NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think the world would be like if there hadn't been the British Empire? The Point of Diversion is after Roanoke failed. At the said point, England said "An island can't have colonies, so we give up. We will never try again to start a colony anywhere in the world." Would the world be good or bad? How would our lives be different? All this can be answered with your opnion.
I will start by giving my opinion for an example. I would have an awful life if I even was ever born, as my country was part of the British Empire for a while. I don't think the world would be too good, overall, as liberty was something British colonies learned.

We'd all be speaking french.

The french would have filled the void. And there's no way they would have given up their empire so quickly. Just look at all the little bits they've kept.

No rugby, cricket, football, golf, or baseball except in the UK.

We'd be worse off. America, Canada, Australia and NZ wouldn't exist as they do. They'd probably be Spanish, Portuguese or French . . . . and we've all seen how shitty their colonies turned out. The British were the only ones who knew how to colonize properly. My monocle's off to those old boys.

The biggest loss would be parlimentary democracy.

Belgium would have taken the place of Britain. Massive luxury chocolate exports would have meant that the obesity crisis would have happened a couple of centuries earlier. World populations woud be dramatically lower, since fatties take up more space. Economic growth would be far lower, as the public, hooked on the chocolatey goodness, would be dulled into a sense of mindless bliss, losing the dynamism required for a free market economy. Thus the world economy would have quietly converted to communism some time in the late 19th century, and the world today would be controlled entirely by the vanguard dictatorship of the chocolatiers.

The french would have filled the void. And there's no way they would have given up their empire so quickly. Just look at all the little bits they've kept.

More like Spanish.

More like Spanish.

Unlikely. Spain was in decline by this point, and power was shifting to northern europe. Britain and France were the key players, with the Netherlands and later on Prussia/Germany playing third weel.

Well, New York would be called Neue Amsterdam.

Or would have been grabed by the French instead and be called New Paris.

There probably would have been a much bigger Dutch presence in North America.

What do you think the world would be like if there hadn't been the British Empire?
Less pink.

Oh I love these. I will have to give it some thought. One that I have concidered is what if the south had won the US civil war? (I came up with Japan ruling the world.... maybe the same with no Brits)

Given that the Empire was more a product of Britain's industrial and technological might than it was the source of it, I'd say it would not change much. If anything, they'd probably have tried to expand in to Europe like the Germans, another industrial power that lacked a significant colonial empire and never really succeeded at settling the New World.

I imagine the other European powers would have gradually settled America, but given the generally slower and lower population growth in their colonies (especially France), it's very likely that there might not have been the same emergence of North American nations. Certainly Latin America would be the more significant portion of the hemisphere, with perhaps Brazil or Argentina emerging as the regional power.

They'd probably be Spanish, Portuguese or French . . . . and we've all seen how shitty their colonies turned out. The British were the only ones who knew how to colonize properly. My monocle's off to those old boys.

Caballero, me escupiré en su bebida por hacer tal cometario. Luego le abofetearé el rostro con mis guantillos blancos y me reiré de su insulsa conducta. Qué temple! Ensuciando el real nombre de España de manera tan horrible.:eek:

One nasty side effect would have been the extension of slavery. It was Britain's moral leadership and military enforcement that slowly killed the practice - and without a British colonized North America and the unusual concatenation of factors that created the North/South divide, there wouldn't have been a major war to set the tone against it once and for all.

Caballero, me escupiré en su bebida por hacer tal cometario. Luego le abofetearé el rostro con mis guantillos blancos y me reiré de su insulsa conducta. Qué temple! Ensuciando el real nombre de España de manera tan horrible.:eek:
:D Creo que nunca he eschuchado Espanol tan ....noble :D

:D Creo que nunca he eschuchado Espanol tan ....noble :D

Pero tío, es que yo soy nobleza pura! ¿Qué te has creío tú? :D

More like Spanish.

Nah, it wasn't the spanish that the British fought all over the world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century for global empire.

If anything an insular isolationist Britain would more likely have led to a French dominated Iberian peninsula.

