>ww2 wasn't worth it cuz britain lost the empireThis line of reasoning is dependent on the idea that the British Empire was good.Was it though?
>>18378703nah, fuck the bongs
>>18378703Generally the collapse of empires is a bad thing, because while they are functional they tend to keep some level or order and peace that's beneficial to everyone, and its collapse usually brings violent power struggles to fill the power vacuum. Things like Pax Romana or Pax Britannica are good because if roads are safe and waters are free from pirates then trade flourishes. The collapse of the British Empire wasn't a big deal because America more or less immediately stepped in to take over from the reins.
>>18378714For me is Pax Mongolia
>>18378718What the fuck does the British Empire have to do with Greenland/Denmark
>>18378733It's a malfunctioning bot or complete retard, at any rate don't engage with the posts
Britain was a better ruler of the world than USA.
>>18378703>Was it though?Importing cheep raw materials from the colony and turning them into high value finished products by well paid skilled workers then selling them to the empire and other nations, is clearly good for the colonizer.How it affects the colony, depends on the colony. India did not benefit overall from British colonization whereas in Africa, the end of colonization was an utter disaster.
>>18378733>>18378757>Pearl Harbor of Napoleonic WarHm?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)
>>18378763Genuinely what dots are you trying to connect here, bruhv. What the fuck does the battle of Copenhagen have with the USA in any shape or form
>>18378703Retards who say this do not understand that the British Empire of the mid 20th century was not the British Empire of the 19th. Most of the retarded pajeets in this thread unironically believe that Churchill was the king of England during the Raj.
>>18378703If you're an anti-imperialist on principle, then no.If the comparison is to other imperial powers, then it was relatively benign. Certainly wasn't worse than most others.
>>18378703Depends on who?For the majority of British people the empire was actually inconsequential. Hence why the devolution of the empire didn't actually effect Britain that much. Really it was only the landed elites who lost out and some investors. The debt that Britain incurred from the war was far more devastating on Britain than losing the empire.
>>18378848>going from the world's number one super power to an impoverished backwater is inconsequential to the majority of residentsdelusional
>>18378877The UK has never been an impoverished backwater. Not even during the period of stagnation and crisis of the post war decades.
>>18378877You have a very delusional idea of wealth and power. Many people lived in slums 100 years ago, today they live in relative prosperity. Explain that retard. The empire was literally just a way for the landed elite to expand their powerbase as manufacturing and industry gained more power domestically. All the profits from the empire went to the gentry whilst the bill to pay for keeping it went to the taxpayer.
>>18378904>you can't be poor because you have an iphone!even eastern europe has a better standard of living than the uk these days>>18378904>your ancestors lived in slums so be grateful that you can own half a house after wageslaving for 40 years while fighting foreigners for jobs
The loss of empire literally only affected the upper classes. The real decay set in when Britain abandoned the postwar consensus in favor of neolibshitism of the Thatcher administration.The loss of empire literally did not affect the native British working-class since they weren't benefitting from it in the first place.
>>18378779>Most of the retarded pajeets in this thread unironically believe that Churchill was the king of England during the Raj.Them and Nazis.
i cannot express how deeply i loathe americunts.all of the european overseas empires were built because europeans needed living space. it wasn't to be be comically evil for no reasonif you pack of mentally disabled mcfat cunts would look at a non-mercator projection you'd stop feeling sorry for african assholes in an instant
>>18378996>because europeans needed living spaceThere are more Europeans in Europe now than there ever were during colonial times.
>>18378703Britain didn't lose the empire because of ww2.If having the empire was still profitable, they would have kept it. Especially after rebuilding from a devastating war. But it clearly wasn't.Colonies were really only good for one thing: getting colonial goods to the home country cheaply. Colonies were usefuel for that at times when trade was unreliable because piracy was an issue, and states producing exotic goods would also close trade routs, issue brutal tarriffs etc. So, to get those goods, it was worth it for Britain to militarily occuply the lands they were produced in. By the 1940s, and especially after WW2, these issues were largely solved. Freedom of global shipping was guaranteed by international law and the American navy. Then, it was no longer profitable to keep most colonies, and pay for the military occupation and administration. It was cheaper to let the colonies go and just trade with them for those goods.
