NationStates Jolt Archive

I have 2 questions for you.

1) If the British Empire (or another imperial empire) still existed in its once powerful form (around 1900 for the British Empire) would the world be a better place.

2)If Britain and her once collonies (US,canada,australia,etc) joined together to make there own collective (empire wouldnt be a good word to use) sort of like the EU at present would the world be a better place.

To give you my views on these points i think that as far as if the British Empire still existed the world would be a better place (i am biased as i am british) For example alot of the trouble spots of the plannet e.g. iraq, israel were once controlled by the British and if this had continued perhaps there would be fewer problems with these areas now. I know that we lost alot of these territories due to civil unrest within them however the political climate of the time meant we couldnt effectively fight to keep hold of them (eg post ww2 many countries wanted independance and due to 2 world wars the UK wasnt able to hold onto them). I believe that had Britain held onto these areas they could be more effectively controlled and the world would be a better place for everyone because a large proportion of the world would be under the same flag so it could encourage more cooperation for example in scientific and social areas.

In response to my second question i would prefer a collective of Britain and the former collonies as this would link lots of countries that share alot in common and would create an uber super power even larger than the US at the momment.

No, and No

could you give reasons behind your answers please

I have 2 questions for you.

1) If the British Empire (or another imperial empire) still existed in its once powerful form (around 1900 for the British Empire) would the world be a better place.
No, by 1900 the empire cost more to administer than it raised in revenue, we also had no business administering the affairs of others in the first place.
2)If Britain and her once collonies (US,canada,australia,etc) joined together to make there own collective (empire wouldnt be a good word to use) sort of like the EU at present would the world be a better place.
This sounds like some form of confederation of english speaking peoples, I cannot see what benefits this would actually bring to any nation participating.

Great Mark said
For example alot of the trouble spots of the plannet e.g. iraq, israel were once controlled by the British and if this had continued perhaps there would be fewer problems with these areas now.

Israel, Iraq etc, were once controlled financially by the British, and the locals lived in the wonderful wretched poverty that may be a factor in their current rebelious and fiercly independant attitudes.

With regard to the second, what do India, The USA, Zimbabwe, and New Zealand have in common apart from all using highly differentiated versions of a language that is becoming a standard around the world (Regardless of what the French would, justifiably, prefer). There are few or no common social, political, economic, religous nor cultural factors between the ex colonies of the British Empire.

(I am posting from Brazil, which is where I now live, but I am a native Brit, born and bred in West London and Surrey)

I have 2 questions for you.

1) If the British Empire (or another imperial empire) still existed in its once powerful form (around 1900 for the British Empire) would the world be a better place.

2)If Britain and her once collonies (US,canada,australia,etc) joined together to make there own collective (empire wouldnt be a good word to use) sort of like the EU at present would the world be a better place.

1) NO. Wars for independance would rage in many places. The English Empire or any empire for that matter only had their best interest at heart and did not care for the people of the "colonys" very well.

2) NO. The world is not a better place today with the U.N. or the E.U., why should it matter if the U.S., Canada, Australia,... would unite?
And in a way they allways have stood together, they and many other European countrys, and the status in the world would be the same.

A question in response

Would it not be better if Britain concentrated on being either part of Europe, which, like it or not, is a geographical fact, or on creating in association with the USA an english speaking block of western cultural countries.

The former option seems more viable as other English speaking countries will tend to be a little bit wary, to say the least, about joining a political/economic alliance which includes a country with the international relations track record of the USA. (I do nbot believe that Canada for example would be terribly happy with such a situation.)

The British empire would help some places, but places like the US neither need it nor want it. Also, I don't think it's possible because places like India would be hard to absorb into British society. They're too different.

A question in response

Would it not be better if Britain concentrated on being either part of Europe, which, like it or not, is a geographical fact, or on creating in association with the USA an english speaking block of western cultural countries.

The former option seems more viable as other English speaking countries will tend to be a little bit wary, to say the least, about joining a political/economic alliance which includes a country with the international relations track record of the USA. (I do nbot believe that Canada for example would be terribly happy with such a situation.)
That really depends on your political bias. I, and Conservatives in Canada and Britain would say the US has a far better track record on foreign policy than say, France. Anyway, America is a far better economic and military power than Europe. Socialistic policies have weakened them. Also, American and British beliefs and ideals are more closely linked than British European.

