>Spend 350 years building the largest empire in human history>Give it all up because your mutt and slav allies told you toThis will never make sense to me. Italy and Japan would have been better allies than America or Russia, and Germany/Hungary/Romania didn't even want to get involved in the imperial sphere. The Axis state most hostile to British interests was probably Vichy France but it's not like De Gaulle was a fan of the British either. Realistically, there's no reason why the French Empire shouldn't have been partitioned between Germany, Italy, and England.Even if Italy took Egypt from England and Japan took Malaysia, would that be worse than America and Russia taking every other colony? And how would Japan threaten Australia when it's an undefeatable desert continent fortress with zero potential of a pro-Japanese fifth column?Try to respond with FACTS instead of moralfagging over muh Holocaust/Polocaust/Japanese warcrimes
Good riddance, the empire was a waste of time, money and resources. We should have got rid of it sooner.
>>18465361England's natural resources can only provide for maybe 3-4 million people. Empire is necessary unless you want to significantly cull your population
>>18465364Christ, it's a miracle that you remember how to breathe. England already had a larger population than that in the middle ages at the end of the 13th century.
>>18465369Which led to them dying off en masse in the 14th century
>>18465374Yeah, it's not like there were any worldwide calamities in the 14th that might've done that.
>>18465378England suffered a much higher death toll from the plague than the rest of Europe though. The myth of a '50% death toll' is exclusively true for England, because of resource scarcity compared to continental Europe.You debunked your own argument.
>>18465361>waste of resourcesCanada and India have less resources than the British Isles?Those are literally the most resource-rich parts of the world. Hence why every other power (particularly France) envied the English for controlling them.The resource-sink of the British Empire was England itself, but it made up for this through manufacturing capacity
>>18465379Nice try but no>The trend of recent research is pointing to a figure more like 45–50% of the European population dying during a four-year period. There is a fair amount of geographic variation. In Mediterranean Europe, areas such as Italy, the south of France and Spain, where plague ran for about four years consecutively, it was probably closer to 75–80% of the population. In Germany and England ... it was probably closer to 20%.[145]
>>18465361The point of the empire was to get British taxpayers to fund the imposition of British law overseas to enable British capitalists to acquire cheap resources. Morons think it cost them money because on the budget they took money from people who worked in Britain and spent that money on killing durkas overseas. The elites in all of those places were eliminated and the British elites were enriched. They 'gave it up' when they had a cheaper way to do that. The west variously supports and opposes despots or democracies in these places. British capitalists still get the cheap resources but now they're shareholders in a global capitalist imperial system rather than owners of an imperial system that covers only a fraction of the globe.
>>18465398I'll have to do more research but I've heard the exact opposite statistic cited before, 50% in England and around 20-30% in continental Europe. Perhaps specific Italian city-states were the worst because of their dense population
>>18465361You're still part of an empire moron, it's just New York and DC acts as its administrative capitals instead of London
>>18465392And none of it worth the money of the soldiers and wars needed to conquer and keep it. Didn't you notice how the french empire in Canada and India was never more than a series of tradeposts and entrepots? >>18465400There was no "point" to the British empire retard, no grand plan for it's existence or operation. Half the time it only grew due to a handful of ambitions men wanting to make a name for themselves, in direct opposition to the wishes of Westminster which frequently opposed expansion. See Richard Wellesley and his conquests in India is the prime example of this, but there are countless others. Cheap resources could be acquired through trade with independent states even during the age of empire. See Britain's relationship with Latin America or how they encouraged cash crops in West Africa prior to the scramble. These markets were often still captive to the British and unavailable to other European powers, even when outside the empire, due to British dominance at sea (a position achieved by European wars, not colonial conquest) The empire itself, aside from a few coaling stations and tradeports, was entirely unnecessary >>18465403In fairness there is no universally accepted death toll for the great pestilence, I've seen everything between 20 to 60% for England. But the idea that England had it worse sounds like nonsense, and also kind of irrelevant, why would fewer resources make a plague worse?
>>18465361>fellow Whites
>>18465361The world we see today is the result of American hegemony and the loss of British hegemony. If you like today's world, well, I suppose there's no point arguing but not everyone agrees with you.
>>18465460Reminded that the British empire made non-white immigrantation to Britain easier, and granted equal and full British citizenship to everyone who lived in it no matter their race.
>>18465465>immigrantationSarr . .
