| Decline and Fall of the British Empire | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 29 2014, 02:31 PM (208 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 29 2014, 02:31 PM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
At what point did (1) the decline and (2) the dissolution of the British Empire become inevitable? By dissolution, I refer to most of the dominions becoming de facto independent (if not de jure) and going their own separate ways, with the people giving their primary allegiance to the nation rather than Britain. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Mar 29 2014, 03:26 PM Post #2 |
|
I don't think that that question is truly answerable. The dominions would have become independent in almost any circumstance, with complete inevitability after the independence of the United States. A major factor in the dissolution of the unity of the Commonwealth was the result of Britain chooosing to align with Europe rather than the former colonies. If Britain had maintained an outward focus, the dominions may have not drifted as they did. I recall reading that Diefenbaker made approaches to the government in London trying to maintain such relationships, but the British were not interested. There are some in Britain with a sense of national self-loathing, believing that anything that resulted from empire is a bad thing. UKIP get heat for being "backward looking" with their proposed "CFTA" instead of being members of the European Union. Indeed, many pro-EU members when arguing against leaving will say "What would you replace the EU with?". They cannot countenance being outside of the Common Market. Trudeau of course ensured that Canada went in the opposite direction as well. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 29 2014, 05:40 PM Post #3 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I'd put the root of decline somewhere in the 1870s. By that time the Second Industrial Revolution was underway, Germany had united, and the United States had overcome its chief threat to disunion. With the poor economic performance during the Long Depression, the stage appeared set for a relative decline in British strength. That does not imply Britain would necessarily have to cede ground in the naval sphere, still its chief military asset, but it did mean that the British economy would not forever be able to cope with other rising industrial powers. Even Russia would undergo a resurgence with enough time. The dominion issue is something I don't know enough about. Independence may have been inevitable in some form after the United States victory in 1783, but it need not have translated directly to loathing of the motherland. |
![]() |
|
| John | Mar 29 2014, 05:57 PM Post #4 |
|
Independence is/was never inevitable. Generally speaking, you need only convince the majority that the quality of life will poorer for having achieved it. This is not an easy task, but it is possible. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Mar 29 2014, 06:33 PM Post #5 |
|
The Boer War era and the end of supposed isolation in 1902 I would say are good events that mark the British having to contend with a less secure world, beginning as you say with the rise to prominence of Germany, the United States, and Japan. How are we defining independence? Canada at 1982 with the constitution, the Westminster Act of 1931, or Canada as a self-governing dominion in 1867? I find it hard to imagine a region like the Thirteen Colonies submitting to London without any representation or the other colonies as they grew. From my understanding American MPs were not on the table from London's perspective. Speaking only as a Canadian, there is no "loathing" towards Britain in any way shape or form (outside of Québec that is). You had the odd NDP MP saying that restoring the RCAF and RCN names was a matter of "neo-colonialism, but that's about it. The situation is a bit different in Australia and New Zealand. It's hard to have a relationship with a parent if the parent disowns you and then acts like it never had anything to do with you. Edited by Lewington, Mar 29 2014, 06:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| John | Mar 29 2014, 07:51 PM Post #6 |
|
The thing about every group of people operating under a single national government is that it has to feel like 'we.' The second that is starts feeling like 'us' and 'them', one of the two is liable to, at some point, seek separation. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 30 2014, 03:02 AM Post #7 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
World War 1. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Mar 30 2014, 03:21 AM Post #8 |
|
First of all, to respect the way we all used to look at it, we ought to use the word 'autonomy,' not 'independence,' as the latter was something of a dirty word after 1776. As to the relation of the American independence and how Canada looked at the matter, if anything the former hardened Canadian resolve to retain her British connection, even through the 20th century, as we felt it gave us a distinction from the US. We still struggle with this today, with figuring out what makes us different from Americans, but we have a much harder time with it having rejected most of the past which actually did cause us to develop differently. I think the big thing was the rise of the notion that it was impossible to be both fully Canadian and fully British. To be British, for the longest period, was not something that was seen as incompatible with local allegiances, to Canada, even to Ontario or Quebec or the west, or to Australia. As the others have touched on, this was undermined both by the British government at home who decided to be British was to be European, and by some of the people in the Dominions, Trudeau, etc. The Great War certainly caused a questioning of why such ties existed. When it came down to it, it was simply that people right across the former empire started to become ashamed of being associated with the empire. I really do not understand why such a sentiment had a strong appeal, for the more I learn of the empire the more I admire what it was, but such is the way things go. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |






2:39 PM Jul 11