Question: What did the US do to end the Empire (and empires)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, we all make mistakes, and I certainly will try to find the correct quotation, it might take time, though.

You got the correct quotation anything outside the "" isn't a quotation, I think you made a mistake there my good fellow, but we all make them I guess.

As for whether it was a plan or not, instituting export controls and setting out a deliberately policy of limiting Britsih dollar reserves shows clearly that it was.

Then there is one basic question I would like you to answer. Any date, at which we can even agree to disagree, is probably in the far future, but perhaps we can at least temporarily settle where we disagree most.

No, I'm already there.

You can believe what you like on the subject, it doesn't change the facts one way or another.

Try this Time article from the period (September 22nd 1941)

Here.

"The agreement was published as a White Paper, in which the British promised to limit their export business during World War II to the minimum necessary to continue the war effort."

Now for the US that make sense, their export business was gravy, Britain's export business however was what financed the country.

"The agreement was based on the principle that the British must maintain about two-thirds of normal export trade in order to get vital foreign exchange to buy materials unobtainable in the U.S."

"Yet British industries, which have already absorbed some shrewd body blows, will now have to take more punishment under the agreement. Example: no British paint firm may now offer in any world market any paint which contains zinc (imported from the U.S.). Last week a paint company which had done business in England for 120 years closed up."

Just put in "lend lease whitepaper export" into goggle and you will find plenty of evidence that it existed.

Then it just becomes a question of what the intention behind it was, which you will probably conclude was simple altruism and fair play.

But of course that clashes with the direct limitation of Britain's ability to accrue dollars as FDR agreed with the treasury (including setting a hard limit in the document) and forcing trade to the US through lend lease (thus forcing Britain to get more through lend lease and thus be hamstrung in exporting more categories of goods).

A Are you only objecting to Lend - Lease because it supposedly contained clauses that expressly forbid British exports?

There is nothing supposedly about it.

They were outlined in a White paper and send in a memorandum to the Americans by the British that

1. that lend-lease supplies had not been used in export production, and would not be used, except when complete physical segregation was impossible: the principle of substitution would then apply.
2. that in the future, as in the past, the principle of substitution would apply to similar materials, as well as to lend-lease materials.
3. that, as regards materials which were scarce in the United States, restrictions of increased stringency and very precise definition28 would be enforced upon British exporters.

The OLLA (Office Lend lease Administration, a US government organisation) then set up it's own operation 'for policing observance of the terms of the White Paper'.

I do not know to which extend this possibility B has happened historically, but it is certainly a plausible explanation for declining British exports.

Yes it would be partial explanation but once again we are taken back to the facts, that will avail themselves to you should you actually read something on the subject, that the Britsih were forced to give the US veto over their export system and the British were forced to export through reverse lend lease to the US so that Britain couldn't accrue too much in the way of Dollar reserves.

If you object to Lend - Lease because of A, fair enough (supposing A is true).

I object to A only in so much that it was ill considered and later ignored to paint the US as white knight, they were perfectly free to act as discourtesy to their allies as they wished as long as it isn't claimed otherwise.

As for B, I'm afraid the persecution angle is unfounded and those aren't my sentiments.
 
Johnnyreb

I think your last post holds the most creedence. By the end of the second world war the USA already was not just a dominant power but also the new economic power. Long before WWII the UK as a colonial power was on the wain.

Suez was the last chapter in a book written in the 1930's. Not only the end of British Imerialism but the end of imperialism of all the old European powers. Imperialism did not end in 1945, American Imperialism was on the rise but they did need to send armies abroad to realize it. Only the almighty dollar.
 
I'm a latecomer to this thread but there are a couple of misconceptions here I'd just like to address.

Britain’s WW2 Debt

This fell broadly into 3 parts

1. 'Cash and Carry' debt from the period preceding Lend-Lease. This was all paid up from UK sources.