I doubt such a thing as the German Empire would have been allowed either. It would have been strangled at birth.

I'd say by now, had there been no benign British influence on the globe, there would be a permanent state of cold war between the Imperial French and the Imperial Russians.

Pero tío, es que yo soy nobleza pura! ¿Qué te has creío tú? :D
Que rica . . . ;)

Que rica . . . ;)

Hombre, claro.;)

The french would have filled the void. And there's no way they would have given up their empire so quickly. Just look at all the little bits they've kept.

North America would be like Vietnam except right now.

Well, for starters, I could probably buy beer and wine at the corner store, like in civilized countries.

Well, for starters, I could probably buy beer and wine at the corner store, like in civilized countries.

you can't? Even we yanks can do that.

you can't? Even we yanks can do that.

Well....if I drove across the river into Quebec I could. In Ontario it's either the state-run liquor store or the brewer oligopoly beer store.:mad:

I guess, as a consolation prize, I didn't have to wait until I was 21 in order to do so.

Well....if I drove across the river into Quebec I could. In Ontario it's either the state-run liquor store or the brewer oligopoly beer store.:mad:

I guess, as a consolation prize, I didn't have to wait until I was 21 in order to do so.

The 21 age thing is only for tourist. Americans can really drink from the age of 15 on.

North America would be like Vietnam except right now.

Nah, the Irish would still have come here after the great potato calamity. Except now they'd be a permanent underclass called le francais pomme de terre or something, and ruled over by the original settlers with a fist of iron.

Nah, the Irish would still have come here after the great potato calamity. Except now they'd be a permanent underclass called le francais pomme de terre or something, and ruled over by the original settlers with a fist of iron.

controlling the Irish.... the British tried for how many years and it still didn't work out that well.

I was thinking the French weren't big on that give land to settlers thing, or at least not to the degree the British were. Likely a less wide spread small pox outbreak among the natives and no where near the population collapse.

We'd be worse off. America, Canada, Australia and NZ wouldn't exist as they do. They'd probably be Spanish, Portuguese or French . . . . and we've all seen how shitty their colonies turned out. The British were the only ones who knew how to colonize properly. My monocle's off to those old boys.

How do you explain Africa and the Middle East?

How do you explain Africa and the Middle East?

In all fairness the British didn't have the Mideast for long.
And inland from the coast they didnt have Africa for more that much longer either.

controlling the Irish.... the British tried for how many years and it still didn't work out that well.

I was thinking the French weren't big on that give land to settlers thing, or at least not to the degree the British were. Likely a less wide spread small pox outbreak among the natives and no where near the population collapse.

Hard to say about smallpox. A lot of it probably ran ahead of the first settlers. And I'm sure the french would have got around to spreading it at some point anyway.

Yes, I agree that the french wouldn't have given out land to the irish. As I indicated they would have ended up some type of permanent underclass. Though since the french are Catholics too they most likely would not have been as angry about it.

Hard to say about smallpox. A lot of it probably ran ahead of the first settlers. And I'm sure the french would have got around to spreading it at some point anyway.

Yes, I agree that the french wouldn't have given out land to the irish. As I indicated they would have ended up some type of permanent underclass. Though since the french are Catholics too they most likely would not have been as angry about it.

Though the Potato famine was also caused by economic conditions of Ireland.
Namely proximity to England as it industrialized. If the lack of colonization disrupted English industrialization.

Yeah Potatoes would not have been introduced if the English had not gone to the new world and brought them back.

So what would have happened is England would not have industrialized and Ireland would not have had the Potato famine.

The likely result would have been the Irish would have risen up and over powered the English in Ireland.
Then supplied with Ships and arms by the French Catholics would have sailed to England and taken over.
Resulting in the English being the under class to the new Irish Land lords.

Though the Potato famine was also caused by economic conditions of Ireland.
Namely proximity to England as it industrialized. If the lack of colonization disrupted English industrialization.

Yeah Potatoes would not have been introduced if the English had not gone to the new world and brought them back.

So what would have happened is England would not have industrialized and Ireland would not have had the Potato famine.