>>18379001yes its extremely overcrowded and densely populated here, thanks for restating my point dickhead
>>18378778American can’t beat Napoleon
>>18379010It was the same back then. Colonies didn't alleviate it. Not a whole lot of people moved to African or Asian colonies. Most colonies were not even meant to be settled. Rhodesia and Canada they were the exception. There was more homelessness and overcrowding during imperial times than after. Slums were worse them.
>>18378996>we are not comically evil we just want to steal your land and murder you so glad that this savage race is dying off
>>18378906Most people before WW2 rented. They didn't own their homes. Homeownership boomed after WW2. Actually the money saved from a reduction in military spending caring for overseas territories actually funded affordable housing.
>>18378718>>18378759>>18378996yurop is a third world shithole made up of brown retards and the century of yuropoor humiliation was based >>18378762yuros aren't white
>>18379010Russia has a lot of livable place, just saying.
>>18379010good, you don't deserve more, homo
>>18379104>Actually the money saved from a reduction in military spending caring for overseas territories actually funded affordable housing.Not really. British elites and politicians just hated the civilians and only resorted to putting some money into housing as way to garner support. Also American aid money and the Marshall Plan
>>18379010>"constantly fuck up on land management and housing development while constantly shoving people into dated infrastrcuture that was designed for a much smaller pop but too pussy to do a full on reno or start from scratch">"we need more land!"There's a reason Japan doesn't have a catastrophic housing crisis while Hong Kong and every ex-Anglo colony witha substantial settler population does
>>18379006>If having the empire was still profitable, they would have kept it.They couldn't keep it because their budget got fucked form two rounds of war rebuilding, getting tied to loans by the US, and the US/USSR team up to shut down colonial empires to cement their power for varying reasons. >Especially after rebuilding from a devastating war. But it clearly wasn't.Britain among other powers pimped their colonies out of resources and tax money to help fund the treasury.>Colonies were really only good for one thing: getting colonial goods to the home country cheaply. And a ton of other utility, economic niche securing, cockblocking rivals with market gating, securing key landmarks and coaling stations, generating welfare jobs for the metropole, also a fuckton of market dumping products onto guaranteed markets. Oh and guaranteed markets, everyone always downplays that factor so much but it was such a huge factor for many powers.>So, to get those goods, it was worth it for Britain to militarily occuply the lands they were produced in. Actually many businesses went under and had the empire buy them out, capital interests dragged the empire into war, or some military officials wanted to start a conflict to pad their resumes. >By the 1940s, and especially after WW2, these issues were largely solved. Freedom of global shipping was guaranteed by international law and the American navy. >Then, it was no longer profitable to keep most colonies, and pay for the military occupation and administration. It was cheaper to let the colonies go and just trade with them for those goods.Massive cope, the US grabbed the empires by the nuts and twisted it. Some powers tried to do geopolitics but they all mostly fucked up over time due to lacking the same power they had before in regards to absolute and relative terms. Example: Kenya being an independent state meant the old UK colonial ties to the markets and financial institutions back home were pretty much gones
>>18378703>Britain lost their Empire in WWII>fast forward 10 years from WWII (1955)>Britain still very clearly has it's EmpireHow do people still fall for bait this stupid?
>>18378703Yes, God Save The King
>>18379609Technically the British Empire didn't end until 1997.
>>18379738the opposite. sic simper tyrannous
>>18378703Waste of resources, mostly a hobby for the military class.
>>18378703The UK has been bankrupt ever since the 70s. It's pretty obvious they lack the resources to support their population without overseas colonies and domination of trade
