4 ms·

The UK lost its literal empire because of the costs of two wars that devastated the continent - not domestic politics. On the other hand, the PRC is turning bac

The UK lost its literal empire because of the costs of two wars that devastated the continent - not domestic politics. On the other hand, the PRC is turning back on itself. It has been unable to produce a successor to Xi - making it very hard to change direction. Under Xi, it has actively cultivated hostility against itself and only manages to exercise influence others through force. It also has much less stable demographics. It is not reasonable to expect China to collapse and it would be fearful if they did, but they are likely to have a much less stable period ahead as they come to terms with their situation. As for the US, they're not alone in this but they are now in a situation where younger voters with a longer time horizon are able to win majorities against older voters with shorter time horizons. This means they're entering into a period of creativity. It is not clear what the outcome will be. But it is clear that we cannot take for granted that pursuit of an unreformed ideology will distract them from the compromise and teamwork that brought them to strength. In both cases, I think you're extrapolating from recent politics. But both countries are in different turns of the demographic wheel, and have different ways of dealing with that. Democracy also tends to make turmoil more obvious to external observers, so it's easy to accidentally compare apples to oranges when you're looking at a democracy and an autocracy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 4y ago
> The UK lost its literal empire because of the costs of two wars that devastated the continent - not domestic politics. That’s the story the British like to tell themselves. I don’t think it fits the counterexample that Germany was able to rebuild itself enough after the first to be a world-scale threat by the second (and might have won the second in the alternative timeline where they had not been so anti-communist to attempt to conquer the USSR before the UK, and possibly also in the hypothetical alternative timeline if they had not been anti-Semitic — even before all the horrors of Holocaust became known, they were bad enough to make a significant number of Jewish scientists run away, in particular the ones went to the USA and helped with the Manhattan Project); and again after WW2 and being divided by the Allies, that Germany went from having their industrial base punitively dismantled in 1949 to The Times referring to the its reconstruction as a Wirtschaftswunder by 1959. (Yes I do know they got help, but it’s important to also know why the UK didn’t get that help, and I think part of that is the USA while part is internal domestic UK politics). It also doesn’t fit that the observation that empire, which was worldwide, had been bringing riches to the UK before the war. One thing that might have changed the cost/benefit ratios was all the locals finally getting their hands on sufficient firearms to make it expensive to suppress independence movements. Given what else the British government was busy doing with local industrial policy at that point, and the honours granted to those directly involved in war crimes during the Mau Mau uprising, I don’t think they were that self-aware. (Could also be that the USA was putting pressure on the old powers to drop their imperialism, but I don’t feel confident about the dynamic there given British cultural attitudes to the USA vary from it being “one of us, even if they don’t realise it” (no, I don’t get it either, but I’ve seen it) to “if they say jump, we ask how high”). It also doesn’t fit that the Commonwealth’s GDP is now about $11 trillion, about 3 times the UK itself; although I would regard the end of Imperialism as a morally good thing and correct all by itself, I don’t think “money” is a reasonable justification for giving up on that potential. Morally, sure. Politically, it is “gave up an empire to gain a continent… hang on, why isn’t the continent doing what we say? That must mean they are dictating to us!”
- nirimda 4y ago
  Your argument leaves aside the fact that Germany lost the second world war and was absolutely devastated by it, and that a lot of their military power in that war came about at the expense of their citizens. It's also way too narrow: the resources the UK devoted to controlling its empire, couldn't be devoted to holding Germany down. The UK was never the sort of monopolar superpower that the US was 1989-2008 (the US very much learnt from the UK's more primitive form of partial dominance). Moreover, even if any of your claims are true, it still doesn't show that they collapsed due to domestic politics. If they didn't have a goal of maintaining their global empire - and you seem to argue that they didn't - then it's not domestic politics but rather public opinion that led to the end of the empire. That is to say, it offers no real lessons for a country that wants to remain dominant. Maybe the US wants to leave its empire behind it, but if so you can only learn that if a country wants to leave its empire behind it, then it might succeed. So what? The British example in your presentation doesn't say anything about a country that wants to remain dominant. And it is completely one-sided, failing to account for domestic politics in China, which is in a far far worse situation than the US in terms of being able to gain/retain the (international) support needed for a dominant position. > Politically, it is “gave up an empire to gain a continent… hang on, why isn’t the continent doing what we say? That must mean they are dictating to us!” This is chronologically wrong. The British had already lost almost every bit of their empire, and certainly their imperial standing, before they tried to join the EEC. It cannot be maintained by anyone with even a milligram of dedication to the truth that they "gave up an empire to gain a continent". It's true that the price they had to join the EEC was to end the imperial preference, but they were poor, the sick man of Europe, and their ability to conduct internal imperial trade was dependent on the United States. Even their very best colonies in Australia and New Zealand, although still dependent on imperial trade, had turned and saw their future as key allies of the US - not dominions of the British Empire. So while it might be the case that more lately, some British politicians have sought to build domestic support by lying to their constituents and claiming they "gave up an empire to gain a continent" only to be surprised that it was a partnership, they didn't lose their empire to join the EU/EEC. Your false-quote has resonance in the context of the Brexit debate, but it has no meaning in the original circumstance.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ben_w 4y ago

> The UK lost its literal empire because of the costs of two wars that devastated the continent - not domestic politics. That’s the story the British like to tell themselves. I don’t think it fits the counterexample that Germany was able to rebuild itself enough after the first to be a world-scale threat by the second (and might have won the second in the alternative timeline where they had not been so anti-communist to attempt to conquer the USSR before the UK, and possibly also in the hypothetical alternative timeline if they had not been anti-Semitic — even before all the horrors of Holocaust became known, they were bad enough to make a significant number of Jewish scientists run away, in particular the ones went to the USA and helped with the Manhattan Project); and again after WW2 and being divided by the Allies, that Germany went from having their industrial base punitively dismantled in 1949 to The Times referring to the its reconstruction as a Wirtschaftswunder by 1959. (Yes I do know they got help, but it’s important to also know why the UK didn’t get that help, and I think part of that is the USA while part is internal domestic UK politics). It also doesn’t fit that the observation that empire, which was worldwide, had been bringing riches to the UK before the war. One thing that might have changed the cost/benefit ratios was all the locals finally getting their hands on sufficient firearms to make it expensive to suppress independence movements. Given what else the British government was busy doing with local industrial policy at that point, and the honours granted to those directly involved in war crimes during the Mau Mau uprising, I don’t think they were that self-aware. (Could also be that the USA was putting pressure on the old powers to drop their imperialism, but I don’t feel confident about the dynamic there given British cultural attitudes to the USA vary from it being “one of us, even if they don’t realise it” (no, I don’t get it either, but I’ve seen it) to “if they say jump, we ask how high”). It also doesn’t fit that the Commonwealth’s GDP is now about $11 trillion, about 3 times the UK itself; although I would regard the end of Imperialism as a morally good thing and correct all by itself, I don’t think “money” is a reasonable justification for giving up on that potential. Morally, sure. Politically, it is “gave up an empire to gain a continent… hang on, why isn’t the continent doing what we say? That must mean they are dictating to us!”

nirimda 4y ago
Your argument leaves aside the fact that Germany lost the second world war and was absolutely devastated by it, and that a lot of their military power in that war came about at the expense of their citizens. It's also way too narrow: the resources the UK devoted to controlling its empire, couldn't be devoted to holding Germany down. The UK was never the sort of monopolar superpower that the US was 1989-2008 (the US very much learnt from the UK's more primitive form of partial dominance). Moreover, even if any of your claims are true, it still doesn't show that they collapsed due to domestic politics. If they didn't have a goal of maintaining their global empire - and you seem to argue that they didn't - then it's not domestic politics but rather public opinion that led to the end of the empire. That is to say, it offers no real lessons for a country that wants to remain dominant. Maybe the US wants to leave its empire behind it, but if so you can only learn that if a country wants to leave its empire behind it, then it might succeed. So what? The British example in your presentation doesn't say anything about a country that wants to remain dominant. And it is completely one-sided, failing to account for domestic politics in China, which is in a far far worse situation than the US in terms of being able to gain/retain the (international) support needed for a dominant position. > Politically, it is “gave up an empire to gain a continent… hang on, why isn’t the continent doing what we say? That must mean they are dictating to us!” This is chronologically wrong. The British had already lost almost every bit of their empire, and certainly their imperial standing, before they tried to join the EEC. It cannot be maintained by anyone with even a milligram of dedication to the truth that they "gave up an empire to gain a continent". It's true that the price they had to join the EEC was to end the imperial preference, but they were poor, the sick man of Europe, and their ability to conduct internal imperial trade was dependent on the United States. Even their very best colonies in Australia and New Zealand, although still dependent on imperial trade, had turned and saw their future as key allies of the US - not dominions of the British Empire. So while it might be the case that more lately, some British politicians have sought to build domestic support by lying to their constituents and claiming they "gave up an empire to gain a continent" only to be surprised that it was a partnership, they didn't lose their empire to join the EU/EEC. Your false-quote has resonance in the context of the Brexit debate, but it has no meaning in the original circumstance.