The likely result would have been the Irish would have risen up and over powered the English in Ireland.
Then supplied with Ships and arms by the French Catholics would have sailed to England and taken over.
Resulting in the English being the under class to the new Irish Land lords.

The Spanish brought the potato back. It is, after all, south american. The Irish adopted it as a food crop on their own, and earlier than it was adopted in the rest of the UK. However, in the event that it had not been adopted, there never would have been the explosion in the Irish population and therefore no potential uprising, but I digress.

Clearly the French wouldn't have bothered much with Ireland anyway, because: a) they would have been busy digesting Spain, and B) they've never given a fuck apparently. On the other hand they no doubt would have gladly welcomed an influx of indentures for New France.

I don't disagree that had French expansionism not been stopped that eventually they would have ended up conquering everyone in Western Europe eventually, only to finally be stopped by the Russian Empire and it's masses of troops from its client state China, but even once that happened I find it extremely unlikely that they would ever put the Irish in charge anywhere for any reason.

If anything they would have appointed the scots (who mostly have a natural antipathy for the Irish historically, at least judging by the old firm) to rule the English with a fist of Iron. Something about an 'auld' alliance.

You guys owe us big style.

And of course the pope gave Ireland to the English a long time before any of this would have happened, and the french are very serious about their Catholicism.

No, it would all be gobbled in one big swallow. Sometime after the German Empire was strangled at birth. (Or maybe before birth).

Well, for starters, I could probably buy beer and wine at the corner store, like in civilized countries.

Well, we can do that over here, so it's obviously not a British problem.

No rugby, cricket, football, golf, or baseball except in the UK.

No football except for calcio fiorentino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcio_fiorentino), you mean. Which can be quite funny.

Anyway, very likely the world in the XIX and XX centuries would have been split between France and Russia, with Germany and Austria-Hungary being close seconds.

How do you explain Africa and the Middle East?
Quite different. In the nations I used as examples, the British set up new colonies, new nations with European people, and didn't just take over existing people's then enforce a new way of life from the top down. The places I mentioned were really bottem up experiments. Also, the societies had better economies, better standards of living, British based legal codes, were more homogenous, educated..etc

They is just a large difference between the areas that the British took over, like say, parts of the Middle East, that had existing societies in place, and places that the British colonists built up from scratch, like the ones I listed.

No football except for calcio fiorentino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcio_fiorentino), you mean. Which can be quite funny.

Anyway, very likely the world in the XIX and XX centuries would have been split between France and Russia, with Germany and Austria-Hungary being close seconds.

That's not football.

Exactly how would the German Empire be strangled at birth? The German Empire was simply a reaction to a dictatorial France suppressing it's German minority in the Rhine Federation. The nationalism that arose to form the German Empire and German nation in the 18th-19th century would still have come about.

Likewise if one considers that the ethnic Germans outnumbered the French by a largeslide (still do), so I can't imagine the French being able to keep a unified nationalist German uprising under Prussian banner down. The seeds of the German nation as such were born from Napoleons defeat. Napoleon was defeated by union composing to a large part of German/Russian/Austrian/Spanish soldiers, the role of the English in the Napoleonic war is largely overstated by the English themselves. So I don't see Napoleons defeat being averted by a lack of a British Empire, Napoleon still would have gone down in Russia and been decisively defeated at the Battle of Nations at Leipzig.

Exactly how would the German Empire be strangled at birth? The German Empire was simply a reaction to a dictatorial France suppressing it's German minority in the Rhine Federation. The nationalism that arose to form the German Empire and German nation in the 18th-19th century would still have come about.

Likewise if one considers that the ethnic Germans outnumbered the French by a largeslide (still do), so I can't imagine the French being able to keep a unified nationalist German uprising under Prussian banner down. The seeds of the German nation as such were born from Napoleons defeat. Napoleon was defeated by union composing to a large part of German/Russian/Austrian/Spanish soldiers, the role of the English in the Napoleonic war is largely overstated by the English themselves. So I don't see Napoleons defeat being averted by a lack of a British Empire, Napoleon still would have gone down in Russia and been decisively defeated at the Battle of Nations at Leipzig.

