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
gf0012-aust       4/16/2009 4:41:52 AM

I had forgotten about Gandhi and the SA connection. An interesting coincidence that is perhaps more than just a coincidence.

I'm not sure you could add weight to ghandi on this issue though - it was more relevant to chandra bose than to ghandi
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus    one point Hugo....   4/16/2009 5:36:28 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..  ;)




The British were at least equally determined to win the boer war as the afrikans (no, I won't refer to them as natives) were. Thus, for all the perceived weaknesses of the British military, they still won.
 
In that sense, it's ludicrous to suggest that a British military, unburdened by the first world war, would not have eventually beaten down the IRA in 1921/22 and have held off the indian independence movement for several decades if it so wished.
 
What there was was a siginificant weakening on the moral and political will of the British establishment to maintain an empire by force in the wake of the ww1 destruction.It is also more than likely that the Irish and Indian movements took their cue, not from the African campaigns but more from the immense blood leeting of the 14-18 war, where they naturally expected britain to practice what it preached in the wake of the war, they had, after all thought in their millions
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    Prometheus   4/16/2009 6:39:48 AM


The British were at least equally determined to win the boer war as the afrikans (no, I won't refer to them as natives) were. Thus, for all the perceived weaknesses of the British military, they still won.

 

In that sense, it's ludicrous to suggest that a British military, unburdened by the first world war, would not have eventually beaten down the IRA in 1921/22 and have held off the indian independence movement for several decades if it so wished.

 

What there was was a siginificant weakening on the moral and political will of the British establishment to maintain an empire by force in the wake of the ww1 destruction.It is also more than likely that the Irish and Indian movements took their cue, not from the African campaigns but more from the immense blood leeting of the 14-18 war, where they naturally expected britain to practice what it preached in the wake of the war, they had, after all thought in their millions for the empire and naturally wanted their just rewards for that endevour.

 

While your analysis is interesting and provacative it fails to take heed of the fact that whatever mental and material deficiencies the tiny british army may have suffered from in 1902, they certainly didn't in 1918, where four and a half years had eventaully (after much heartache) honed an incredibly efficient all arms fighting force. It seems unreasonable that intelligent men like Ghandi and deValera would bet the bank on perceived British weaknesses from 1902 when facing up to the prospect of the same military in 1918...... more likely they were banking on the British weakness fiscally post war and the changing social dynamic post war that was psuhing the british public further towards independence for the empire.

  I disagree.  I think men protecting their own country, property and the wellbeing of their women and children are more determined than men seeking to expand the frontiers of an Empire. 
I'm not suggesting that the British couldn't have beaten the IRA - they did so during the Easter Uprising.  My suggestion was that the Boer successes against a much larger, professional, British force were an inspiration to those seeking Irish freedom.  The Easter uprising was inspired, in part, by the courage of the Boers - this is well documented.  That uprising was the beginning of the end of British control over one of its earliest imperial possessions.
 
I think the Indian independence movement took not its cue from the Great War but of Japanese successes against the British in the Second - however the leader of India's independence movement was a personal witness to British aggression against the Boers and subjugation of the black population - and he was a studious individual who sympathised with the Boer's plight.  I make only the claim that the British aggression against the Boers and the successes of a civilian force against a professional, imperial army did not go unnoticed around the world and sent shockwaves through the British military establishment.
 
"Tiny" British Army..  the British forces numbered over 400,000 at their peak.  It was Boer forces that were tiny by comparison.  When initially the Boer forces approximated those of the British (and often did not), the British were thoroughly humiliated. 
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       4/16/2009 8:42:45 AM





The British were at least equally determined to win the boer war as the afrikans (no, I won't refer to them as natives) were. Thus, for all the perceived weaknesses of the British military, they still won.



 



In that sense, it's ludicrous to suggest that a British military, unburdened by the first world war, would not have eventually beaten down the IRA in 1921/22 and have held off the indian independence movement for several decades if it so wished.



 



What there was was a siginificant weakening on the moral and political will of the British establishment to maintain an empire by force in the wake of the ww1 destruction.It is also more than likely that the Irish and Indian movements took their cue, not from the African campaigns but more from the immense blood leeting of the 14-18 war, where they naturally expected britain to practice what it preached in the wake of the war, they had, after all thought in their millions for the empire and naturally wanted their just rewards for that endevour.