I don´t think all former colonies of the British Empire could form a kind of World EU. They have in general very little in common, except that they have English as one or only official language. However English is already becoming the lingua franca of the world.
Culturally and economically the UK, African countries, Islamic countries, India and South-East Asia have little in common. They are all different cultures and regions of the world.
The coutries which have more in common are the anglo-saxon protestant countries US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Those countries and the UK could form an union. Though due to the increased amount of immigration from Asia (and in the case of the US from Latin America) the link of those countries to Europe in general (but also to the UK) is weakening.
The tendency is a deeuropenisation of those countries.
I therefore don´t see the prospect of such an anglo-saxon world union.

A question in response

Would it not be better if Britain concentrated on being either part of Europe, which, like it or not, is a geographical fact, or on creating in association with the USA an english speaking block of western cultural countries.

The former option seems more viable as other English speaking countries will tend to be a little bit wary, to say the least, about joining a political/economic alliance which includes a country with the international relations track record of the USA. (I do nbot believe that Canada for example would be terribly happy with such a situation.)

I personally dont agree with been in the EU however that is again me being biased as i have been brought up to be quite europhobic, for example i allways liked war movies where the bad guy was invariably a german. This makes me feel that the EU in a way disrespects the saccrifices the older generation made to keep us free. I would happily see us join up with the ex collonies like the US, canada, austalia, etc because it would ensure Britain remained a major international player without loosing everything to europe.

Another reason i would like to see the British as a major power again is because i am quite old fashioned. I find it sad that we went from the biggest empire in the world to a politically correct (and soon to be if chirac gets his way) state of europe.

That really depends on your political bias. I, and Conservatives in Canada and Britain would say the US has a far better track record on foreign policy than say, France. Anyway, America is a far better economic and military power than Europe. Socialistic policies have weakened them. Also, American and British beliefs and ideals are more closely linked than British European.

Fair enough, for strong conservatives, who have a convergent world view, then the international relations of the USA may be better than that of France. However for these same people a logical development would be that the continuation of the British Empire, in its full resplendant conservative glory of, say the 1880s, would have been better still.

I was proposing an alternative to such a continuation.

I also disagree that British and American beliefs and ideals are more closely tied than British and European ones. Britian is, with few exceptions extremely individualist in a way that American culture just seems toi fail to grasp. The arguments based on the "moral majority" or on the "Christian nationalism" that seemed to be so prevalant during the presidential election in the USA would simply fall on barren ground in the UK. Britain is historically and culturally part of the old world, with the "aristocratic" values of good character, honesty, prudence etc. still being strongly influential. The USA is not, and never has been, strongly influenced by such abstract ideals. It appears from the outside to be an intensely practical country where results matter. In the UK it often matters how you played the game, in the USA only winning counts. A huge cultural gap.

I would happily see us join up with the ex collonies like the US, canada, austalia, etc because it would ensure Britain remained a major international player without loosing everything to europe.
I don´t think Britain can regain is old role. The role of super power is the position of the US. The former English colony has replaced the former motherland in that respect. Britain is the junior partner in such a constellation.
And I don´t see how Britain could play another role in such a constellation.
Economically I see Britain more linked to Europe.
I don´t think that Britain has to chose between the two options.
I think militarily Britain is going to keep its binding to the US and economically it is going to integrate more into Europe in the medium and long-term.
I think this position is in some way simular to Japan. Japan is keeping the military binding to the US, while it is economically more and more closely integrating with the rest of East Asia.
Britain can influence the new Europe. More and more countries are joining the EU and the Franco-German alliance is weakening. This also opens new prospects for Britain to influence the European arena with new allies (Poland, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, other East European countries).

I have 2 questions for you.

1) If the British Empire (or another imperial empire) still existed in its once powerful form (around 1900 for the British Empire) would the world be a better place.

Only for the British. The rest of the world would be a lot worse off. Thoguh Britain would also be burdened with the enormous cost, so maybe it wouldn't be so well off.

2)If Britain and her once collonies (US,canada,australia,etc) joined together to make there own collective (empire wouldnt be a good word to use) sort of like the EU at present would the world be a better place.

You mean the Commonwealth? They were going to try and have some sort of 'Empire Parliament' in the late 19th Century but it never got off the ground. It be like uniting the old Spanish colonies, or the old French colonies. Do you really see the US ceding to Britain's power? They fought a war to get rid of us, and Bush would be quite happy for another I imagine - despite the "special relationship".

