Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What Event Marked the Decline of the British Empire?
Godofgamblers    3/31/2009 2:45:59 AM
When did the Decline of the British Empire Begin? I think in the case of the French Empire, the beginning of the end was very clear: The War of 1871. The creation of Germany and the military fiasco with Napoleon III at its head was the deathknell of France’s ambitions as a world superpower. The creation of Germany meant an eclipsing of France’s greatness, a new rival (a rival which was much more powerful) and the defeat of Napoleon III dashed all hopes of a New Empire. But for the British, the timing of the decline is much less clear. Some may argue that WW2 ended Britain’s reign as it was destitute and had to relinquish many of its colonies (notably India). I feel that WW1 marked the end; the mass culling of its elites in the suicidal Franco-Prussian War Part 2 killed off the best human resources of the Brit Empire. Some say the Boer War marked the beginning of the end as a handful of brash upstarts managed to better the British army. Or did the decline begin with the US Revolutionary War? Your comments, as always, are much appreciated, Gentlemen…
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
xylene       4/4/2009 5:10:33 PM
I believe the decline began somewhere between 1900 and beginning of WWI. It seems at this period was when it ceded the concept of military and economic superiority. It also stopped doing "big things". It was content to rest as America built a Panama Canal and seems not phased that other nations were building formidable navies. I'd be curious to know if it lost a lot of domestic industry in this period to other nations such as steel, oil refining, ship building. Also if anyone has any idea on the state of the British merchant marine at this time.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    Beginning of the End   4/15/2009 5:09:07 AM
 

The zenith of the British Empire was reached with the death of Victoria.  Can it only be of coincidence that around the time of her death the British Empire?s territorial expansion was being halted in Southern Africa? The Boers had defeated the British to secure their independence in what they call their First Freedom War and had thoroughly routed them on numerous occasions in the Second Freedom War. 

It is very doubtful, in my mind, whether or not the British could have succeeded in breaking the Boers had the Empire not resorted to establishing concentration camps used to imprison Boer civilians and using scorched earth policies aimed at destroying the Boer republics. Even then British victory necessitated compromises that would, within a few decades, allow the Afrikaners to assume control over the whole Union. 

What I find interesting is that other major powers, particularly Germany, offered the Boers significant assistance both prior to the second war and during it. Other nations such as the Netherlands, France and even Russia also offered the Boers their moral support and volunteers from those nations and occupied Ireland travelled to South Africa to battle the British Empire and operate ambulances and medical stations. This support was provided prior to the embarrassments the Boers inflicted on the British which already signals a willingness amongst even smaller nations to challenge British hegemony in a part of the world that the British considered theirs.

The Boers, who had no professional army, proved to be the better warrior than their British counterpart and the military upsets didn?t go unnoticed in other European capitals nor did they in Ireland. British atrocities not only generated increased sympathy for the Boers but also exposed British military weakness. 

Irish volunteers in the Anglo-Boer War returned to their homelands and arranged for Boer weapons to make their way to a gathering Irish Rebellion. When the Easter Uprising occurred the British found Irish resistance fighters in possession of Boer weaponry (German made). The fight to maintain Boer freedom was a rallying call for Irish nationalists who saw similarities between the two, largely agrarian societies. The victories of the Boer civilian militias over the standing armies of the British Empire provided significant inspiration for their own fight. 

If the Anglo-Boer War marks the end of the British Empire?s territorial expansion, Irish freedom marks the reduction in its territory. Boer resistance and Irish freedom may well then mark the beginning of the end of the British Empire.
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus    hugo....   4/15/2009 5:26:40 AM
The empire actually got bigger post WW1 with the territories gained in mesopotamia.....
 
It's not actually hard to understand why the Germans and the Dutch helped out the Boers, the Boers were after all strongly decended from both countries.
 
The breaking of the Boers brought about a much needed modernisation of the British army that eventually allowe dit to defeat the Boers and would stand it in good stead come 1914.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       4/15/2009 6:44:52 AM

The empire actually got bigger post WW1 with the territories gained in mesopotamia.....

 

It's not actually hard to understand why the Germans and the Dutch helped out the Boers, the Boers were after all strongly decended from both countries.

 

The breaking of the Boers brought about a much needed modernisation of the British army that eventually allowe dit to defeat the Boers and would stand it in good stead come 1914.