 



While your analysis is interesting and provacative it fails to take heed of the fact that whatever mental and material deficiencies the tiny british army may have suffered from in 1902, they certainly didn't in 1918, where four and a half years had eventaully (after much heartache) honed an incredibly efficient all arms fighting force. It seems unreasonable that intelligent men like Ghandi and deValera would bet the bank on perceived British weaknesses from 1902 when facing up to the prospect of the same military in 1918...... more likely they were banking on the British weakness fiscally post war and the changing social dynamic post war that was psuhing the british public further towards independence for the empire.




  I disagree.  I think men protecting their own country, property and the wellbeing of their women and children are more determined than men seeking to expand the frontiers of an Empire. 


I'm not suggesting that the British couldn't have beaten the IRA - they did so during the Easter Uprising.  My suggestion was that the Boer successes against a much larger, professional, British force were an inspiration to those seeking Irish freedom.  The Easter uprising was inspired, in part, by the courage of the Boers - this is well documented.  That uprising was the beginning of the end of British control over one of its earliest imperial possessions.

 

I think the Indian independence movement took not its cue from the Great War but of Japanese successes against the British in the Second - however the leader of India's independence movement was a personal witness to British aggression against the Boers and subjugation of the black population - and he was a studious individual who sympathised with the Boer's plight.  I make only the claim that the British aggression against the Boers and the successes of a civilian force against a professional, imperial army did not go unnoticed around the world and sent shockwaves through the British military establishment.

 

"Tiny" British Army..  the British forces numbered over 400,000 at their peak.  It was Boer forces that were tiny by comparison.  When initially the Boer forces approximated those of the British (and often did not), the British were thoroughly humiliated. 

 





 


It wasn't the first time the people of Ireland had staged an uprising, in fact pressure for home rule had been building for some time, limited outbreaks of rebellionw ere already documented before the Boer war. Now, if you want to say that it was in part inspired by the Boer uprising then fuine, but it is part at best and still ignores the fact that had British public opinion been on the side of putting down the 1920 rebellion and had the British had the stomach and money for the fight, then the rising would have failed, that the british possessed none of these is of far more relevance tha
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       4/16/2009 11:57:40 AM
 

It wasn't the first time the people of Ireland had staged an uprising, in fact pressure for home rule had been building for some time, limited outbreaks of rebellionw ere already documented before the Boer war. Now, if you want to say that it was in part inspired by the Boer uprising then fuine,

 

It is not I who says so it was the leadership of the Irish republicans themselves. Other Irish volunteers fighting with the Boers would later take part in the Easter Uprising and as mentioned numbers of weapons captured by the British were Boer in origin.

 

And just to be clear, we are not referring to a Boer uprising but a Boer defense of sovereign republics that were recognized by the British Empire.

 

but it is part at best and still ignores the fact that had British public opinion been on the side of putting down the 1920 rebellion and had the British had the stomach and money for the fight, then the rising would have failed,

 

Perhaps, but then another would have arisen and another until the British withdrew.

 

As for India, well, given that Ghandi emphasised a campaign of non aggresion, it's hard to see how he could have taken any inspiration from the armed struggle of the Afrikaners,

 

I never mentioned whether or not Ghandi took inspiration from the Boers ? that is unknown to me. My point was that the Boers exposed weaknesses in the British Empire which I believe Ghandi noticed. Ghandi, contrary to popular opinion, was not opposed to armed struggle, he just did not believe it was the effective strategy for resisting the British in India. 

 

The fact remains that the British had been moving more towards Indian self determination throughout the 30s.

 

Which makes Ghandi's approach all the more appropriate given the circumstances.

 

I just think you are trying to pin far too much relevance to the Boer war..

 

It wasn't my intention to name any one conflict as the source of the collapse of the British Empire ? I don?t believe there is one just as no single event created it. My intention was the answer the original question as to when was the beginning of the end ? the turning of the tide so to speak. I believe the Anglo-Boer War to be a good contender because it marked a halt to British territorial expansion, and exposed significant British military weakness. This came at the zenith of British Imperial power with the end of the Victorian Era. I added the connection to the Irish rebellion because that is well documented. It is an interesting side note that Ghandi, who would later inspire the separation of the most important British imperial asset, also happened to be involved in that war and who's experience in South Africa is already known to have been formative.

 

 

It was, quite simply, the two World wars that smashed Britain's ability to maintain the empire, those wars severely degraded Britain's manpower reserves, made it impossible for Britain to subsidize large parts of the empire (as it had been for some time) - indeed, the empire was a seeming financial black hole by 1920. The wars also brought about a radical change in social policy and public opinion that led to a government in 1945 openly hostile to the concept of imperialism. labour sold off as much of the empire as it could in one go.

 

I agree with the above. But I don't believe the two world wars were the very beginning. The British Empire, in my view, was largely over by 1945 parti

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics