The Sun Never Sets On The British Empire.

It's moot, Dispondent: BeeVee's claim is false. America didn't enter WWII "when the going was already safe" - that's obviously ridiculous. WWII was fought at great risk, and America - and the Allies in general - could very easily have lost, had Hitler not decided to split his forces and wage war to the West (Britain and France) while simultaneously attempting an incursion into Russia.

That was his undoing. Without it, the the Allies very likely would have lost WWII.

So: for BeeVee to make that ridiculous claim is evidence of a complete lack of understanding of the history of WWII, and/or a manifestation of the disdain of America, and shameless rewriting of history to support the stupid position.

 

You are correct, we were fighting on multiple fronts, thousands of miles apart, there was no way to do it any faster than we did. I still see no problem, in terms of power dynamics, in taking advantage of a given situation.

 

How did one hundred thousand British manage to control a country of millions, always in turmoil who spoke many differen't languages, who were constantly infighting and waging war against each other if they were nothing more but conquering imperialists who forced their will on India against it's wishes?

If that's all they were, how did they possibly manage to do this for any extended period of time?

 

Do not you think that the world would have been a lot better if the U.S. was still a British colony ? Indeed, why the f*ck does this illegitimate formation still exist? Look at that,they are sucking up:

That wouldn't help you!British colonies in America - YES ! The USA - NO !

 

By turning various factions against one another..

That way the Brits didn't have to have a huge force in country.

 

Sadly that's the exact reason we have so many problems in the world today, in too many cases the Brits just up and left and chaos ensued and is still ensuing.

 

Falklands Yes ! Malvinas NO!

 

A hundred thousand British kept Hindos and Muslims at bay and away from each others throats and maintained peace through most of the empire's stay (compared to the utter turmoil that resulted when India became independent) through cooperation and self governing rule among the Indians.

The establishment of the British Parliamentary system and representative democracy gave enough of a diplomatic appearance to pacify the inner warring factions long enough to stabilize the country and pacify it.

 

The British up and left because they went bankrupt after world war 2 and could no longer maintain their major colonies by way of trade with them.

 

You make absolutely 0 sense.

And in reference to your red flag, the Imperial British Lion kept totalitarian communist and fascist beasts at bay at the gates wherever the empire existed and prevented the red tide of socialism from engulfing the countries they desired where the British Empire stayed.

This is why leftists and Marxists despise the British so intently because the British Lion thwarted their evil plans and kept the leftists from dominating and controlling those parts of the world they yearned for.

 

No power on earth advanced the cause of freedom than did the British Empire. The British Empire kept the beasts of communism and fascism at bay at freedom's gate.

And The British Empire civilized India and set the path for that country to enter the modern world after a horrible, bloody transformation to independence at a high cost performed by muslims, hindos and communist agitators from both India and Pakistan.

The left hates the very thought of the British Empire because it - the British Lion thwarted it's plans for world wide collectivist, socialist tyranny at every turn.

 

I guess you could take pride in the invention of capitalism and all that came from it, but plunder and conquered lands is nothing to be proud of (the two being interconnected).

Only to exploit the resources of a given region, the British would go and kill as many as they can. This is how the beloved US came to be. Once there, they would take all the resources without any consideration of how this affects the indigenous or the natural world. The British Empire was just as bloody and ugly as any other empire. Now, the world is good at forgetting this type of thing as long as there are no dudes on forums biting their chest hair and expressing their nationalistic views.

 

I dont see how this can be true.
At the peak of british empire neither existed.

 

The idea of American self determination was born out of the British parliamentary system in the first place.

The American colonies had freedom under the British Crown and acted as separate independent nations and only when the crown overstepped it's boundaries from the American perspective did the colonies revolt against it.

.... And while you continue to give the Soviet Empire a pass and claim that the soviets were only defending themselves setting up military defensive positions in eastern Europe against British and American imperialists.

"as long as there are no dudes on forums biting their chest hair and expressing their nationalistic views"

The masculine Christianity of Victorian Britain is something that liberals and their allies detest and explains the sorry condition of the male segment of America that doesn't include the country's male warrior element but is being remote controlled sexually by their Jesey Shore female counterparts. It demonstrates the male sissy element and further demonstrates colonialism as being detested including western Anglo Saxon values.

