3 ms·
It's hard to keep up when you've lost the better part of two generations in a row, and most of the stockpiled capital of a century of imperialism - especially w
by douche 10y ago
It's hard to keep up when you've lost the better part of two generations in a row, and most of the stockpiled capital of a century of imperialism - especially when you also lose the empire that generated all that wealth.
- Aloha 10y agoI've often argued that the root cause for loss of empire, was the best and brightest of a generation was left on Flanders fields. The best and brightest of the ruling class at the time was simple used up as cannon fodder, its also the cause for the decline of the aristocracy too.
- pjc50 10y agoAnd this was why postwar Germany lost its scientific and technical advantage and is now a ruined backwater - wait, no. Germany not only lost technicians and an aristocracy in WW1 and 2 but murdered those of its Jewish population that were not able to escape. Survivors defected to the US like Von Braun. The loss of empire was after WW2 not WW1, and partly due to the US insisting (Suez) and partly because it became morally and economically impossible to subdue (Mau Mau etc.). The postwar British disease was labour relations, which were handled far better in Germany with worker representatives at board level. (I might argue far more cynically that the aristocracy was by definition not a meritocracy, and that only its violent destruction by war enabled Europe to have a chance at becoming more egalitarian.)
- dba7dba 10y agoI agree with your assessment, pjc50. All major European nations lost most of their privileged/gifted young men in WW1 and WW2, not just UK.
- woodandsteel 10y ago>The postwar British disease was labour relations, which were handled far better in Germany with worker representatives at board level. Interesting, UK went socialist after WWII while Germany went social democratic. I wonder what made the difference. Perhaps part of the answer is that the aristocracy retained more power in the UK? I have read that socialism in the UK was supported by the aristocracy as a way to keep control of the economy, but I am not sure if that is correct. Also, Germany was under US occupation for a number of years, I would suppose that made a difference, since the US is quite anti-socialist.
- pjc50 10y ago"Socialist" is almost a useless label these days, it's used to mean too many things that the US doesn't like. It's true that some of the aristocracy (e.g. Tony Benn) supported Labour and some very left-wing politics. But that was a small part of the whole. What is true is the Fabian Society proposing incrementalist socialism as an antidote to revolutionary socialism - a way for the aristocracy to keep their heads. The UK nationalised a lot of industries after the war but then failed to run them effectively. After a few decades of this the Thatcherite response was to just privatise everything and give up on trying any form of state management. This leaves us in the bizarre situation where Germany, France, the Netherlands etc have state-owned rail companies running UK railways recieving UK subsidy.
- rodgerd 10y agoI recommend Len Deighton's well-researched _Blood, Sweat, and Folly_ for a view of the disasterous management of the war effort - that the same people would mis-manage the peace isn't surprising.