to Britain.>Resource extraction territoriesThe Raj, Africa, bits and pieces of Asia; these were ditched as they were far more trouble than they were worth. In some cases they remained closely tied to Britain too, in others they didn't; the point is that Britain avoided getting bogged down in expensive and destabilising forever wars like France did.I know it feels cool in a video-gamey sense to imagine some ultra tightly controlled British superstate lasting right to the 21st Century, but the truth is that we are living in by far one of the "best outcomes." Most of the others would see it forcibly dismantled, torn apart from within, or so destabilising that it rocks Britain to its core.
>Bro what would have happened if the Roman empire still existed>Brooo
But it did. They just don't call it that anymore.
>>18027037People dont realise that globalism is far more profitable than colonialism.The west can now take advantage of cheap labour and cheap raw material imports while profiting from unequal tariffs, while simultaniously not being burdened by the costs of maintaining production & administration etc, cause those now-independnet states instead has to put up with that cost themselves.Living standard literally skyrocket in the west because funds could be used for public education, public healthcare, pensions, etc. The lower classes did not want the majority of the budget dumped into colonial endouvers and military to maintain it. They wanted wages, food, school for their children, workers rights etc.Also, the idea of colonialism being desired for profit was based on an old primitive idea of Mercantilism, but the globalized world proved to be a far more profitable market.The only ones who romanticize empires are literal fascists because to them a state is only defined by its power-projection and map painting, everything else is secondary.
>>18027037Don't forget the threat of communist revolution in colonies. With WW2 over, the USSR could turn its attention to the global stage and support communist uprisings across the world, which it did in many instances. Then China went red and the threat effectively doubled. America was frantic about preventing the "domino effect" and seeing the world order shift toward communism, so getting ahead of the domino chain and giving the colonies independence and making them a nominal democratic ally was, at least in the eyes of America, a necessary step to prevent a total communist takeover.
>>18027077Think people have been realising that since before ww1
Total pajeetification of Britannia.
>>18027077what you call "the west" is the american empire. what you call "globalism" is america replacing britain as the global hegemon. nothing theoretically could have prevented britain from transitioning to a soft power empire, the fact is that they weren't able to because two world wars weakened them tremendously and allowed the USA to rise.
>>18027037a bunch of copes and sophisms to justify the fall of an empire.
>>18027291Not an argument.
>>18027625I'm not going to waste any of my time on a post that starts with>It was realised that Britain could not pride itself on democratic and responsible governance while imposing any policies or conditions on their colonies.
>>18027077Also the reason why Britain actually took direct control of most of the colonies; as opposed to just trading ports which it preferred up until the late 19th century, was simply because Britain was the only free trade country and it couldn't accept other countries shutting off global recourses behind tariffs. After the second world war America became the guarantee of free trade so britain didn't require control of its colonies
>>18027037This.Also the loss of the empire doesn't even matter anywhere near as much as the loss of industry. I think people really overstate the impressiveness of the empire because of how big it looks on the map or because its top of a list on wikipedia. What's impressive was Britain's transformation of a country in a century from rural aristocracy to super modern, industrialised, urbanised democracy. The Empire was always a novelty for the British people but the prestige of being technologically advanced is one which still resonates to this day.