>>18465465England was 99% white English before its empire fell. It's the American empire that's causing global migration and muttification
>>18465353The whole Empire stuff was just a larp anon.The point was to have easy access to recourses and keep markets open for trade against rival European powers. After WW2 America basically does all that much more effeciently and they pay for it and get all the heatPeople who think that history is all about being the most dominant or the biggest or the strongest totally misunderstand British history which is about being pragmatic and trying to keep our island comfy
>>18465472>After WW2 America basically does all that much more effeciently and they pay for it and get all the heatBut that also means America holds the strings of powerAmerica is fundamentally a racially mixed/mongrel country so American hegemony means them exporting their mongrelization to the rest of humanity
>>18465456>was entirely unnecessaryuntil Germany united and industrialised and america grew in strength, at which point it became very neccessary to have direct control to territories
>>18465477wtf is this sheer retardation.America had segregation up until the mid 60s. It was the most anti-'mongrelization' country on earth. Wasn't race mixing even illegal back then?
>>18465485America's main cultural export in the 1930s was Negro jazz music moron.Only some Southern states had segregation and this was widely apposed throughout the rest of America. Besides, it's never the South which determines the dominant culture of America but the East Coast and West Coast establishments
>>18465485>Some bumfucks in Alabama hate negroes, therefore this reflects the view of Wall Street, Hollywood, and the State Department
>>18465481Didn't really help historically though did it? Imperial preference wasn't even a thing until the 1930s, American and German goods (though predominantly the former) still managed to be popular throughout much of the empire.
>>18465489Its not just an American thing, there was a european wide interest in anything non-european after WW1 many Europeans blamed tradition and nationalism for the war.Reminder that those black musicians were not treated anywhere better than in Europe and lots of those black artists talk about it in interviews how they were treated like celebrities, but also treated like actual artists whereas in the US they were treated like low grade craphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrophilia
>>18465498(((many Europeans))) blamed tradition and nationalism for the war.Ftfy
>>18465498>European Jews import Negro-American culture to Europe>This is supposed to prove American culture isn't a poison used by Jews to destroy civilization
>>18465505>This is supposed to prove American culture isn't a poison used by Jews to destroy civilizationI think the onus is on you to prove that pal
>>18465510res ipsa loquitur
>>18465498They only liked them because they were foreign and made music that was somewhat similar. They treated actual Carribean and African blacks, and biracial biracial people like actual shit with the floor of said racial abuse always dropping down. Being American was the prime factor shielding Afro-Americans from the massive stigma of being of African descent.
>>18465353THE LARGEST AND GREATEST EMPIRE IN HISTORY HAS BEEN THE CATHOLICAL EMPIRE OF THE HISPANICAL MONARCHY.THE BRUTISH POLITY WAS NOT EVEN AN EMPIRE, BUT A COLONIAL NETWORK.
>>18465361>Ackshully we WANTED to lose our empire and become a disgraced US vassal. Pure 4d chess triumph!This isn't reflected by what they said at the time though. Both Chamberlain and Churchill cited defense of the empire as a key motivation for the war. So, if Chamberlain and Churchill were planning to lose their empire then they brought the British public into the war under false premises
>>18465684The idea was that that after the war everything would be as is prior to it. Problem was dragging EVERYONE into it from the continent, the colonies, and third parties that rendered any attempt at restoring a somewhat pre-ww2 dynamic impossible.Honestly though, even with a hypothetical Euro WW2 theatre that ended early or had less destruction but still had the entire Pacific theater remaining as is wouldn't help much. Mainly since non-colonial states catching up and dunking on the empires and their holdings would be a major setback in morale.
>>18465364Ever heard of trade?You know, how England became rich to begin with before annexing 1/3rd of the planet in the 19th and early 20th century
>>18465715>You know, how England became rich to beginNot exactly the case. Also a major problem with the economic climate back then was that securing markets was the optimal course of action since the alternative was getting cucked by a rival power who either took over states and land themselves or signed treaties.
