I get you are another poster that loves the idea of the British Empire but it wasn't any cleaner than any of the other Empires.
Did you read my post?
I get you are another poster that loves the idea of the British Empire but it wasn't any cleaner than any of the other Empires.
Did you read my post?
Yeah and I've seen that kind of argument before, no time for it then, or now.
You didn't read what I said properly then. At no point did I say the empire was good. I'll repeat myself again. It was a mix of both good and bad and any attempt to characterize it as either wholly good or wholly bad is incorrect. There were crimes and there was also some good. That makes its history complicated. We have to treat the history as it is and not simply nitpick events that suit our agenda.
And overall the Bad outweighs any Good it did. The destroy populations, religions, cultures, famines, the playing one group off against another etc outweigh anything you can point to as Good.
What would New Newfoundland,Canada,Australia and New Zealand gain from this?
How feasible was the idea of integrating Newfoundland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as Home Nations within the United Kingdom? I think the ideal time for this would be after WW2 in order to counterbalance the strength of the US. The British connection was still very strong in the immediate post war era right through the 1950s.
You didn't read what I said properly then. At no point did I say the empire was good. I'll repeat myself again. It was a mix of both good and bad and any attempt to characterize it as either wholly good or wholly bad is incorrect. There were crimes and there was also some good. That makes its history complicated. We have to treat the history as it is and not simply nitpick events that suit our agenda.
I cited the Statute of Westminster in response to your incorrect claim that the British never dealt on equal terms with the dominions or "domains" as you choose to call them.