2. Lend Lease debt. This was written off by the US in 1945.

3. Post-war loan debt. This is the debt paid off in November last year NOT L-L debt which was 'forgiven' in 1945. It was a vast loan at low interest and the terms included the voluntary suspension of payments at any time at no penalty (imagine if your mortgage was on those terms!). This was a 'no strings' cash loan over and above the considerable aid Britain also received under the Marshall plan (which did have strings). It is hard to imagine how the US could have been more generous given that all American loans to the UK were off the backs of US govt borrowing from the US people. There are questions and answers in Hansard on the subject - I think the Online version is searchable, the Q&As are recent (past 5 years).

In WW2 the UK’s financial embarrassment was made inevitable by the decision taken in 1940 to continue the war. It was clearly understood by the UK govt that 1. There was insufficient money to fight the war to a victorious conclusion - Britain could defend itself, but not take back the continent. And 2. There was insufficient manpower to build and equip a UK/Commonwealth army capable of taking back the continent even if the money was available. It therefore became UK government policy to do all possible to get America involved, hence the Tizzard mission and the courageous decision to fight on when defeat was obvious. this was a natural continuation of the traditional british policy to combat a continental hegemon - build alliances to defeat the hegemon.

It was not known at that time that the US would be as generous as it was with loans after the conclusion of hostilities. The UK's comparative penury is the fault of the UK governments of 1945 - 60 who spent the fruits of American generosity foolishly. Both Labour and Conservatives at this time were essentially socialist in their outlook for home policy and Imperial in their outlook for foreign policy. They spent enormous sums on both while industry struggled on with plant worn out by the war.(I'm sorry to drag politics in but there is no way of addressing the issue of UK post war decline without being mired by it! The 'debate' in the UK is politically motivated and politically driven but the notion that Britain was driven by America to bankruptcy is mendacious scapegoating and deserves to be treated as such.).

Germany and Japan rebuilt their economies from utter destruction and off the back of far less American generosity. Their domestic policy was fiscally driven and their foreign policy non existent (AND they did not have to bear the financial burden of defending themselves which was done for them by the US and the UK - that's important to remember), Britain's defence spending POST WW2 was vast and delusional, Germany and Japan didn't have any to support.

Acheson and the US Govt

Acheson's comment seems to me an appraisal of the situation not a statement of policy. It could easily be seen as a driver for the Marshall Plan. American economists understood that if all the world’s wealth were concentrated in one country the world trade system and with it the world’s chances of future prosperity would collapse.

Also, we Brits often forget how different the US govt is to our own. Unlike ours it is founded on paranoia ;) and seeks to limit the power of government in every way. Consequently unlike the UK system where decision flows from the top down in the American system decisions are modified by every layer of government through which they pass.

Civil Aircraft Development

The Americans could tell that after WW2 there would be essentially only 3 aircraft building nations and they had every reason to be scared silly by the British industry which in many key technological areas completely outclassed the American industry.

I am not aware of any American insistence that the UK not develop transport aircraft but they did insist that the UK not sell transport aircraft abroad during the war which is understandable given that the UK was heavily reliant on the US for transport types.

If the UK had used and worn out American built and Lend-Lease supplied transport aeroplanes in the prosecution of the war while profiting from the sale of UK built transport aeroplanes to third parties would that have been cricket?

The Resumption of 'Cash and Carry' Payments in 1943 and 1944

In 1941 Britain was out of Dollars and gold and could not pay for the aircraft and munitions it had ordered in America. This was one of the primary drivers for lend-Lease. However, by 1943 so many American servicemen were in the UK spending Dollars that the situation was reversed and Britain's reserves of dollars were rebounding. The Americans charged with the administration of Lend-Lease were not men of vision like Roosevelt, they were economists whose primary mission was preserving the health of the American economy while satisfying the demands of America’s allies for American munitions. If Britain was suddenly able to pay for American munitions why should she not?

A final thought; Lend-Lease was wholly beneficial to the US as it meant that fewer Americans went off to fight and die but we often forget that by 1944 and 45 even the vast resources of the US were under strain as a war weary populace weren’t buying war bonds the way they had been.

