European Empires

>After 1918, was there any possibility for the British and French not to lose their colonial empires?

The British Empire reached its peak AFTER WWI.

No, the bongs were destroyed in Burma, but it was the destruction of the bong navy out on the water that exposed them as a meme.

Yes, there was a dead cat bounce from the poor, deceased feline.

>Russia mobilises after Austria invades its ally citing Serbia's refusing to bend over backwards as a reason
>Implying Russia was the bad guy in this scenario

Even after WW2 they could have continued, all that was required was the willpower and self-confidence to do so.

>its ally
Which treaty?
Russia escalated the conflict. They were asked by Germany to stop the mobilization but didn't, and they were aware attacking A-H would trigger the Dual Alliance.

>After 1918, was there any possibility for the British and French not to lose their colonial empires?
Yes, but giving them up was the right move. Colonies were a tremendous financial drain, and both countries needed all the money they had to rebuild themselves. The terrible mistake was in allowing the previous subject people to move to the home countries, this is what has destroyed France and Britain, not giving up worthless miles of African wasteland.

It was well-known that Russia maintained strong political and cultural ties to Serbia.
I'll admit Russia did escalate the conflict but Austria-Hungary was naive thinking that Russia wouldn't react to an invasion of Serbia

Alright Nostradamus - it's all so obvious in hindsight after all.

>Colonies were a tremendous financial drain

Show me the figures of the cost of empire through the decades post WWI and pre WWII..

You mean, like, history and sheeit?

See the battle of kohima and the reconquest of burma. The British did in fact defeat the Japanese they just took 4 years of getting beaten to do so.

The world wars did not end the empire, they hastened it. The empire would've ended due to nationalistic movements in the colonies and a loss in profit due to lack of industrialisation. The latter is the key issue as it lead to poor living standards and starvation. The colonies were poorly developed in places like Africa and India and the conditions would lead to rebellion that would become too costly. If Britain invested more into developing the colonies it is likely they would remain. Look at developed colonies such as Canada and Australia. They were allowed to self-govern and never rebelled. Britain failed to integrate the colonies into a unified polity. This is why people call it a 'meme empire', because in some ways it is. It's not a unitary entity, it's just one rich guy squeezing money out of poor guys. An Indian would not be considered the equal of a Briton and so would see little incentive to support an oppressive empire. Compare it to rome which granted citizenship to conquered peoples and developed their lands. Britain was essentially holding the empire together by its own finances which is all that can be generated by one small industrialised country. The USA is a very large industrialised place and would inevitably take over a small industrialised place. If Britain wanted to stay ahead it had to develop the empire, instead choosing to bankrupt itself in two world wars that it joined of its' own volition.

>so their empires would've cost more and more to maintain.

Lol the colonies would bear their own tax burden which they did at some point. Also colonial yearly costs are low as fuck so budget wise it was negligible.

>Colonies were a tremendous financial drain, and both countries needed all the money they had to rebuild themselves.

Britain taxed African cocoa farmer goods by a massive ~50%% to pay for its war repairs for one notable example. Every colonial power had ways to hustle up lots of money from its colonies.

>They were allowed to self-govern and never rebelled.

Canada left in the 60's also those places were settler societies with immense British migration

THE TERM “COLONIAL EMPIRE” IS AN OXYMORON —QVOD VIDE ATTACHED IMAGE.

This. Empires treat their citizens as equals and integrate them into their society. Colonial powers are just tyrannical overlords that only wish to benefit themselves by exploiting others.

No, the Americans defeated the Japanese, and destroyed their naval and air forces. Once this was accomplished and the Japanese were withdrawing and offering little resistance, the bongs reoccupied their former colonies that the Japanese had ran them out of years earlier.

By this definition Rome wasn't an Empire. Egyptians didn't get citizenship until Caracalla, etc., etc.

The British Empire was doomed literally the second Germany united.

>Japanese gave little resistance so it doesn't count, but if Britain gives little resistance to Japanese attacks it totally means Japan BTFO'd the British Empire

WW2 sealed their fate. The European grip on their colonies was actually strongest after WW1.

WW2 caused the US and Russia to become world power. They pushed decolonization to BTFO europe. Particularly the British who were the strongest West Euros after WW2.

Actually the size of the empires peaked after to WW1, not the stability. For example the Irish left the British empire a couple years after WW1 and many colonies became independent dominions.

Oh the Japanese gave plenty of resistance, it's just that they were resisting the Americans, who destroyed Japanese naval and air power, leaving the bongs free to stir themselves to reoccupy the clay that the Japanese had BTFO them out of years earlier.

To be fair it was the full might if the japanese empire vs a small unprepared offshoot of the British Empire

>This. Empires treat their citizens as equals
t.brainlet

I like how WW1 was clearly Austria's fault yet somehow people keep arguing about Germany or Russia

No, the full might of the Japanese Empire was directed at the Americans. The Japanese took Malaya and Singapore, the alleged Gibraltar fo the Pacific, and Burma, with minimal effort, and destroyed the bong navy with a couple brief forays into the Indian Ocean. The bongs militarized those holdings, just that it was the typical bong military incompetence at work as per their historical performance everywhere.

So if the bongs had a superior military force why did they fare so poorly in early ww2?

Why do the bongs always get BTFO?

Well if that were the case they wouldn't be the most powerful country in history

>what is the suez crisis?

Please excuse him user. His blind mother thought he was a basketball when he was a baby and dribbled him dumb.

No,Austria was responsible for an Austrio-Serb war but not a world war

It was irreversible. WWI Started it.

