How and why did Britain lose its Empire?

muh colonies

>it cost more to hold onto them than doing so paid out.

The colonies ALWAYS costs the British government more money than they paid back. While they made a small class of Brits enormously wealthy and were invaluable for maintaining the unrestricted freedom of the seas the British Empire relied on as a Thalassocracy, they were ALWAYS a losing affair in terms of what it cost the government to hold onto them vs. what they paid back into government coffers.

In many respects the empire was an unending subsidy for British big business paid for by the citizenry under the guise of nationalism.

The world wars (especially WWII) brought the Empire's economy to the absolute brink. the war left Britain making tough decisions like exporting food out of India for the soldiers, letting 3 million die of famine on the Indian colonies as a result.

By the end of the war, most people knew Britain wasn't financially able to repair all the damage at home and still be able to sufficiently provide for the rest of the empire. Knowing that continuing to hold on to these colonies in the event of a local uprising would just be a losing fight with an exhausted British army, they voluntarily let colonies go to avoid more deaths and more money wasted on quelling uprisings.

and if it wasn't because of money spent on uprisings, it was because of money spent trying to keep the colonies functioning. it was becoming obvious that the money to keep the colonies secure was costing more than the revenue they were bringing in.

When you really think about the end of World War II, there were only 2 nations that came out of war stronger than when they entered, the US and Soviet Union. Everyone else, no matter what side they were on, lost much more than they ever hoped to gain in a war.

tl;dr: Britain mostly coundn't afford to support a worldwide empire anymore after 1945, among other reasons.

Sissy brit boys

>Sissy brit boys

youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

Your "why" section is correct but it's good to remember that Clement Atlee the Labour PM after WW2 was a supporter of empire and he believed in the strength of Britain and her commonwealth.

The rollback of empire was done for very pragmatic reasons right up until 1997, and both Labour and Conservative governments oversaw the handover of multiple territories during this period.

That's not really true. British benefited from cheap Indian cotton and made a lot money off the textiles made from that cotton in Britain. Also the military strength that came from controlling those colonies no doubt have then a lot of geopolitical leverage fit protecting British interests abroad.

I wonder what Britain would look like today if they'd stayed completely neutral in both world wars and focused on self defense, staying out of things and maintaining and facilitating naval superiority

Assuming that were the case, Britain would have engaged into an arms race with Germany in the 30s and 40s with missiles and subs. This would have been noticably different than the space race: before nuclear weapons, there's no reason to build a very expensive ICBM. Most missiles would be cheaper midrange ones, especially ones that can be bulk loaded into submarines. If Britain ever did enter into ww2 then the atlantic theater would have been decided by submarine power like the pacific theater was decided by carriers.

Postwar, the UK wouldn't have had any of their debts but would still likely have nationalist problems in all their colonies. Depending on how the fight against communist went, this would either end up with the UK dropping all their colonies (as they did in real life) or joining the US in ww3.

Also, British Rail would still exist.

>British benefited from cheap Indian cotton and made a lot money off the textiles made from that cotton in Britain.

The money your average consumer saved from the drop in consumer prices hardly amounts to the money they paid to maintain their colonies & the fleet needed to defend them at all times. The empire greatly benefited a small elite class of Brits, but did very little for your average citizen, who were the ones ultimately paying for the colonies with their blood & treasure.

And yet an island was able to dominate the world. America does the same thing today. Wars are expensive, but the petrodollar props up the entire US economy.

With the exception of the USA and India, most colonies didn't even want independence to begin with. It was mainly Britain relinquishing its control voluntarily that started the beginning of the end. And even the war of independence with the American colonies were considered at the time a secondary concern for Britain. It has been argued that the American colonies eventually won because Britain never truly cared for the colonies to begin with.

You only have to look at the poorly equipped, poorly trained volunteer land army that went to the colonies as essentially a holiday to see how much The British even cared.

>British
>Empire

>Nobody has taken this island since the romans

Kek

The French Normans gave the anglo invaders culture, infrastructure, and a functioning system. Hell, English is mainly French and Latin. If you are to admit that the anglos had an empire, then you must admit the strong French influence of it.

Sure, but if you really want to go back further I could say the French were influenced by the Iberians and moors.

Point is, every country has a beginning. You're talking about the loose association of tribes here 2000 years ago. I'm talking about an empire that didn't fully disappear until 1960.

Because they were removed by japs as bad gaijin desu.

colonial empires don't last long

If only they had been more diligent in folding their longbows...

kek

Gotcha.

An "empire" which has never won a war against another major European country without the help of a coalition.

why is everyone so butthurt about Britain all the time

Do you have any sources, I've only ever read that India was one of the most profitable colonies in the entire period of colonization and imperialism.

There is just one flaw in the image, the part where it boasts technological superiority of European forces is wrong. Except naval power muslims whereat same technological atldvantage as their enmie.During Anglo Mysore war tipu sultan used rocket artillery against Brits, this form artillery was unknown to the Anglos which shows that it was not because of technological difference but other factors such as political instability, economically weak states, wrong decision by Indian Kings in chosing allys, etc resulted into defeat of Indians.

>Except naval power muslims whereat same technological atldvantage as their enmie

Tell me more about how Mysore was an industrialized country with rapidly advancing scientific disciplines, just like Britain.

The British lost because they fought a well-established and organized enemy halfway across the world. Not because them and the local Indian kingdoms were on an equal scientific footing.

complete bullshit.

The Europeans had a massive technological superiority from small arms weaponry, to artillery to medicine to transport.

>An "empire" which has never won a war against Poland in less than three hours on a Thursday while it was raining

This is how stupid you sound.

Cheaper to use soft power and economics as a type of neocolonialism. Western clothing and other goods that require low skill have either been automated or shifted to places where you might as well be a slave because the working conditions are so bad. Also, too hard to put down nationalistic uprisings. They probably could've kept Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in a tighter orbit if they wanted to.

Because it used to be Great Britain

WW2 agreements with Roosevelt in which the US agreed to give full economic and military support to Britain in exchange of loosening colonial ties. Churchill knew it all along.

my god you're new

Ironically shitposting is still shitposting