It’s a complicated subject – sorry I’ve rambled – one of the best takes on it from the UK perspective is in the volume of the UK official histories on North American Supply by H. Duncan Hall. The Chapter is called ‘The Lend Lease Tangle.’ And a tangle it certainly was!
 
Last edited:
2. Lend Lease debt. This was written off by the US in 1945.

Incorrect (although I'm not sure where this came up in the thread)

From Ruth Kelly (answering for the Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of $4,336 million (around £1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of $3,750 million (around £930 million at 1945 exchange rates); and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around £145 million at 1945 exchange rates), which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.

It was no doubt generous in its settlement but it wasn't just forgiven.

It was not known at that time that the US would be as generous as it was with loans after the conclusion of hostilities. The UK's comparative penury is the fault of the UK governments of 1945 - 60 who spent the fruits of American generosity foolishly.

I'm sorry but this is a whitewash in favour of the US.

No doubt the UK government didn't handle things well 45-60 (or even 45-80) but it has little bearing on the fact that the US deliberately undermined the British economy and then later after the war sought to bail Britain out because they didn't want Britain going Red, they wanted Britain to spend militarily to keep an eye on the Reds (Britain already having to bail out of Greece and hand it to the US) and because if the British had money in their pockets they could buy US goods.

The 'debate' in the UK is politically motivated and politically driven but the notion that Britain was driven by America to bankruptcy is mendacious scapegoating and deserves to be treated as such.).

Nobody is saying the post war government did the best possible to stereotype the argument as scapegoating is simply to strawman the position in order to shield the US from blame.

Germany and Japan rebuilt their economies from utter destruction and off the back of far less American generosity.

Indeed, in fact there is a negative correlation between increased American "generosity" and post war recovery.

Their domestic policy was fiscally driven and their foreign policy non existent (AND they did not have to bear the financial burden of defending themselves which was done for them by the US and the UK - that's important to remember), Britain's defence spending POST WW2 was vast and delusional, Germany and Japan didn't have any to support.

Quite true although I don't see the relevance.

Acheson's comment seems to me an appraisal of the situation not a statement of policy.

Well it was a statement about the treasuries policy.

However you seem to have remained quite on the facts that the US government did limit what Britain could export (and as Time puts it limit export value to a specifically percentage of pre war value) and deliberately tried to stop Britain getting more dollars.

After all, if the British can get more dollars why not let them so they can start buying things outside of lend lease again why not let them (in fact why not encourage that by abolishing reverse lend lease), the only reason is to keep the British on lend lease and thus use that to hamstring the British export market.

The Americans (at least not everybody in government) didn't want to do as much damage as they did (just as is often the case they had a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter at hand) but they did desire to hurt Britain's export markets to American advantage.

It could easily be seen as a driver for the Marshall Plan. American economists understood that if all the world’s wealth were concentrated in one country the world trade system and with it the world’s chances of future prosperity would collapse.

Again true and a reason for Marshal aid outside of altruism.

This was one of the primary drivers for lend-Lease. However, by 1943 so many American servicemen were in the UK spending Dollars that the situation was reversed and Britain's reserves of dollars were rebounding.The Americans charged with the administration of Lend-Lease were not men of vision like Roosevelt, they were economists whose primary mission was preserving the health of the American economy while satisfying the demands of America’s allies for American munitions. If Britain was suddenly able to pay for American munitions why should she not?

FDR (man of vision??? - the same guy who thought Stalin was just a misunderstood lefty?) was empowered to do as he liked with regard to lend lease, and it was he specifically who endorsed the hard limit placed on British Dollar (and gold) reserves.
 
Incorrect (although I'm not sure where this came up in the thread)

From Ruth Kelly (answering for the Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of $4,336 million (around £1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of $3,750 million (around £930 million at 1945 exchange rates); and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around £145 million at 1945 exchange rates), which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.

It was no doubt generous in its settlement but it wasn't just forgiven.