That assumes that the French revolution and Napoleon come into existence at all. Without the endless competition with the UK the revolution is a lot less likely as Fracne would have been a lot more stable, both politicaly and economicly.

Even if there had been Napoleonic war you have to wonder wether the Invasion of Russia and the Battle of Nations would have occured in this alternate timeline. Both of these happened in the aftermath of the very succesful British blockade of Europe, and the collapse of the Continental System.

That's not football.

As they play a ball by hitting it with their feet to score goals, yes, it is. A fairly rough and primitive sort of it, of course, but not much more primitive than rugby.

Islands seem to like making colonies, maybe because they have little land and need more.

Tyre and Sidon were a peninsula and island yet had vast influence around and beyond the Mediterranean.

Crete and Mynos.

1900s Japan.

But without Britain, another force would have moved in, adopting social Darwinism (eventually, once the zeitgeist got around to supporting the idea) as a justification.

My bet would be on Germany, which excelled at the kind of central administration needed by an Empire. This would be after 1848 when modern germany was born of course.

In the meantime France would make the attempt, but they have always seemed distracted by exporting culture and importing goods, without ever establishing a dominant military force in their colonies.

My bet would be on Germany, which excelled at the kind of central administration needed by an Empire. This would be after 1848 when modern germany was born of course.



Don't ya mean 1871?

Don't ya mean 1871?

You could say that, as a formality, ceding leadership to Prussia.

But 1848 was in my opoinion the year of great change all over Europe, the end of aristocratic rule and the rise of- dare I say it?- modern "nation states".

Germany had then discovered its common language and cultural roots (Brothers Grimm for example) and had made many alliances across old county and duchy lines which made them a nascent nation even then.

Maybe there would even be no Internet. Do you people know why English is dominant on the Internet? It started in an English speaking country.

Nah, the Irish would still have come here after the great potato calamity. Except now they'd be a permanent underclass called le francais pomme de terre or something, and ruled over by the original settlers with a fist of iron.
I doubt there would have been a potato famine if there was no British empire stealing the what potatoes we had.
*mumbles incoherently about 800 years and drinks heavily*
Maybe there would even be no Internet. Do you people know why English is dominant on the Internet? It started in an English speaking country.

The internet was developed in America and CERN invented the world wide web. It might not be in English, but it'd be there.

We'd be worse off. America, Canada, Australia and NZ wouldn't exist as they do. They'd probably be Spanish, Portuguese or French . . . . and we've all seen how shitty their colonies turned out. The British were the only ones who knew how to colonize properly.

Like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Burma....a cavalcade of 'win'. They only governed their other big glowing triumph, the area of 'Palestine', as it was then known - a tribute to their foresight and policies.

Like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Burma....a cavalcade of 'win'. They only governed their other big glowing triumph, the area of 'Palestine', as it was then known - a tribute to their foresight and policies.

Not to mention the fact that America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all independent countries now. One would think that proper colonisation would be a bit more permanent.

Not to mention the fact that America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all independent countries now. One would think that proper colonisation would be a bit more permanent.

Well you see there they used colonists to overrun the natives by weight of numbers. Being white non-Irish folk they were treated rather differently than the others. Where I mentioned they imposed a minority ruling class to subjugate the natives, usually using methods of 'divide and conquer', even to the extent of importing and creating ethnic minorities where none existed before. About 5 minutes before the last plane to blighty took off they said 'Right Chaps, you're a democracy now, all men are equal and have a nice day. You - boy - get my bags......'

Not to mention the fact that America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all independent countries now. One would think that proper colonisation would be a bit more permanent.
America wanted to be independent. Canada, Australia and New Zealand I am not sure about. The first two gained independence peacefully and I don't know about New Zealand. I think these 4 turned out good because of being settler colonies and what the British Empire gave.

Maybe there would even be no Internet. Do you people know why English is dominant on the Internet? It started in an English speaking country.

