Why did Britain and the dominions grow apart?
- Thread starter Emperor Palpatine
- Start date
They have "grown apart" in the way that children "grow apart" from parents over the years. Separate and independent, that's all.
How did it happen?
How did it happen?
Neville Chamberlain guaranteed the borders of Poland for some reason against German invasion, and then stuck to it, which put the UK in the front-line of a war that it wasn't properly geared up to fight, and which it consequently lost on pretty much every level except that of the technicality of being on the side that in the end achieved military victory.
After which a general decline and malaise set-in, until a later generation of UK politicians concluded that the only potential remedy available was to bow the knee to Brussels and hope for a miracle.
Or at least as I understand it that's how it happened.
How did it happen?
Neville Chamberlain guaranteed the borders of Poland for some reason against German invasion, and then stuck to it, which put the UK in the front-line of a war that it wasn't properly geared up to fight, and which it consequently lost on pretty much every level except that of the technicality of being on the side that in the end achieved military victory.
After which a general decline and malaise set-in, until a later generation of UK politicians concluded that the only potential remedy available was to bow the knee to Brussels and hope for a miracle.
Or at least as I understand it that's how it happened.
Really?
Realizing what Hitler really was counts in my book as one hell of a reason.
It was properly geared up to fight, especially with France alongside them - if the Saar Offensive had been pushed with more than the smallest phalanx of their nondominant pinkie finger, the Wallies would have torn straight through the Westwall without even pausing to catch their breath, and the Ruhr would have fallen within two weeks, three at the outside, assuming that Hitler by some miracle hasn't gotten a 9mm headache by then.
Yes I remember that cartoon during history where it had the raged old British Lion being led away to join Europe and a little kiwi talking to a little Kangaroo saying "They weren't so keen on joining Europe back in 1941"
Oh how we laughed.
It predates Britain's joining the EC. By WW2, Canada and New Zealand already insisted that they were independent countries with their own foreign policies, and declared war on Germany separately (however, the conservative government in Australia insisted that as a dominion, it was bound by Britain's declaration of war).
The issue of self-government for the dominions (and for Ireland) was recurrently debated in Britain in the second half of the 19c. Some people proposed intercontinental federalism, and one made the argument that steamships could travel from London to Melbourne in the same time early-18c sailing ships took to travel from London to the northern end of Scotland. Pre-devolution Britain was incredibly centralized, so the only real alternatives for the dominions were federalism and (gradual) independence, and at the end federalism went nowhere, so they became independent, by war in Ireland and slowly and peacefully elsewhere.
The basic problem is that, without splitting England, there was no way to institute any federal structure once the US was gone. In 1901, England had 30 million people, the rest of the then-UK 9 million, Canada 5.5 million, Australia 4 million, New Zealand 1 million, and the Cape Colony 2.5 million. You can't have meaningful federalism when one unit has nearly three-fifths of the total population of the federation - you'd get a very unequal situation, like Prussia's dominance over the German Empire and Weimar Republic. The intercontinental nature of such federation would compound the inequality, since federal decisions would be made in London, weeks away from Canada and Australia by steamship rather than Berlin's location hours away from southern Germany by train.
The same problem crops up today, leading to the unstable combination of devolution to the non-England units and Tory calls for English votes on English laws. Nowadays there's a meaningful force, Labour, attempting to split up England into regions, but a hundred years ago, there was no such force.
The issue of self-government for the dominions (and for Ireland) was recurrently debated in Britain in the second half of the 19c. Some people proposed intercontinental federalism, and one made the argument that steamships could travel from London to Melbourne in the same time early-18c sailing ships took to travel from London to the northern end of Scotland. Pre-devolution Britain was incredibly centralized, so the only real alternatives for the dominions were federalism and (gradual) independence, and at the end federalism went nowhere, so they became independent, by war in Ireland and slowly and peacefully elsewhere.
The basic problem is that, without splitting England, there was no way to institute any federal structure once the US was gone. In 1901, England had 30 million people, the rest of the then-UK 9 million, Canada 5.5 million, Australia 4 million, New Zealand 1 million, and the Cape Colony 2.5 million. You can't have meaningful federalism when one unit has nearly three-fifths of the total population of the federation - you'd get a very unequal situation, like Prussia's dominance over the German Empire and Weimar Republic. The intercontinental nature of such federation would compound the inequality, since federal decisions would be made in London, weeks away from Canada and Australia by steamship rather than Berlin's location hours away from southern Germany by train.
The same problem crops up today, leading to the unstable combination of devolution to the non-England units and Tory calls for English votes on English laws. Nowadays there's a meaningful force, Labour, attempting to split up England into regions, but a hundred years ago, there was no such force.
