4 ms·

Not to be an anglophile but you are seriously giving that generation of british rulers a lack of credit. They stood up for the international order and joined tw

Not to be an anglophile but you are seriously giving that generation of british rulers a lack of credit. They stood up for the international order and joined two wars that destroyed them financially. Britain could have sat both of those world wars out. They could have said its not a big deal that germany invsde belgium or poland. But they willingly and knowingly undertook an expensive endeavor for a greater good. When their empire was then faltering aftet world war ii, they then let them go. They set them up to be independent and had peaceful transfers of power instead of bloody civil wars like France and Portugal did. They didnt do it perfect. But they gave them independence, in democracies, with books of laws, and set them up in international organizations. Britain took the losing hand and tried to set up a situation that a rules based world order could thrive in, and churchill was amongst the men in charge for that.

orwin 1y ago
Gp was probably talking about Churchill last stint, after 70, where he was extraordinarily bad for his country. I know leftists usually blame Thatcher, but to me she mostly tried to make up for what the post-WW2 UK government broke. At least unlike France, they managed the decolonization peacefully.
LexiMax 1y ago
> But they willingly and knowingly undertook an expensive endeavor for a greater good. Let's not go that far. They joined the war because of literal decades of politicking done beforehand in order to secure an alliance with France and Russia. Germany wanted more prestige, more colonies and a Navy. Britain, being the preeminent colonial and naval power, would prefer that didn't happen. Your view on if the allies were justified in wanting to contain the ambitions of Germany probably depends on if you see Germany as justified in wanting a bigger slice of the pie that the other powers of the time were currently taking up, or if you see Germany as a buffoon that upset the existing balance of power for selfish reasons. But Britain entering into those alliances made conflict inevitable, and I find it hard to see any selflessness in desiring or preserving empire. They all paid dearly in the end.
- ecshafer 1y ago
  WWI I think there are no heroes or villains. But WWII is a much different story.

orwin 1y ago

Gp was probably talking about Churchill last stint, after 70, where he was extraordinarily bad for his country. I know leftists usually blame Thatcher, but to me she mostly tried to make up for what the post-WW2 UK government broke. At least unlike France, they managed the decolonization peacefully.

LexiMax 1y ago

> But they willingly and knowingly undertook an expensive endeavor for a greater good. Let's not go that far. They joined the war because of literal decades of politicking done beforehand in order to secure an alliance with France and Russia. Germany wanted more prestige, more colonies and a Navy. Britain, being the preeminent colonial and naval power, would prefer that didn't happen. Your view on if the allies were justified in wanting to contain the ambitions of Germany probably depends on if you see Germany as justified in wanting a bigger slice of the pie that the other powers of the time were currently taking up, or if you see Germany as a buffoon that upset the existing balance of power for selfish reasons. But Britain entering into those alliances made conflict inevitable, and I find it hard to see any selflessness in desiring or preserving empire. They all paid dearly in the end.

ecshafer 1y ago
WWI I think there are no heroes or villains. But WWII is a much different story.