The Web, though, (the thing that really made the internet usable by the large public) started in a multilanguage environment in a country with 4 official languages (none of them being English). So, no.

America wanted to be independent. Canada, Australia and New Zealand I am not sure about. The first two gained independence peacefully and I don't know about New Zealand. I think these 4 turned out good because of being settler colonies and what the British Empire gave.

There was a massive and bloody war of independence between Britain and New Zealand. We were winning hands down until the New Zealanders unleashed their secret weapon - bomb sheep - upon us.

There was a massive and bloody war of independence between Britain and New Zealand. We were winning hands down until the New Zealanders unleashed their secret weapon - bomb sheep - upon us.

New Zealanders = Worms?

New Zealanders = Worms?

Treacherous and ungrateful maybe but I wouldn't go that far...

Treacherous and ungrateful maybe but I wouldn't go that far...

Have they dropped a concrete donkey on anyone?

Have they dropped a concrete donkey on anyone?

Oh, now I get your first joke.

There was a massive and bloody war of independence between Britain and New Zealand. We were winning hands down until the New Zealanders unleashed their secret weapon - bomb sheep - upon us.
lol, seriously? They really used sheep as bombs? I better check that one out. It's seems too funny to be real.

lol, seriously? They really used sheep as bombs? I better check that one out. It's seems too funny to be real.

They were also the first nation to develop Holy Hand Grenades - in the 1910 NZ Riots they pioneered the use of pnuematic drills as weapons... was bloody terrible.

They were also the first nation to develop Holy Hand Grenades - in the 1910 NZ Riots they pioneered the use of pnuematic drills as weapons... was bloody terrible.

They also tried to weaponise attack-rabbits but that didn't go too well for them.

They also tried to weaponise attack-rabbits but that didn't go too well for them.

Just because the other side refused to acknowledge that they had lost their limbs and kept shouting "chicken!"

Just because the other side refused to acknowledge that they had lost their limbs and kept shouting "chicken!"

What can I say, us Brits were a stubborn lot back then

What can I say, us Brits were a stubborn lot back then

Still are, mate, still are.:tongue:

Well colonization is imperialistic, and I don't view that as a good thing, either for Japan or Britain. Unless you can speak in man's language, which is called force, there's nothing that you can do to make him listen.

Still are, mate, still are.:tongue:

But they are polite about it.
Unless they are wearing a hat at a jaunty angle.

But they are polite about it.
Unless they are wearing a hat at a jaunty angle.

To wear a hat any other way would be uncouth.

But they are polite about it.
Unless they are wearing a hat at a jaunty angle.

Being polite doesn't mean they're not stubborn. But yes, the Brits can insult you so politely you can't take offense.

Being polite doesn't mean they're not stubborn. But yes, the Brits can insult you so politely you can't take offense.

It's a special skill we have *nod*

lol, seriously? They really used sheep as bombs? .

They stood behind them and sent them towards the enemy with a forward thrust of the pelvis. Sheep being somewhat timid beasts, it could take a few good thrusts to get them going. As a result, a good bit of practice in the art is kept up in peace time, and can be observed in the countryside on a regular basis.

It's a special skill we have *nod*

Aye aye. *nod*

They stood behind them and sent them towards the enemy with a forward thrust of the pelvis. Sheep being somewhat timid beasts, it could take a few good thrusts to get them going. As a result, a good bit of practice in the art is kept up in peace time, and can be observed in the countryside on a regular basis.

Of course we have managed to copy this technology and the Welsh are enthusiastically training in this technique in case we ever have need to use it.

Various dissident groups have been observed doing much the same in the hills of Wicklow. Generally they can be discerned from members of the legitimate armed forces by the balaclava on the sheep.

Various dissident groups have been observed doing much the same in the hills of Wicklow. Generally they can be discerned from members of the legitimate armed forces by the balaclava on the sheep.

This is much harder to discern in the case of black sheep, leading to many cases of police mistaking soldiers for dissidents. Cries of racial profiling still echo around Poulaphouca.