 Not really.  The Class A mandated territories (Those of the former Ottoman Empire) were never legally transferred to France and Britain but instead were merely administered for what was determined by the League of Nations to be a period of transistion to self-rule.  The mandate restricted what the mandated power was able to do in those territories (except for Class C mandates of which Britain received none) e.g. building naval bases - thus the mandate power never had sovereignty but instead was a guardian appointed by the League of Nations.  If the Transjordan were considered part of the British Empire then Samoa would need to be considered part of the New Zealand Empire.  The United States acted to prevent protectorates of Germany and areas of the dismantled Ottoman Empire to be divied up amonst the other European Empires.
 
The only territory actually ever coming under sovereignty of a mandate power was that of German South West Africa which South Africa eventually annexed (not recognized internationally). 

The defeat of the Boers was the result of overwhelming numbers, British atrocities against civilians and the changing of tactics towards scorched earth - not as far as I am aware of a modernization of the British Army.
 
It is true that the Boers decended from Dutch and German settlers and perhaps that did motivate some of the support.  But that doesn't explain French, Swiss, Greek, Irish and even Russian support for the Boer fight.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    GoG   4/15/2009 10:35:24 AM


Good to read your prose, H.


I have a a rather naive question: why is it that Germany is such an industrial powerhouse? It is surely not geography.... Poland and France are geographically close yet do not enjoy the same strength; it is not technology, since most of Europe is at the same level. It is not purely population since Germany's advantage is not that great.... why has Germany from its very inception always been industrially more powerful, even without a significant overseas empire?


  The cultures of the two countries are very, very different GoG.  I would also not dismiss technology..  Wilhelmine Germany invented and advanced entirely new engineering, automotive, mechanical tools, electrical, chemical, and medical industries in which she is still dominant today whereas Britain did not.  Germany also has an entirely different industrial structure to Britain, one that has promoted the development of high-tech, niche industries supplying global markets.  Germany is also significantly less centralized politically and more influenced by Protestantism/Calvinism (including her Catholic areas).
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       4/15/2009 10:48:58 AM




The empire actually got bigger post WW1 with the territories gained in mesopotamia.....



 



It's not actually hard to understand why the Germans and the Dutch helped out the Boers, the Boers were after all strongly decended from both countries.



 



The breaking of the Boers brought about a much needed modernisation of the British army that eventually allowe dit to defeat the Boers and would stand it in good stead come 1914.






 Not really.  The Class A mandated territories (Those of the former Ottoman Empire) were never legally transferred to France and Britain but instead were merely administered for what was determined by the League of Nations to be a period of transistion to self-rule.  The mandate restricted what the mandated power was able to do in those territories (except for Class C mandates of which Britain received none) e.g. building naval bases - thus the mandate power never had sovereignty but instead was a guardian appointed by the League of Nations.  If the Transjordan were considered part of the British Empire then Samoa would need to be considered part of the New Zealand Empire.  The United States acted to prevent protectorates of Germany and areas of the dismantled Ottoman Empire to be divied up amonst the other European Empires.

 

The only territory actually ever coming under sovereignty of a mandate power was that of German South West Africa which South Africa eventually annexed (not recognized internationally). 



The defeat of the Boers was the result of overwhelming numbers, British atrocities against civilians and the changing of tactics towards scorched earth - not as far as I am aware of a modernization of the British Army.

 

It is true that the Boers decended from Dutch and German settlers and perhaps that did motivate some of the support.  But that doesn't explain French, Swiss, Greek, Irish and even Russian support for the Boer fight.


I take issue with the 'British atrocities' part. The concentration camps were never designed along the lines of the later nazi models, the British government did not sanction genocide. Nor did they rape the women or eat the babies.
At worst, the concentration camps became rampant with disease, and we can blame Kitchener (and others) for displaying an abysmally low priority to the welfare of those in the camps - never the less, it should be clear that this was a case of callous incompetence, not malevolence.In my eyes a tragedy, not an atrocity.
 
as it was, the initial Boer sieges were broken by conventionakl means and the Boers were driven from the field when they attemtped stand up fights with the British after Mafeking, it was then that the Boers elected to use guerrila tactics to keep the fight going. the British responded with sensible tactics to defeat such an insurgency, that includes the massive rise in numbers of troops, that is not as you concluded above, a sign of a weakening empire, but merely the correct method for defeating scattered guerrilla fighters, just look at afghanistan, 60,000 NATO troops versus maybe 5,000 Taliban fighters? Malaya? N.Ireland, Vietnam? Conventional forces always require massive numerical superiority in such situations.
 
The army was forced to modernise in the face of the Boer commandos, finally pushing the army away from red coats, massed ranks and heavy cavalry. had the army not modernised and adapted to the threat they would have lost to the Boers.
 