I sit corrected on the exact sum, but if $586,000,000 was paid back on a total debt of $31,000,000,000 then the we paid back less than 2% of the debt. And they lent us the money to pay them back. I wish my credit card companies were like that. :rolleyes:


...the US deliberately undermined the British economy and then later after the war sought to bail Britain out because they didn't want Britain going Red, they wanted Britain to spend militarily to keep an eye on the Reds (Britain already having to bail out of Greece and hand it to the US)...

That is an interesting assertion, can you provide a citation? I'm not being picky I'd like to follow that thread of reasoning further.

Nobody is saying the post war government did the best possible to stereotype the argument as scapegoating is simply to strawman the position in order to shield the US from blame.

Hardly, it is very convenient for UK politicians to find a scapegoat to explain their own mistakes.

However you seem to have remained quite on the facts that the US government did limit what Britain could export (and as Time puts it limit export value to a specifically percentage of pre war value) and deliberately tried to stop Britain getting more dollars.

After all, if the British can get more dollars why not let them so they can start buying things outside of lend lease again why not let them (in fact why not encourage that by abolishing reverse lend lease), the only reason is to keep the British on lend lease and thus use that to hamstring the British export market.

I believe you are mistaking incompetence for malice. As I mentioned before American government is paranoid in its outlook. From the American viewpoint (and I am not saying the position was either valid or correct but I will say it was understandable) the situation to be avoided was the giving of substantial loans that would not be repaid as had happened in WW1. As I'm sure you know Britain's WW1 debt to the US has never been fully repaid. The Americans felt that they had been fooled once and were determined not to let it happen again. Yes, with 20/20 hindsight we can say that position is absurd because we know just how desperate Britain was at the time, but the Americans didn't know that. It is impossible to understand the American position unless this fact is first grasped.

FDR (man of vision??? - the same guy who thought Stalin was just a misunderstood lefty?) was empowered to do as he liked with regard to lend lease, and it was he specifically who endorsed the hard limit placed on British Dollar (and gold) reserves.

Compared to the rest of the US government he was. Certainly he made mistakes and his misunderstanding of the USSRs leader and his motives stands in stark contrast to Churchill's complete and thorough
comprehension of Stalin but that too is much clearer with 20/20 hindsight.
 

Rockingham

Banned
I seem to remember that they put pressure upon portugal(not sure if they had an embargo or not)to give up their empire. Possibly did so less openly with other nations.
 
I sit corrected on the exact sum, but if $586,000,000 was paid back on a total debt of $31,000,000,000 then the we paid back less than 2% of the debt. And they lent us the money to pay them back. I wish my credit card companies were like that.

No you weren't incorrect on the exact sum you were just incorrect in your statement that we paid nothing back.

Now you are incorrect on the exact sum because your haven't deducted the $7 billion in reverse lend lease from Britain to the US.

Nor have you accounted for the fact that any lend lease items expended didn't have to be returned under the terms of the agreement.

That is an interesting assertion, can you provide a citation? I'm not being picky I'd like to follow that thread of reasoning further.

That Britain bailed out of Greece?

Try Wikipedia on the Greek civil war

"But by early 1947 Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds (about $400 million) in Greece since 1944, no longer could afford this burden. President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against Communist pressure. "

Hardly, it is very convenient for UK politicians to find a scapegoat to explain their own mistakes.

Well the problem here would be I'm not a UK politicians nor did I seek to excuse their mistake.

Therefore saying that is what is going on is mischaracterising my argument.

I believe you are mistaking incompetence for malice.

No, I have already said that they underestimated what effect their policies would have on us.

However they did seek to make us compliant and more importantly they sought to drive us out of our export markets so we could be replaced by the Americans.

As I mentioned before American government is paranoid in its outlook. From the American viewpoint (and I am not saying the position was either valid or correct but I will say it was understandable) the situation to be avoided was the giving of substantial loans that would not be repaid as had happened in WW1.

Yes that was partly the point, the fact that they did have to give the UK a loan after the war shows the failure of their policy.