>>18465361>The empire was le useless ackshullySo Brits spent 350 years fighting wars on every corner of the Earth and dying for no reason? That's much more cucked than just admitting you made one mistake and lost it all
>>18465361It would be easier for me to take this seriously if Britchuds on this board didn't circlejerk their empire 24/7. They need to pick a consistent narrative.Either their empire wasn't that great, in which case Anglo-Saxons aren't a superior nation chosen by God (tm). Or their empire really was the light of the Heavens on earth, in which case they need to take responsibility for letting it fall.Whenever I'm in a debate with them I get the impression they opportunistically shift between the two opposing perspectives seamlessly without acknowledging any contradiction.>We are the greatest nation ever, see how many thirdie shitholes we conquered!!>So why did you let that empire fall?>Well uh it was an economic drain and uh
>>18465896That and weird dynamics that kinda end up being hilarious in hindsight. The economic model in the 20th century was basically kneecapping the locals ability to make money or contribute to the empire's economy and then shipping Chinese and Indians around as economy boosters as the solution. Indians amd Chinese have always been traders allover their historical trading grounds in the Asian contient with some overlap but the various Euro empire's put that into overdrive. Like if people bitch about those two groups being almost everywhere imagine what it would have been like if the colonial era lasted an extra 20+ years.
>>18465896I don’t think I’ve ever seen a britcel glazing the bri’ish empire.I have however seen daily>Why did England let in ten million pakis and blacks (OP posts Churchill as if he decided to do this)>why didn’t Britain just let Germany do what it wanted? They’re the baddies for not sitting around and letting a country attempt to dominate all of Europe and make them extremely vulnerable. British strategy for safety snd prosperity is evil. Every other empires having said strategies is ok >endless IRA glazing. Typically from a couple artists and edgelord So guess the British empire was worth it if only for it annoying autists
>>18465923Literally the entire British superiority complex toward Germany/Italy is due to having a much more impressive colonial empire.It's also why France is the only other nation Brits respect despite it repeatedly sabotaging them throughout history (most notably by creating the abortion of a country known as America)
>>18465923>I don’t think I’ve ever seen a britcel glazing the bri’ish empire.I don't think I've ever seen one who doesn't? By the way, that's not a bad thing. The British empire was objectively impressive, what's more bizarre is the endless cope and attempt to pretend you aren't upset over losing it
>>18465923See, you're engaging as a weasel. Was the empire good, or not? You won't commit to either position.If the British empire wasn't a good thing, then the British nation isn't intrinsically superior to the German or Italian nations (unless you can find a different claim to being superior).If the British empire was a good thing, then you need to take responsibility for letting it fall.
>>18465923>Brings up the IRA for no reasonYou're clearly English and pretending not be lmao
>>18465353I'd be more interested in hearing how you think they possibly could have kept much more of it than they currently retain in the face of the subject peoples on the ground getting increasing access to modern ideas and technologies and simply saying "nah". What were they going to do, burn through the rest of the twentieth century just putting decolonization off here or there for another generation just to prove they can embarrass themselves as well as any empire whose time in the sun is at its end?
>>18465923ThisEvery British person knows the empire is too complicated and multiplicitous to even conceive a basic interpretation of it and also that the average Brit hardly even benefited or cared at the time of the empire >Americans seethe because they can't understand complex narratives>Germans seethe because we beat them twice at their most dominant moment in history>Euros seethe because we played such an outsized role in the outcome of european affairs >Third worlders seethe because of an innate inferiority complex Even the posts in response to yours are seething that they can not comprehend that we belong to a country so historically powerful and yet we don't even really care that much. They cannot comprehend being powerful yet so nonchalant because their third world/american minds equate power/success with worth whereas we equate worth with ones own contributions to the joint wellbeing of humanity Hence why we actually seethe the world doesn't appreciate our industrial and technological achievements and that the French still won't pay us the respect we duly deserve for besting them
>>18465923>>18466262Nigger at least change your writing style if you're going to samefag
>>18466262>the empire is too complicated and multiplicitous So it was good? Or it was bad? You seem very unwilling to answer this question, perhaps due to the paradox >>18465943 posed
>>18465923>>18466262This has got to be the laziest example of larping/samefagging I've ever seen
>>18466262>the empire is too complicated and multiplicitousThis just seems like pilpul to justify having a superiority complex without having to acknowledge you made any mistakes.I'll repeat the question since you're refusing to engage with it.If the British empire wasn't a good thing, or wasn't particularly impressive, then your smug attitude and superiority complex toward the rest of Western Europe is completely unjustified. In terms of art and scientific advancement, there's just as much contribution made by the Italians as there is by the British.If the British empire really WAS the greatest civilization ever, and it was the light of the Heavens on earth, then you need to take responsibility for letting that civilization die.So which is it? Do you cling to your superiority complex or to your sense of invincibility? Because the two are in contradiction with one another.I get the impression I'm dealing with a grandiose narcissist so expecting a straight answer is perhaps presumptuous of me.