The Boers were mowed down in the end, as had been the Zulus twenty years previously, after another disasterous start by British forces at Isandwahla. Frankly, none of these set backs mark the end of an empire. What did was the erosion post world war 1 of both the political will and fiscal means to support the enterprise, in 1945 this was obviously much more stark - the past twenty years having turned Britain into the biggest debtor on the planet with a bombed out industry and still brutally short of man pow
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       4/15/2009 2:31:32 PM









The empire actually got bigger post WW1 with the territories gained in mesopotamia.....







 







It's not actually hard to understand why the Germans and the Dutch helped out the Boers, the Boers were after all strongly decended from both countries.







 







The breaking of the Boers brought about a much needed modernisation of the British army that eventually allowe dit to defeat the Boers and would stand it in good stead come 1914.














 Not really.  The Class A mandated territories (Those of the former Ottoman Empire) were never legally transferred to France and Britain but instead were merely administered for what was determined by the League of Nations to be a period of transistion to self-rule.  The mandate restricted what the mandated power was able to do in those territories (except for Class C mandates of which Britain received none) e.g. building naval bases - thus the mandate power never had sovereignty but instead was a guardian appointed by the League of Nations.  If the Transjordan were considered part of the British Empire then Samoa would need to be considered part of the New Zealand Empire.  The United States acted to prevent protectorates of Germany and areas of the dismantled Ottoman Empire to be divied up amonst the other European Empires.



 



The only territory actually ever coming under sovereignty of a mandate power was that of German South West Africa which South Africa eventually annexed (not recognized internationally). 







The defeat of the Boers was the result of overwhelming numbers, British atrocities against civilians and the changing of tactics towards scorched earth - not as far as I am aware of a modernization of the British Army.



 



It is true that the Boers decended from Dutch and German settlers and perhaps that did motivate some of the support.  But that doesn't explain French, Swiss, Greek, Irish and even Russian support for the Boer fight.






I take issue with the 'British atrocities' part. The concentration camps were never designed along the lines of the later nazi models, the British government did not sanction genocide. Nor did they rape the women or eat the babies.


At worst, the concentration camps became rampant with disease, and we can blame Kitchener (and others) for displaying an abysmally low priority to the welfare of those in the camps - never the less, it should be clear that this was a case of callous incompetence, not malevolence.In my eyes a tragedy, not an atrocity.

 

as it was, the initial Boer sieges were broken by conventionakl means and the Boers were driven from the field when they attemtped stand up fights with the British after Mafeking, it was then that the Boers elected to use guerrila tactics to keep the fight going. the British responded with sensible tactics to defeat such an insurgency, that includes the massive rise in numbers of troops, that is not as you concluded above, a sign of a weakening empire, but merely the correct method for defeating scattered guerrilla fighters, just look at afghanistan, 60,000 NATO troops versus maybe 5,000 Taliban fighters? Malaya? N.Ireland, Vietnam? Conventional forces always require massive numerical superiority in such situations.

 

The army was forced to modernise in the face of the Boer commandos, finally pushing the army away from red coats, massed r
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       4/16/2009 12:16:56 AM



















The empire actually got bigger post WW1 with the territories gained in mesopotamia.....















 















It's not actually hard to understand why the Germans and the Dutch helped out the Boers, the Boers were after all strongly decended from both countries.















 















The breaking of the Boers brought about a much needed modernisation of the British army that eventually allowe dit to defeat the Boers and would stand it in good stead come 1914.






























 Not really.  The Class A mandated territories (Those of the former Ottoman Empire) were never legally transferred to France and Britain but instead were merely administered for what was determined by the League of Nations to be a period of transistion to self-rule.  The mandate restricted what the mandated power was able to do in those territories (except for Class C mandates of which Britain received none) e.g. building naval bases - thus the mandate power never had sovereignty but instead was a guardian appointed by the League of Nations.  If the Transjordan were considered part of the British Empire then Samoa would need to be considered part of the New Zealand Empire.  The United States acted to prevent protectorates of Germany and areas of the dismantled Ottoman Empire to be divied up amonst the other European Empires.







 







The only territory actually ever coming under sovereignty of a mandate power was that of German South West Africa which South Africa eventually annexed (not recognized internationally). 















The defeat of the Boers was the result of overwhelming numbers, British atrocities against civilians and the changing of tactics towards scorched earth - not as far as I am aware of a modernization of the British Army.







 







It is true that the Boers decended from Dutch and German settlers and perhaps that did motivate some of the support.  But that doesn't explain French, Swiss, Greek, Irish and even Russian support for the Boer fight.














I take issue with the 'British atrocities' part. The concentration camps were never designed along the lines of the later nazi models, the British government did not sanction genocide. Nor did they rape the women or eat the babies.