1) All the European great powers memed that they were fighting for liberty and the other guys were rapacious imperialists out to enslave everyone. They literally made promises to minorities and the colonized in the empires of their enemies that they'll get something out of it if they help them win.

2) In relation to that: the meme of "Self Determination of Nations" was thrown about by the victorious powers. They were usually referring to European minorities held by European empires: like Poland or Austria-Hungary's component nations.

But guess who else was listening? Yeap, the colonized peoples of the world calling the allies out on their hypocrisy.

3) The United States literally supporting the narrative of Self-Determination both to support the peace process and in addition spreading its influence across the globe.

WWI was the beginning of the end for European empires. The nationalism bug spread to the rest of the world. Plus Europe lost its appetite for war after WWII.

Correct, they always get BTFO and they wouldn't be the most powerful country in history.

What other country has held such power over the world as to be described the global hegemon. With an unmatched navy, economy and empire size in the 19th century the British were surely the most powerful? Something like over half of world trade was due to the British empire. Also Britain doesn't always get BTFO, they won many wars, seven years war is a notable achievement for example

The meme empire self describes as global hegemon. The unmatched navy couldn't even keep from getting blasted on its front porch in 1914 and 1939, and had to beg for others' help to avoid starvation. In 1941, it was driven out of the East, at the first gust of wind. The 7 years war saw them cucked and soon nearly driven out of N. America because they were so weak. It was all just a meme.

I mean one good thing to come out of the world wars was the decolonization. There was no need to rule anything outside of europe. In that sense Germany is based.

Also the highest bodycount in history. Grats!

>The 7 years war saw them cucked and soon nearly driven out of N. America because they were so weak
I think you've got the American revolution and the seven years war mixed up. The seven years war was a worpd war in which France got BTFO'd by Britain and had to secede alot of American territory.
>1914
What are you talking about? The royal navy crushed the imperiap german navy within about a year and blockaded Germany to starvation. Also good job ignoring the imperial century that marked the unchallenged height of British power.

Yeah that is quite unfortunate and the issue with the British empire. Like many 'empires' it's not the empire of Britain, but the empire of a few incredibly rich people like heads of the EIC, Rhodes, Rothschilds etc.

World*

>but the empire of a few incredibly rich people like heads of the EIC, Rhodes, Rothschilds etc
>we only followed orders

Rothschilds developed mind-control technology in late 1820s

The American colonists fought to remove the French, and then fought to remove the bongs, successfully cucking them. And it was the German submarines that were starving the bongs, forcing them to rely on others to drive off the slaughter, all on their front porch. If they were unchallenged, why was it they were being cucked everywhere, including on their front porch?

>all these butthurt anglophobes literally seething

>Still deliberately ignoring the imperial century.
>America won the seven years war
>Germany won the world wars
America was cucked into fighting for british gains then getting taxed for it

>Not posting the 1946 empire

>every thread with these shitposters

>that part of Germany
kek

A little off-topic, but is there a reason Britain collected so many tiny islands around the world?
They can't all have something useful, can they? There's like a million of them. Seems redundant.

Rightful bong clay

Ports. Allows Britain to control the oceans. Maps of the British empire fail to highlight that Britain controlled most of the Earth's waters

And what would you propose? Let the filthy French have them?

I mean if it's Saxony that's just the Anglo Saxons reclaiming their homeland

what about the antarctic territories, same thing there?

It's Hanover, where their monarchs come from

Because they can. The alternative is allowing another country to take it and that's just not on.

But that's a lot of fucking ports, many of which are basically right next to each other. Seems redundant.

This logic I can believe

RIGHTFUL BONG CLAY

RIGHTFUL BONG CLAY!!!!1111

Looks to me like the bongs were cucked into helping drive off the frogs and then were cucked and driven off in turn. Stay mad, bro.

Maps of the bong empire fail to highlight that the bongs were being starved on their doorstep in 1914 and 1939, and destroyed in the East. So much for the Bongistan Rules the Waves meme.

What you talking bout niqqa? England was importing food from starving India during WWII

Why are you so mad? What did the bongs do to your country?

How was Britain starved, what the fuck are you babbling about? Britain was importing loads of food from the colonies and USA. If anyone was starving it was krautland

The starvation in the WW1 was brief and part of a suicidal strategy by the German state that earning it overseas intervention, dooming it a mere 3 years later. In the 2nd World War, Britain was never in real danger of being starved out in the same manner, it was just making the war effort significantly pressured. Maybe if Germans spent their dwindling resources doing anything except ultimately futile naval harassing actions they'd win more wars.

It was clearly the fault of bankers.

>Marx
>German

That's too much. Was Freud an Austrian too?

>not giving up worthless miles of African wasteland

Stupid. Britain had built up these areas and should have colonised them rather than relinquishing infrastructure they had built just so it could be destroyed/ left to rot.

If you aren't expanding and asserting yourself as a power, then you are receding and dissipating. In this world, it is assert yourself, or be dominated by someone else. There is no stasis. Basic of rule physics and of history.

Austria and Serbia were nothing but Stooges

>The royal navy crushed the imperiap german navy within about a year
Wrong.

The colonies cost way more than they produced. (Why do you think the burgers revolted?) Taxes. Too many taxes. Because? Because the American colonies cost way too much. Euros in the early 1900s only held their colonies for pride and prestige - basically the reason behind half their fucking wars. The meme that Europe enriched itself on stolen treasures from colonies is largely untrue except for Spain - and look how they ended up. Colonies cost too much and are not worth it.

Why do people still say this bullshit?

>No, the full might of the Japanese Empire was directed at the Americans.

More than 300k Japanese troops were in Burma fighting the British and Chinese. That's a significant portion of their military.