As I'm sure you know Britain's WW1 debt to the US has never been fully repaid.

Quite true, although we didn't just stop paying, the US finally had to impose a moratorium.

Again here the US acted in a foolish manner, instead of spreading around the defaulted debt (such as UK backed US to Russia loans) they demand it all from Britain.

At the time debts stopped being paid Britain was owed £2.269 billion to £866 million owed to the US (by the UK).

So the non-payment of debt paying hurt us more than the US on that score.

The Americans felt that they had been fooled once and were determined not to let it happen again. Yes, with 20/20 hindsight we can say that position is absurd because we know just how desperate Britain was at the time, but the Americans didn't know that. It is impossible to understand the American position unless this fact is first grasped.

I do grasp it and there was a fair amount of stupidity going around but that doesn't change the fact that they saw an opportunity to undermine Britain's export position to the benefit of the US and they took it.

We can see the clear intentions, from Cordell Hull when he said he would use
"American aid as a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire".

Clearly the Americans had the intention to use lend lease to force economic advantages form Britain(never mind the fact that the US was worse for tariffs).

The fact that they left the UK in such economic danger that Britain had to bailed out just shows that they over estimated how much punishment Britain could take.

Again we have to look at the measures taken - they purposefully hooked Britain and lend lease and wouldn't let them reduce their dependence, both by forcing British exports to the US through lend lease and by putting a hard limit on Britain's accumulation of Dollars.

Compared to the rest of the US government he was. Certainly he made mistakes and his misunderstanding of the USSRs leader and his motives stands in stark contrast to Churchill's complete and thorough
comprehension of Stalin but that too is much clearer with 20/20 hindsight.

He understood that the US actually shared the planet with the rest of us for which he is to be applauded but his treatment of Stalin and of Churchill (I always felt sorry for Churchill reading about how FDR sat there and started making fun of him and Britain to Stalin) and his views of Britain's Empire are nothing short of shameful.

He recognised one set of obvious conclusions and not another - visionary is overdoing it a tad.
 

Alcuin

Banned
The French and Dutch wanted to keep their colonies in order to save face after being conquered by Germany, and the locals knew the Europeans weren't all they claimed to be. This is largely what led to problems in Vietnam.

The French colonies in Africa, particularly Chad and Senegal (the first to declare themselves still combatant against the Germans) did so on the condition (enunciated by Felix Eboue, Governor of Chad and the political leader of the Free French until his death in 1943) that they would become independent when Germany was defeated.

Syria and Lebanon were declared independent by France in late 1943 and immediately declared war on Germany (although their independence was not ratified until much later as france tried to renege).

French Indochina refused to join Eboue, and indeed joined the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere until the Japanese attacked it anyway.
 

Rockingham

Banned
The French colonies in Africa, particularly Chad and Senegal (the first to declare themselves still combatant against the Germans) did so on the condition (enunciated by Felix Eboue, Governor of Chad and the political leader of the Free French until his death in 1943) that they would become independent when Germany was defeated.

Syria and Lebanon were declared independent by France in late 1943 and immediately declared war on Germany (although their independence was not ratified until much later as france tried to renege).

French Indochina refused to join Eboue, and indeed joined the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere until the Japanese attacked it anyway.

and how many of those promises were kept????????
 
No you weren't incorrect on the exact sum you were just incorrect in your statement that we paid nothing back.
Now you are incorrect on the exact sum because your haven't deducted the $7 billion in reverse lend lease from Britain to the US.

Nor have you accounted for the fact that any lend lease items expended didn't have to be returned under the terms of the agreement.

I once more sit corrected. :D

But wait, you are saying that those mean wicked Americans made us pay back $586 million out of a total value in goods and services of $24 billion? Forgive me, but I do not see how this supports your central plank of American economic vandalism.

That Britain bailed out of Greece?