Quite.
Also, visiting London from say NZ even today reminds one quite how big, rich and old it is compared to everything. Plus, for obvious reasons rje British seem obsessed by Europe and the US, leaving little time or energy for us.
I suspect the 19th century expats and London were both quite happy with how things turned out.
Also, visiting London from say NZ even today reminds one quite how big, rich and old it is compared to everything. Plus, for obvious reasons rje British seem obsessed by Europe and the US, leaving little time or energy for us.
I suspect the 19th century expats and London were both quite happy with how things turned out.
Call me crazy, but when it comes to World War II, I'm under the impression that Japan did more direct damage to Britain's place on the world stage than Germany.
The British Empire was centered around two things - its holdings in South-East Asia, and the Royal Navy, both untouchable and invincible. With the Royal Navy stretched thin in the Battle of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Theatre, Britain could only spare second or third-rate forces to defend India, Australia and Malaya. When a brutal, determined and skillful Japanese invasion combined with several stunning examples of either incompetence or just plain bad luck on the part of the British, the largest surrender and defeat in British military history left Britain with a tiny Eastern Fleet and an unceremonious boot out of Singapore, the linchpin of their defence in the Far East. This threw their promises of safety to the Australians into doubt, who would after the war look to the United States for protection. When the Japanese captured Burma later on, the resulting panic and, again, incompetence on the part of administration caused a massive famine in India that killed millions of people. That embittered the Indians who were increasingly set upon full independence after the war was over.
The Fall of Singapore and the Burma Theatre were, within the context of World War II, sideshows, but they shattered the image of invincibility Britain had enjoyed since the likes of Trafalgar and Waterloo. Think of Germany and Italy distracting Britain, while Japan sneaks behind and shoots her in the spine. Even though she would go on to win, Britain was exhausted and broken when it was all over, not the kind of nation you want protecting you. Not to mention the fact that the Soviet Union was now looking bigger and more threatening than ever, and America was now rich and strong and eager to take Britain's place...
The British Empire was centered around two things - its holdings in South-East Asia, and the Royal Navy, both untouchable and invincible. With the Royal Navy stretched thin in the Battle of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Theatre, Britain could only spare second or third-rate forces to defend India, Australia and Malaya. When a brutal, determined and skillful Japanese invasion combined with several stunning examples of either incompetence or just plain bad luck on the part of the British, the largest surrender and defeat in British military history left Britain with a tiny Eastern Fleet and an unceremonious boot out of Singapore, the linchpin of their defence in the Far East. This threw their promises of safety to the Australians into doubt, who would after the war look to the United States for protection. When the Japanese captured Burma later on, the resulting panic and, again, incompetence on the part of administration caused a massive famine in India that killed millions of people. That embittered the Indians who were increasingly set upon full independence after the war was over.
The Fall of Singapore and the Burma Theatre were, within the context of World War II, sideshows, but they shattered the image of invincibility Britain had enjoyed since the likes of Trafalgar and Waterloo. Think of Germany and Italy distracting Britain, while Japan sneaks behind and shoots her in the spine. Even though she would go on to win, Britain was exhausted and broken when it was all over, not the kind of nation you want protecting you. Not to mention the fact that the Soviet Union was now looking bigger and more threatening than ever, and America was now rich and strong and eager to take Britain's place...
Would you care explain how the United States providing weapons and other supplies, via Lend Lease, to the United Kingdom and other allies would help break up the British Empire?
Errolwi
Monthly Donor
Before L-L started, the British were forced to sell their overseas investments in the USA. This had a major impact on things postwar, obviously.
Also, links are weakened when 'Home' is not able to provide for your defence, and someone else is. Especially when your defence plan as well as its implementation is incompetent.
But why couldn't Britain carry on without lend lease? Why mortgage the country to America and be forced to give up the empire? In some sense Germany won the war. Contrast the post war German economic miracle with the turmoil Britain went through.
Why?
Because fighting modern wars is expensive - especially so if you don't run a slave-state, plundering other nations to run your war machine; especially so if your ships bringing raw materials and taking out finished goods and equipment are being sunk by enemy submarines and 'commerce raiders'; especially so when the population and industrial capacity of your homeland is considerably less than those of your geographically immediate enemies.
Amd was America just going to let the British take supplies without getting something out of the deal even the Soviets offered up gold and other raw materials to pay for lend-lease. They were not suppling lend lease out of the goodness of their hearts it was because America stood to gain something by doing so and so they did.
Wasn't there some provisions in there to prevent favouritism to the dominions or something? Sure I read something to that effect a while back.