To try and compare British western colonialism and it's masculine Christianity and it system of parliamentary government and it's rejection of socialism and embrace of free trade and capitalism to murdering communist beasts in both Soviet Russia and China and now to same in the form of Islamists in the middle east is sheer insanity and PC madness to an extreme degree.

 

You're pretty much holding both sides of the argument I see. How did you reach the conclusion that's what I said implicitly, I am not even going to ask. I did not.

No one important questions or disapproves of the British Empire, why are you so passionate? If anything, the overall view on the West is as liberal, wealthy, strong. It's comments like these that suggest otherwise.

Compared to anywhere in the world, the UK is a great place to be. As times change countries adapt, transform, become large, then small, get invaded, invade, disappear.

The corporate language in the world today is English. All over the world you can see stone churches, bridges and houses that are very similar to these in a British village. Britain gave the world capitalism. It changed the entire planet.

Someone should acknowledge that. Is that what you are looking for?

I do! Britain all the way...

but don't sugarcoat all the massacres that lead to the empire's success.

 

Very true.

 

You're will never convince ignorant trash of anything.

 

I can name four countries off the top my head that became immensly succesful following the British lead and British colonialism along with represenative democracy and free trade when theey gained their independence from the crown.

The United States - Canada - New Zealand - and Austrailia.

While you continue to place Imperial Britian on the same par as murdering communist beasts, name four countries that rejected British representative democracy and free trade and adopted socialism or arab nationalism instead, once they did likewise from the British crown that became anywhere near as succesful to the four above mentioned in terms of economic prosperity and freedom for their people.

 

Although the British initially moved into South and South East Asia with the aim to trade and then of exploitation (Palmerston's gunboat policies, opium wars), later they began to regard their possessions there with a much, much greater measure of responsibility, giving them a base for modern infrastructure (railroads, telegraph lines, modern administration, modern education, improved healthcare) as well as a limited industrial base. The British involvement there can be viewed from several different angles. They did create regional winners and losers, since they crafted their Asian policies in such a way that would converge and satisfy both their interests as well as those of the Indian aristocracy. That's why for example they went ahead with their disastrous invasion of Afganistan intended to annex that country to India, the Crown Jewel among their possessions. The adverse part of their legacy was to upset the ethnographic/demographic balance and make-up of several countries they controlled (Malasia, Fiji) where due to sheer greed overriding all other considerations they set up rubber plantations and imported labour from South Asia.

That the European colonial legacy in Asia consists of nothing but exploitation is an erroneous claim. Definitely greed, monopoly, trade, exploration, control of resources and European power struggles for global domination and trade routes were the prime motivation, especially so in the initial stages, but then you have to remember things like, before the Portuguese came in places like Goa, if a woman was widowed she would often be burned at the stake. Such practices were stopped in Goa once Portuguese arrived. The colonizers were the main beneficiaries, but the benefits were often mutual, although undoubtly there were also excesses. In retrospect, a lot of romantic novels and feature films came out of that whole period.

 

That may be true, but there were episodes when Gritish fought without allies i.e. vs. Mughal in 1750s, and when putting down the great mutiny of the Indian troops a 100 years later.

 

The next chapter as to why the anti western colonial left hated the British Empire.

What is one of the dirtiest words in the liberal dictionary?


OIL


Coming soon, other dirty words in the liberal dictionary which explains why the left hated the British Empire.


ZIONISM - ISRAEL.

 

The hell are you still going on about? I do I agree with that, just want to make sure you realise how many indigenous people from all those places were killed and enslaved before the dominant colonialists established their trade networks.

 

Also 'murdering communist beasts'? Now don't get offended or anything, but I think you might be a little bit biased.

 

Russia had its bloody episodes too. There was this bloody massacre of the townfolk when Ivan the Terrible sacked Novogrod, an independent city-state. The colonization of Siberia often turned bloody too, not to mention how many people died there in the penal colonies. The Crimean war also stemmed from Russia's imperial ambitions to dismantle Turkey. There are no double standards on 'bloody', 'greedy', 'takeover' and 'conquest'. On the other hand, Russia applied most restrain and common sense during the events leading up to WW1.

 

Most of New Zealand's success was despite the British.

They unceremoniously dumped us as a preferential trading partner in the 1970s when they joined the EEC.

For some unknown reason, we still have Liz as our head of government and fly a loony British flag.