No, not Greece, this:

...the US deliberately undermined the British economy…

I am genuinely interested in seeing support for this assertion. Perhaps you are right and I wrong, but I don’t know you from Adam, so I would be grateful if you would point me to your sources and by so doing give me the opportunity to weigh the merit of the argument for myself.

Well the problem here would be I'm not a UK politicians nor did I seek to excuse their mistake.
Therefore saying that is what is going on is mischaracterising my argument.

I would never be so rude as to insult someone by accusing them of being a politician (unless they first admitted it themselves) but you called my argument a strawman. For me to accept that your accusation that my argument shields the US from blame is valid, I would first have to be convinced that the US required shielding from blame. As yet I do not.

No, I have already said that they underestimated what effect their policies would have on us.
However they did seek to make us compliant and more importantly they sought to drive us out of our export markets so we could be replaced by the Americans.

and

Yes that was partly the point, the fact that they did have to give the UK a loan after the war shows the failure of their policy.


It seems to me that the central thrust of your argument still mistakes incompetence for malice. (and please note that I object to the argument and not yourself) I don’t credit the Roosevelt administration with being either that malicious or that clever. From what I have read of the organization of Lend-Lease it was scarcely more than day to day crisis management from which many outcomes were unforeseen. If you know better please provide references.

I would point you again to ‘North American Supply’, there is frank and direct criticism of the American administration of Lend – Lease, there is open admission and a persuasively argued statement of British frustrations with that administration. There is no accusation of conspiracy.

Quite true, although we didn't just stop paying, the US finally had to impose a moratorium.
Again here the US acted in a foolish manner, instead of spreading around the defaulted debt (such as UK backed US to Russia loans) they demand it all from Britain.

At the time debts stopped being paid Britain was owed £2.269 billion to £866 million owed to the US (by the UK).

So the non-payment of debt paying hurt us more than the US on that score.


Which bank are you with? I’m going to move ALL my accounts there. If you take out a mortgage and then lose your job and can’t pay who is the bank going after for the money? International finance is not altruistic in its outlook, to expect it to be so is hopelessly optimistic.

Your real name isn’t Geldoff is it? ;)


I do grasp it and there was a fair amount of stupidity going around but that doesn't change the fact that they saw an opportunity to undermine Britain's export position to the benefit of the US and they took it.
We can see the clear intentions, from Cordell Hull when he said he would use
"American aid as a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire".

Again I ask for a citation.

Again we have to look at the measures taken - they purposefully hooked Britain and lend lease


I’m sorry but that is completely incorrect. Britain hooked America on Lend Lease by ordering more than we could pay for and then announcing we couldn’t pay for it when the factories were fully tooled up and turning out the weapons. L-L happened in part to prevent a very sharp economic reversal that would have been felt most keenly in the infant American armaments industries. British default, coming as it would have right after French default could have finished many of the American armaments firms and would have forced the US government to intervene. Look at the position we put the US in, add that to the US concerns about unpaid WW1 loans; can you then tell me the US was ungenerous?

He understood that the US actually shared the planet with the rest of us for which he is to be applauded but his treatment of Stalin and of Churchill (I always felt sorry for Churchill reading about how FDR sat there and started making fun of him and Britain to Stalin) and his views of Britain's Empire are nothing short of shameful.

Churchill was smarter than FDR and FDR knew it. People tend to mock when they are uncomfortable with being overawed. Churchill was given to displays of mental dexterity that left FDR feeling hopelessly intimidated. Churchill was not even aware of his effect on the American president.

FDR didn’t understand the Empire and he didn’t understand Stalin certainly, nevertheless he and Churchill together must bear the acclaim of saving western civilization in some of the darkest hours the world has seen. Again I would point out that Churchill was blessed with the British Parliamentary system, which is highly conducive to direct executive action, the American system is all about checks and balances which limit executive power and cramp the ability of the President to govern easily.

FDR forced the Vinson Trammell act, conscription and Lend – Lease through two reluctant and obstructive houses. A thankless task, and one for which he was vilified and pilloried by even members of his own party. Can you really say he had no vision?
 