At worst, the concentration camps became rampant with disease, and we can blame Kitchener (and others) for displaying an abysmally low priority to the welfare of those in the camps - never the less, it should be clear that this was a case of callous incompetence, not ma
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       4/16/2009 12:17:12 AM



















The empire actually got bigger post WW1 with the territories gained in mesopotamia.....















 















It's not actually hard to understand why the Germans and the Dutch helped out the Boers, the Boers were after all strongly decended from both countries.















 















The breaking of the Boers brought about a much needed modernisation of the British army that eventually allowe dit to defeat the Boers and would stand it in good stead come 1914.






























 Not really.  The Class A mandated territories (Those of the former Ottoman Empire) were never legally transferred to France and Britain but instead were merely administered for what was determined by the League of Nations to be a period of transistion to self-rule.  The mandate restricted what the mandated power was able to do in those territories (except for Class C mandates of which Britain received none) e.g. building naval bases - thus the mandate power never had sovereignty but instead was a guardian appointed by the League of Nations.  If the Transjordan were considered part of the British Empire then Samoa would need to be considered part of the New Zealand Empire.  The United States acted to prevent protectorates of Germany and areas of the dismantled Ottoman Empire to be divied up amonst the other European Empires.







 







The only territory actually ever coming under sovereignty of a mandate power was that of German South West Africa which South Africa eventually annexed (not recognized internationally). 















The defeat of the Boers was the result of overwhelming numbers, British atrocities against civilians and the changing of tactics towards scorched earth - not as far as I am aware of a modernization of the British Army.







 







It is true that the Boers decended from Dutch and German settlers and perhaps that did motivate some of the support.  But that doesn't explain French, Swiss, Greek, Irish and even Russian support for the Boer fight.














I take issue with the 'British atrocities' part. The concentration camps were never designed along the lines of the later nazi models, the British government did not sanction genocide. Nor did they rape the women or eat the babies.






At worst, the concentration camps became rampant with disease, and we can blame Kitchener (and others) for displaying an abysmally low priority to the welfare of those in the camps - never the less, it should be clear that this was a case of callous incompetence, not ma
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    GoG   4/16/2009 4:28:14 AM
I had forgotten about Gandhi and the SA connection. An interesting coincidence that is perhaps more than just a coincidence.

I find it interesting that both the leadership of the Irish independence and Indian independence movements were so close to a conflict that exposed the weaknesses of the British Military.

If German industrial success rests upon a superior industrial infrastructure, would not Britain have made the investment necessary to match Germany's? So perhaps it all boils down to culture, after all is said and done. What do you think?
 
I'm not so sure that it was initially a superior infrastructure but certainly a different one.  Germany's economic success has been in large part due to the so called Mittelstand or medium sized enterprises (though many of these would be considered large elsewhere).  These are often privately owned, family operated companies (95% of Germany's companies are family managed).  They are often focussed on high-tech niche markets with an emphasis on research and development and are export oriented. 
 
Germany's high-tech companies are heavily reliant on qualified engineers.  There was until recently no Bachelor of Engineering degrees available in Germany - Engineers were all Masters.  Someone once pointed out to me the difference between the word Engineer in German and in English.  In German, the word is Ingineur which, although sounding similar, derives from the word inginuity.  In English the word is engineer deriving from the word engine.  In the English speaking world there are many who call themselves engineers that have no qualifications.  In Germany the student studying engineering has the same status intellectually and socially, if not higher, that doctors and lawyers enjoy - I don't believe this is the case in the UK.  You might be interested to know that many German noble families have started successful manufacturing businesses like Faber-Castell, Zeppelin, etc.  I know of no successful examples in the UK.
 
This is part of the cultural difference I believe is observable.  This has serious ramifications for business.  In Germany's manufacturing industries, engineers rise to the top of management to run these companies.  The idea that someone with a bachelor degree and an MBA could run one of Germany's successful manufacturing enterprises is out of the question - the idea that someone with an MBA could run a team of engineers laughable.  In English speaking countries it is not uncommon. 
 
Hierarchies in German companies are usually flatter than those say in the UK or to a far stronger extent - in France.  Flatter hierarchies are perhaps more suitable for manufacturing whilst stronger hierarchies are perhaps more suited towards finance, insurance etc.  Germans are more long term oriented which requires a greater degree of consensus than in English speaking countries.  Many German companies have refused to be listed on American stock exchanges (e.g. Porsche) or have delisted because they find the idea of quarterly earnings reports absurd and counterproductive to the long-term success of an enterprise. 
 
I also have other theories as to comparative Economic development between Germany and the UK but I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings..  ;)
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics