3 ms·

> there are simply no such successful Empires anywhere in the world anymore There is the US not-an-Empire [0] though, that'll probably count when the history b

by roenxi 2y ago

> there are simply no such successful Empires anywhere in the world anymore There is the US not-an-Empire [0] though, that'll probably count when the history books reflect on the present era. WWI/II can very easily be interpreted as a transition of power away from incompetent British leadership (indeed, European monarchies - the change pre- post- WWI is striking) towards more capable US-based leadership. It isn't clear UK public ever really grappled how insufficient their leadership theory is. Their acceptance of poor performers over the last 20+ years has been striking although it is mirrored by low standards in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_installations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_inst...

insane_dreamer 2y ago
I think it was more about economics than competency. By the end of WW2 the UK was bankrupt and completely ruined economically, while the US had become the industrial powerhouse of the world thanks to abundant resources, manpower, and the fact that the war largely took place far from its borders (a few tiny islands notwithstanding). By the end of WW2 the US owned nearly all the gold that Europe previously owned which led to the US Dollar the worldwide reserve currency.
- roenxi 2y ago
  If the UK wants to pretend that WW2 (or, indeed, WW1) happened like a shock storm, unforseen and unforseeable, with no involvement from them they are welcome to do that. The result of that attitude was that the UK parliament was only allowed to govern a small and increasingly irrelevant island with lousy weather and steadily worsening economic prospects instead of a global empire. There is a lesson for people governing global empires here - don't allow major wars to blow up on your borders. Or, ideally, anywhere. Maybe spend some time promoting peace and prosperity. Train the diplomats in diplomacy. You'll notice that the US solution at the end of WWII was completely different to the European settlement at the end of WWI. And the US approach to warring was a lot more staid than the UK's. These are basic matters of competence.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Indeed. Choose peace if possible instead of rushing into war. Nothing that happened in the Balkans was important to the UK.
    - WillPostForFood 2y ago
      Nothing important Sudetenland, nothing important in Austria, nothing important in Poland. They tried your strategy in the 30s and it was not a success.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        Are the Sudetenland, Austria, and Poland in the Balkans?
    - nine_k 2y ago
      Possibly Balkans themselves were not important. The trade routes in Mediterranean likely were. Also, there was a complex web of international treaties and alliances that eventually pulled the UK into the war.
      - insane_dreamer 2y ago
        This was back in the day when alliances, particularly European ones, meant something.
        nine_k 2y ago
        Also, family ties. European monarchs were a really tight bunch. For instance, the tzar of Russia and the king of the British Empire at the time of WWI were brothers.
        sofixa 2y ago
        > For instance, the tzar of Russia and the king of the British Empire at the time of WWI were brothers. They were first cousins, along with the German Kaiser they went to war with.
nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
It's interesting that incompetence ... Fabians started in 1884 and a lot of insanely destructive ideas seem to defend from those circles. We don't have the great leap forward it's slower but something as bad on a longer timescale
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Yep. UK had post-war rationing longer than Germany did! Fabians were largely to blame for this state of affairs. UK caught back up, just about, in the 1980s, but the Conservatives went to seed at the start of the 90s and never really got fixed. It's the oldest political party in the world so it took a long time for people to give up on them but that's now finally happening. Unfortunately the smear tactics against Farage over the years have been quite successful especially against the older generation that relies more heavily on TV for news. UK might face another election where the right splits their vote and Labour walk in again. Many decades of decline would be compounded at that point, putting the UK into more of a second world position.
dukeyukey 2y ago
> Their acceptance of poor performers over the last 20+ years has been striking How many PMs has the UK been though in that time? _Way_ more than the average Western country. We don't accept poor oerformers more than anywhere else, we kick them out of office - but the talent pipeline is abysmal so the next one is usually awful too.

by roenxi 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago

I think it was more about economics than competency. By the end of WW2 the UK was bankrupt and completely ruined economically, while the US had become the industrial powerhouse of the world thanks to abundant resources, manpower, and the fact that the war largely took place far from its borders (a few tiny islands notwithstanding). By the end of WW2 the US owned nearly all the gold that Europe previously owned which led to the US Dollar the worldwide reserve currency.

roenxi 2y ago
If the UK wants to pretend that WW2 (or, indeed, WW1) happened like a shock storm, unforseen and unforseeable, with no involvement from them they are welcome to do that. The result of that attitude was that the UK parliament was only allowed to govern a small and increasingly irrelevant island with lousy weather and steadily worsening economic prospects instead of a global empire. There is a lesson for people governing global empires here - don't allow major wars to blow up on your borders. Or, ideally, anywhere. Maybe spend some time promoting peace and prosperity. Train the diplomats in diplomacy. You'll notice that the US solution at the end of WWII was completely different to the European settlement at the end of WWI. And the US approach to warring was a lot more staid than the UK's. These are basic matters of competence.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Indeed. Choose peace if possible instead of rushing into war. Nothing that happened in the Balkans was important to the UK.
  - WillPostForFood 2y ago
    Nothing important Sudetenland, nothing important in Austria, nothing important in Poland. They tried your strategy in the 30s and it was not a success.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Are the Sudetenland, Austria, and Poland in the Balkans?
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Possibly Balkans themselves were not important. The trade routes in Mediterranean likely were. Also, there was a complex web of international treaties and alliances that eventually pulled the UK into the war.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      This was back in the day when alliances, particularly European ones, meant something.
      - nine_k 2y ago
        Also, family ties. European monarchs were a really tight bunch. For instance, the tzar of Russia and the king of the British Empire at the time of WWI were brothers.
        sofixa 2y ago
        > For instance, the tzar of Russia and the king of the British Empire at the time of WWI were brothers. They were first cousins, along with the German Kaiser they went to war with.

nobodywillobsrv 2y ago

It's interesting that incompetence ... Fabians started in 1884 and a lot of insanely destructive ideas seem to defend from those circles. We don't have the great leap forward it's slower but something as bad on a longer timescale

mike_hearn 2y ago
Yep. UK had post-war rationing longer than Germany did! Fabians were largely to blame for this state of affairs. UK caught back up, just about, in the 1980s, but the Conservatives went to seed at the start of the 90s and never really got fixed. It's the oldest political party in the world so it took a long time for people to give up on them but that's now finally happening. Unfortunately the smear tactics against Farage over the years have been quite successful especially against the older generation that relies more heavily on TV for news. UK might face another election where the right splits their vote and Labour walk in again. Many decades of decline would be compounded at that point, putting the UK into more of a second world position.

dukeyukey 2y ago

> Their acceptance of poor performers over the last 20+ years has been striking How many PMs has the UK been though in that time? _Way_ more than the average Western country. We don't accept poor oerformers more than anywhere else, we kick them out of office - but the talent pipeline is abysmal so the next one is usually awful too.