Well colonization is imperialistic, and I don't view that as a good thing, either for Japan or Britain. Unless you can speak in man's language, which is called force, there's nothing that you can do to make him listen.
So there should've been no empires? My country will not always admit to being an empire and having colonies. Is it a shameful thing to do, having empire?

To wear a hat any other way would be uncouth.

Your a Chav!!!

Your a Chav!!!

You're a Skrull!

We'd be worse off. America, Canada, Australia and NZ wouldn't exist as they do. They'd probably be Spanish, Portuguese or French . . . . and we've all seen how shitty their colonies turned out. The British were the only ones who knew how to colonize properly. My monocle's off to those old boys.I agree. The only way to properly colonize a place is to thoroughly exterminate all natives.

It's the reason we've a United States of America, but not a United States of Africa. By the time the glorious Anglo-Saxon Übermenschen came to Africa, they were less inclined to the 'Kill all men, women and children that don't have our skincolour' deal. Consequently, fucked by blicks.

How annoying.Quite different. In the nations I used as examples, the British set up new colonies, new nations with European people, and didn't just take over existing people's then enforce a new way of life from the top down. The places I mentioned were really bottem up experiments. Also, the societies had better economies, better standards of living, British based legal codes, were more homogenous, educated..etcBut... doesn't that mean that it depends not on who does the colonising, but on how many the coloniser kills (Before repopulating the area with white people)? That aside, I note that the Brits didn't have the Central North America for very long. Canada and Australia hardly matter in terms of numbers (Even less so back in the day), the crown of the British Empire was... Uhm... India (Including Pakistan & Bangladesh)... Yeah...

Seriously. Taking colonies that ceased being colonies well before the British Empire reached its height as examples of 'Successful' colonialism is beyond stupid, and, quite rankly, the result of modern brits on an egotrip and very very sad that their big shiny empire is gone wishing they were american.

Unfortunately, they're not, and the American achievements post 1776 aren't theirs. They're the American's. American independence wasn't a British victory, it was a British defeat.

In short, I think your logic, apart from being ludicrously inhumane (Well, I don't really expect better from the British...), is a bit convoluted at best.

They is just a large difference between the areas that the British took over, like say, parts of the Middle East, that had existing societies in place, and places that the British colonists built up from scratch, like the ones I listed.I'm glad to hear that the American Indians, Tasmanians, Australians and Negros either never existed, or aren't actually human. Makes me feel much better about those damn genocides.

So there should've been no empires? My country will not always admit to being an empire and having colonies. Is it a shameful thing to do, having empire?Not necessarily, it depends on the empire. If it's an imperialistic aggressive tone, then IMO it is bad. (Japs were somewhat along this, with Turks/Ottoman Empire and Mongols... at least in history before 19th century I'm talking about; of course not to forget the European colonizations but I'll leave that).

I'm going to say that personally, I feel like the Dutch would have taken up a lot of the niche the English filled. It was the Dutch, in many cases, that the English were muscling out of the way/replacing (as in New York, the East India company, South Africa, etc).

France would also play a larger role in North America, but the Dutch would be quite a bit more important; without one of the larger players in the game, it's also possible that some of the other nations that didn't get into the colonization game in mainline history would get into the giant European land grab.

In short, I think your logic, apart from being ludicrously inhumane (Well, I don't really expect better from the British...), is a bit convoluted at best.
Hark at him! Coo, sorry for founding you, we'll go back, change it and you can all start speaking Dutch or Flemish.
I have to say, I think Belgium would overtake France and create a trading empire not unlike the old Dutch one, while the Dutch would have taken quite a bit of north eastern america. The rest of it would probably be full of squabbling French,Spanish and little independant states.

Africa would be almost exactly the same, but german and french. Maybe even a little bit of Russian in and around egypt. Ottoman empire might have survived, due to the abscene of the world wars. Actually, Russia would be embroiled in a Civil war - Imperial france and germany helping out the whites and the reds gettig most of the populations support.

Is it a shameful thing to do, having empire?

Recte, nisi Roma sis.