I personally dont agree with been in the EU however that is again me being biased as i have been brought up to be quite europhobic, for example i allways liked war movies where the bad guy was invariably a german. This makes me feel that the EU in a way disrespects the saccrifices the older generation made to keep us free. I would happily see us join up with the ex collonies like the US, canada, austalia, etc because it would ensure Britain remained a major international player without loosing everything to europe.

In return those former colonies would lose everything to Britain under your system I would imagine. The sacrifices their older generations made for freedom would be disrespected. Why are we closer to former colonies than Europe? I see us as having closer cultural ties with the "bad" German's than the average Indian/Pakistani, or French Canadian.
Don't forget that Britain has just as much say in the EU as any other state - the French see the constitution as too British for example. I don't buy into this EU-bogeyman theory. I doubt you were as unahppy about the EUs authority when they forced the French to stop blocking British beef after it was proved it was BSE free. How exactly does the EU "[disrespect] the saccrifices [sic] the older generation made to keep us free"? You don't still think the Germans are Nazis do you? The EU hardly hides swastikas behind it's circle of stars. ;)
Britain will be a "major international player" for a long time yet I think, we are still in the G8 and have this "special relationship" with the US. I'd be more worried about that than the EU personally. Have the EU forced us into illegal laws?

Another reason i would like to see the British as a major power again is because i am quite old fashioned. I find it sad that we went from the biggest empire in the world to a politically correct (and soon to be if chirac gets his way) state of europe.

We are a state of Europe. It's the continent we are on - you cannot change that (though UKIP will try). Don't forget all European powers had Empires, big ones too. If you want Britain's Empire back you'd have to give France hers, and Belgium, Germany (gosh!), Spain etc. Then we'd be back to the Imperial land race of those times, which contributed the the First World War. Why was the British Empire so fantastic anyway?

The name of the game is hegemony, the idea that one nation more or less controls the world. This is more than a simple empire, which has happened countless times, but a true hegemonic state has happened only 3 times in the history of the world: The current United States of America, The British in the period you speak of, and the Netherlands a few centuries before British rule. The hegemonic state gathers power though innovation, through strategy, through policy, through many different tools. The United States is believed to be slowing down a bit, but I don't know that I buy into that theory completely.

Historically the Empire caused more problems than it solved, infact the grouping of countries together in competition is generally a bad idea - look at the first world war. What was sparked by a C-List minor player was blown out of perportion by pacts and politics and turned a relatively Serbia v. Austria-Hungary dispute into a global conflict. If you have an empire, someone will feel the need to raise a power greater than the first empire so you end up with an arms race, the conquest for colonies, and unhealthy rivalry.

The reason the UN works is because it is inclusive enough to bring all the major players under one umbrella and keep them from competition by other means.

The EU is a different kettle of fish, it offers *much* more flexibility than the pact driven politcal situation of pre1914. Oh, and the War was 50 years ago, and we also fought Japan. When was the last time we raised issue with trading with Japan?

We're an island, and not a very productive on at that. Autarky is simply not an option, we need the support of other countries, and I for one would rather be looking at Europe than America.

And doesn't joining the EU actually celebrate the sacrifices of previous generations? They fought for peace, and what is a greater symbol of peace than joining under one banner?

If history serves no other perpose, we can at least learn from it. (Historians, however, are completely useless and we're a waste of everyone's time.)

I personally dont agree with been in the EU however that is again me being biased as i have been brought up to be quite europhobic, for example i allways liked war movies where the bad guy was invariably a german. This makes me feel that the EU in a way disrespects the saccrifices the older generation made to keep us free. I would happily see us join up with the ex collonies like the US, canada, austalia, etc because it would ensure Britain remained a major international player without loosing everything to europe.

Another reason i would like to see the British as a major power again is because i am quite old fashioned. I find it sad that we went from the biggest empire in the world to a politically correct (and soon to be if chirac gets his way) state of europe.

Equally for the Americans, watching films like Patriot, the Englishman is the bad guy. It is almost impossible to go back over history and find a group with which there is some common link where there has never been any bad blood.
Being part of Europe is not to disrespect the sacrifice of the Allied soldiers, sailors and airmen, but to celebrate what it is that they sacrificed themselves for. I would not propose nor consider joining a National Socialist Europe, but that is exactly what we do not have.