>>18466262>whereas we equate worth with ones own contributions to the joint wellbeing of humanityIf that was true you would treat Italians and Germans as equals, instead of joining in on the constant low effort Slavic and American insults against us which prevail on this board.Both Italians and Germans would be more than willing to have an alliance with British nationalists. It's simply rational, since we all share the same enemies of America/Russia. But an alliance requires some degree of good faith and respect on both sides and currently I do not sense that kind of collaborative attitude from the English. Is it possible that, after all this time, you still have not learned your lesson and you still view America and Russia as your allies?
>>18466604>art and scientific advancement, there's just as much contribution made by the Italians as there is by the British>artNot him, and well beside the point you're making, but Italian contributions to art history were probably at a minimum a thousand times what the Brits did. "British art" is damned near an oxymoron in the first place. Their best-known artist was probably Holbein, who wasn't even originally from there. You could, without the slightest hyperbole, write a passable history of Western art without mentioning the United Kingdom once, and you would not be omitting anything of importance.
>>18466677
>>18466787
>>18466794
>>18466795
It was never that big and it was an "empire" of genocide, mass rape and extraction colonies
>>18467121Silence, chaiwallah
I wanna make some points, OP.There are two British Empires (actually there are zero, because legally it did not exist, but was only called that because it fit all the criteria technically, but that’s just semantics). The First basically ended after the American Revolution. The Second was basically the entire Victorian Age/Edwardian Age>built itHistorian Robert Seeley who himself was a Victorian, says that what we call yhe 2nd British Empire was kind of an accident. It was never planned. It’s impossible to go into detail on how every inch of land was acquired, but yeah. >just because some Slavs and the Allies said so Controlling all that land was getting really hard by WW1. WW1 destroyed every other European empire. Also, the USA economy was rising and becoming the best in the world after the American Civil War.The British Empire was basically on life support after the 1930s. So when Hitler restarted the Great War, and quickly knocked out Britain’s best Continental ally, there was nowhere to go but to the USSR and the USA for help. And the USA would only help if Britain ended the Sterling Zone (meaning the Dollar would replace the Pound as most of the world’s currency, and the USA could trade with pretty much the entire Red area in your picture). Which basically means the empire was done.
>>18467141Hitler didn't defeat France, the French betrayed you when the wind turned against them. They could have fought on if they were actually a loyal ally.France continued to be anti-British after the war, by financing Israeli insurgencies against the British in the late 1940s, working to isolate Britain from the European community, and playing a middle ground with the Soviets in the Cold War.The point the OP was making is that Italy/Japan would have made better allies than America/France/Russia. Which is obviously true but Britkeks are too prideful to admit it
>>18466575>>18466584Not samefagPic related. Though it is obvious all these posts are the same poster based on the autistic screeching. >>18466578The Empire is neither good nor bad. That is just common sense. >>18466604You are just projecting your own inferiority complex anon. Nowhere in my post did I suggest Britain is better than anyone else. >>18466658Germans are not equal to Italians.
>>18466675>JmW Turner>Thomas Lawrence >MillaisI'm assuming you are only talking about painters because if we were discussing art as a whole you could write a history of European art including only British art and it would still be better than 95% of countries on the globe
>>18467400>Nowhere in my post did I suggest Britain is better than anyone else.A great starting point! I'm sure that means you want to work with Western Europeans against America and Russia then, yes? Don't run away now.
>>18467400>Germans are not equal to ItaliansSadly true, but that's an unfair comparison. There are no other countries equal to Italy but I'd still trust a German over a British snake
>>18467400>The Empire is neither good nor bad. That is just common sense.No it's not. It's low effort pilpul. A refusal to commit to anything concrete is a sign of a bad faith personality, which unfortunately is very typical among the English . .
>>18467400>Nowhere in my post did I suggest Britain is better than anyone elseI think it's less about you in particular and more about the way British nationalists in general behave, on this board at least.>The Empire is neither good nor bad. That is just common sense.Again, this is just lazy weasel tactics. If you refuse to make your position clear then why should you expect anyone to engage in good faith with you?You're allowed to give a longer nuanced response on what aspects of the British empire you think were admirable and what you don't. But you don't even want to have that debate. You just want to circlejerk over how everyone is envious of your empire (that no longer exists). But you yourself are so high and noble you aren't proud of your empire at all, oh no! Pride is unbecoming for a great Englishman!