American warplanes not to be used in first years of French Indochina War

This is an interesting article about French Counter-insurgency aircraft in Indochina and Algeria.
It states that during the first years of the French Indochina war, the French were not allowed to use American made warplanes, which were either to be returned to the US or to be used only in Europe (the article does not expressly say so, but I assume the Vietnamese insurgents were at first seen only as anti-colonial, not Communist by the US leadership).
The article goes on to explain that this attitude changed in 1948 or 1949 after the defeat of the Cuomintang in China, and describes the use of American-built warplanes in French service.http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/frcoin.html
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
On the wider topic of this thread, didn't the pan-Atlantic naval arms race have an impact on the Empire's economy? Not to mention world stability.

Didn't the USA insisting on the ending of the British alliance with Japan prior to a naval arms limitation treaty (the Washington Treaty) force Britain closer into an alliance with France that had already forced a crippling WW1 committment on the Empire? Not to mention world stability.

Bretton Woods (Bancor would have worked - the 'mighty' dollar doesn't)

GATT (Japan was very lightly policed on this - the economic 'miracle')

Plenty of examples of the 'special' relationship with the colonial tax dodgers.

The puppy dog eyes of our common ancestry comes out when US cavalier actions are under the spotlight, but they still think of themselves as Independent from Britian first and united with other nations second. To imagine the destroyer of economies as a responsable neighbour wringing it's hands at the debts built up against their wishes is to ignore the history of the last century and even this one so far.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The effective uselessness of the British Empire (except Malaya which had lots of valuable rubber) is a theme in all of Corelli Barnett's 'Decline and Fall' books. 'The Collapse of British Power.' and 'The Audit of War' being the most damning IIRC. Both excellent books IMO.

He doesn't say the Empire was a complete waste of effort though, just that the cost of defending the colonies outstripped any value the British were getting from them.

I have worked through the 1908 trade figures and military budget for the UK, and I can assure you that on an economic basis, the empire was a money loser. The additional cost of the military budget to cover the empire is larger than than any profit from the empire. Only a few items such as the tin mines of SE Asia or the gold mines of South Africa were even possibly profitable to any large scale before we even begin to look at the military budget.

The most accurate summary of the economics of the British empire is "The empire was a welfare program for nobility and rich industrialists, where the common British tax payers paid subsidies to the rich via the defense budget". This statement may seem radical, but it is true. Think of modern examples such as how much the USA spent in Iraq. Or I can give you a German colonial example. The SWA major investment program was 15 million marks. Expect profits from the colony was 1 million marks. The war against a tribe of about 100K cost 400 million marks or 4 centuries of profits before we consider interest charges. Or if you want UK examples, compare the cost of the Boer wars to the profits (trade surplus or shortage) of South Africa. Or just the total trade leaving the dominion.

Literally one minor colonial war (say a Zulu rebellion) would use a century of "profits" from the British Empire. Now I am not saying that place like Australia or South Africa or India did not generate vast economic activity. I am saying the profits did not make their way to the UK, much less the UK treasury.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Once is an accident. Twice isn't.

Next multi-year necro gets you a vacation.
On the wider topic of this thread, didn't the pan-Atlantic naval arms race have an impact on the Empire's economy? Not to mention world stability.

Didn't the USA insisting on the ending of the British alliance with Japan prior to a naval arms limitation treaty (the Washington Treaty) force Britain closer into an alliance with France that had already forced a crippling WW1 committment on the Empire? Not to mention world stability.

Bretton Woods (Bancor would have worked - the 'mighty' dollar doesn't)

GATT (Japan was very lightly policed on this - the economic 'miracle')

Plenty of examples of the 'special' relationship with the colonial tax dodgers.

The puppy dog eyes of our common ancestry comes out when US cavalier actions are under the spotlight, but they still think of themselves as Independent from Britian first and united with other nations second. To imagine the destroyer of economies as a responsable neighbour wringing it's hands at the debts built up against their wishes is to ignore the history of the last century and even this one so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top