With regard to the fact (erroneous) that we no longer have the largest empire in the world, why not go back to what was in truth the largest empire in the world and reinstate Afghanistan as the ruler of all the lands from China through to Western Europe. This was the case in the era of Ghengis Khan. Or maybe we should reinstate the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. No, history moves on and the centre of power moves with it. The best the British can do now is to accept this gracefully. We are, after all, just a very small island of the coast of a peninsula called Europe. Denying this is to deny the brute reality of the situation. Yes we are still culturally, scientifically, and to some extent economically significant, but politically no more.

Would it be a better place? Was it a better place when the British had that empire? Maybe for the Brits (or at least, the British ruling class) but not particularly for others. I am of the (perhaps rather optimistic) opinion that the British Empire was founded, in part, with the best of intentions, but the results were not necessarily as beneficial for the colonies as the utilitarians among us would have hoped for. What I mean is that the spread of liberal democracy, civil freedoms, cricket and HP sauce was a wholly worthwhile cause, but the Opium wars kind of showed the other side of this deal.

That said, it's an interesting point - if the whole world were united, by force or by consent, it would probably be the best chance of world peace we have. Can't see the Brits managing it these days though.

As for some sort of union of former British colonies - we have one. It's called the Commonwealth and though some nations choose not to be a part of it (the USA for example but more recently Zimbabwe withdrew after being suspended for a year) it still has more than 50 nations, including Canada and Australia. It is a great diplomatic and economic tool, and in many ways has proved a good way of the UK paying a little back to its former colonies (75% of British aid goes to members of the Commonwealth). Converting it into some kind of EU style political union is unrealistic (though I could argue that the EU is unrealistic too, but I won't).

That really depends on your political bias. I, and Conservatives in Canada and Britain would say the US has a far better track record on foreign policy than say, France.

I disagree. The US always held out of the wars with Germany until it felt it's hand was forced, but France was there at the beginning. We've not had a war with the French since Napolean died, we've generally agreed with them in most foreign policies over the last hundred years (EU excluded), and the US foreign policy over the last 50 years has been mainly concentrated on overthrowing left-wing democracies in other countries, to the extreme that their spies didn't notice the USSR was going to collapse until about a month before the event.

Anyway, America is a far better economic and military power than Europe. Socialistic policies have weakened them.

Not combined, I'd think. Europe contains more major powers than any other continent, and 3 of the top 4 world militaries. We've also got a several of the best economies. If you consider the US as 52 seperate countries working as a Federation, then they're all much weaker economically than France, Britain or Germany by quite a bit; it's only in unity that their strength lies. If Europe was firmly federated, then it'd probably be the world's premier power.

Also, American and British beliefs and ideals are more closely linked than British European.

True. We've always hated the French and the Germans, while we simply disliked the Americans.

I agree Britain cant regain her old role, however the reason i would rather see her join her former collonies (again perhaps not possible) than europe is it all seems a little bit like what a Mr A Hitler wanted, a europe all controlled by one government.

On a side note aswell the joining to the EU of eastern european countries isnt necessarilly good news as many of these countries have aids problems that would see the opening of free movement and immigration increase the chance of western europe having and increase aids incidence. (this comes from a reliable source (a lecturer) as we were given a lecture on the subject at uni).

. ..it's an interesting point - if the whole world were united, by force or by consent, it would probably be the best chance of world peace we have.



Hum, have you looked at Iraq , Afghanistan or the Sudan recently?

True. We've always hated the French and the Germans, while we simply disliked the Americans.

Maybe not. we have only hated the Germans for a century or so, but yes we have always hated the French; and they have always hated us.

Hum, have you looked at Iraq , Afghanistan or the Sudan recently?

Yes. But then the whole world hasn't been united so this doesn't come into it. My point is that if the world had one single world government, international relations (of which war is an extension) would be a whole new ball game.

(this comes from a reliable source (a lecturer) as we were given a lecture on the subject at uni).

Great Mark, my wife, who is a university lecturer asks where are you as she would love to work there and be thought of as a reliable source!

With regard to the fact (erroneous) that we no longer have the largest empire in the world, why not go back to what was in truth the largest empire in the world and reinstate Afghanistan as the ruler of all the lands from China through to Western Europe. This was the case in the era of Ghengis Khan. Or maybe we should reinstate the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. No, history moves on and the centre of power moves with it. The best the British can do now is to accept this gracefully. We are, after all, just a very small island of the coast of a peninsula called Europe. Denying this is to deny the brute reality of the situation. Yes we are still culturally, scientifically, and to some extent economically significant, but politically no more.

Call me picky but wasn't Genghis Khan actually Mongolian? In fact, I think he was from the region now known as Inner Mongolia and thus you could argue he was Chinese (and the Chinese do).

Yes. But then the whole world hasn't been united so this doesn't come into it. My point is that if the world had one single world government, international relations (of which war is an extension) would be a whole new ball game.

The problems which cause war, in the majority of cases, are not international, but local, and often derive from the failure of a government to recognise local concerns and issues. A world government would surely just make this problem worse

Great Mark, my wife, who is a university lecturer asks where are you as she would love to work there and be thought of as a reliable source!

Well ive got to accept what they say as im going to be examined on the stuff

The problems which cause war, in the majority of cases, are not international, but local, and often derive from the failure of a government to recognise local concerns and issues. A world government would surely just make this problem worse

I would disagree with that - surely the whole point of organisations such as the failed League of Nations, and the currently failing (in my opinion) United Nations is to form some sort of World Government to prevent/manage war/conflict?

If the world were united, war between states would not be possible, and the greatest threat to peace (invasion by a hostile power) would be completely removed. This surely gives the best chance of peace. Note, I'm not saying that it would guarantee peace but it would give the best chance.

I would disagree with that - surely the whole point of organisations such as the failed League of Nations, and the currently failing (in my opinion) United Nations is to form some sort of World Government to prevent/manage war/conflict?

If the world were united, war between states would not be possible, and the greatest threat to peace (invasion by a hostile power) would be completely removed. This surely gives the best chance of peace. Note, I'm not saying that it would guarantee peace but it would give the best chance.

Perhaps this just benig idle speculation if the British had won the American revolution we could be in this position today

I agree Britain cant regain her old role, however the reason i would rather see her join her former collonies (again perhaps not possible) than europe is it all seems a little bit like what a Mr A Hitler wanted, a europe all controlled by one government.

Since when is central government an indicator of National Socialism. Wehn the EU starts up camps for Jews, Socialists, Gypsies, Communists and Homosexuals I will give your ideas creedence.

On a side note aswell the joining to the EU of eastern european countries isnt necessarilly good news as many of these countries have aids problems that would see the opening of free movement and immigration increase the chance of western europe having and increase aids incidence. (this comes from a reliable source (a lecturer) as we were given a lecture on the subject at uni).

Yeah, AIDS always takes into account national borders. The EU should tackle this problem, not just let AIDS run rampant in East Europe (which I doubt it does...any figures?).

On a side note as well the joining to the EU of eastern european countries isnt necessarilly good news as many of these countries have aids problems that would see the opening of free movement and immigration increase the chance of western europe having and increase aids incidence. (this comes from a reliable source (a lecturer) as we were given a lecture on the subject at uni).
Well, the countries with the highest HIV rate is Botswana (37%) and South Africa (20%). So, I assume you would have more problems in that respect with an union of former British colonies.
I rather see a problem due to the social and economic differences, as well as disputes in respect to demands of financial help from Eastern Europe or (in future) Turkey.
And problems with immigration.
Though I think the countries with a stronger and more competetive economy, like the UK, are better prepared for this development than France, Germany or Italy for that matter.
So, I think the prospect of Britain to increase its influence in the "new" EU is bigger. And I don´t think that the EU is going to develop into one super state. I think the enlargement is actually preventing such a development.
I rather think we are going to see some kind of balance of power in Europe with Britain and Poland one side and France and Germany on the other.

Perhaps this just benig idle speculation if the British had won the American revolution we could be in this position today
You can blame the French for that, hehe.

Since when is central government an indicator of National Socialism. Wehn the EU starts up camps for Jews, Socialists, Gypsies, Communists and Homosexuals I will give your ideas creedence.



Yeah, AIDS always takes into account national borders. The EU should tackle this problem, not just let AIDS run rampant in East Europe (which I doubt it does...any figures?).

Sorry i dont have any figures just something we were told in a lecture a couple of months ago

So, I think the prospect of Britain to increase its influence in the "new" EU is bigger. And I don´t think that the EU is going to develop into one super state. I think the enlargement is actually preventing such a development.


Damn it why can't the British media see this??!! If you get offered the job as editor of the Daily Mail, please tell me you'll take it.