You're a Skrull!

What's a Skrull?

What's a Skrull?

An alien race from Marvel Comics

Skrull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skrull)

Your a Chav!!!

My dear chap why would a chav be wearing a panama hat?

An alien race from Marvel Comics

Skrull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skrull)

Oh dear, oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear.

What do you mean ''Oh dear, oh dear''? I like comics, okay?

What do you mean ''Oh dear, oh dear''? I like comics, okay?

I have absolutely no idea what to say, sorry.

My dear chap why would a chav be wearing a panama hat?

If it is at a jaunty angle and a fake brand name it is a Chav wearing the Hat.

You are getting off topic. I could ask for this thread to be locked, you know. However, I will wait another day.

Unfortunately, they're not, and the American achievements post 1776 aren't theirs. They're the American's. American independence wasn't a British victory, it was a British defeat.

Don't you mean it was a French victory?

You are getting off topic. I could ask for this thread to be locked, you know. However, I will wait another day.

Hah, you do know this is NSG, right?

Don't you mean it was a French victory?
It was French and American together. As France and America were on the same side, doesn't that mean both countries share the victory? Sure, France helped, but the key word is helped. Okay, that help allowed for the victory, but don't be so anti-American sounding. GRRRRRRRR scratch chomp. For example, WW1 and WW2 were Allied victories.

It was French and American together. As France and America were on the same side, doesn't that mean both countries share the victory? Sure, France helped, but the key word is helped. Okay, that help allowed for the victory, but don't be so anti-American sounding. GRRRRRRRR scratch chomp. For example, WW1 and WW2 were Allied victories.

Well, IMO the French didn't really win WW2. We did, and we liberated them.

You are getting off topic. I could ask for this thread to be locked, you know. However, I will wait another day.

Oohh the angst! Oohh the incredible powers Behaved wields! I'm so scared I won't sleep tonight!

By the way, I'm not getting off topic. I'm just getting off.



Anyway, no British Empire = no cricket. This would mean that Pakistan and India would be in a full-scale nuclear war right now. Cricket is crucial for regional peace.

Well, IMO the French didn't really win WW2. We did, and we liberated them.
Where are you from? Well, without the British Empire, that never would've happened.

Oohh the angst! Oohh the incredible powers Behaved wields! I'm so scared I won't sleep tonight!

By the way, I'm not getting off topic. I'm just getting off.



Anyway, no British Empire = no cricket. This would mean that Pakistan and India would be in a full-scale nuclear war right now. Cricket is crucial for regional peace.

Wouldn't India be under Muslim rule still ?

Or under French rule. leaving Football the regional element of peace.

Dieses Forum wäre auf Deutsch! *nickt*

Without the British Empire, the world would've been significantly worse off. God forbid that I'd live in a world where English is not the international lingua franca and I'd have to learn another language.
The current world order makes it so westerners like myself have the luxury of not having to learn about the outside world.

The current world order makes it so westerners like myself have the luxury of not having to learn about the outside world.
And that's a good thing how?

And that's a good thing how?
Maybe Saiwania is lazy or not good with learning a language I am sure s/he has reasons for thinking that way. There is a reason for everything.

Where are you from?
The greatest country in the world, yourself?

Well, without the British Empire, that never would've happened.

What wouldn't?

The greatest country in the world, yourself?


What wouldn't?
It was a response to Colonic Immigration. CI said "Well, IMO the French didn't really win WW2. We did, and we liberated them." And with no British Empire, Germany would've defeated Britain and that would've been the end of WW2.

It was a response to Colonic Immigration. CI said "Well, IMO the French didn't really win WW2. We did, and we liberated them." And with no British Empire, Germany would've defeated Britain and that would've been the end of WW2.

I am CI. :)

Maybe Saiwania is lazy or not good with learning a language I am sure s/he has reasons for thinking that way. There is a reason for everything.

I'm a male and yes, it is true that I am a slacker and a procrastinator. However, I always get things done eventually. I just like the convience of not having to be multicultural.

If I had to learn another language, it would probably be Spanish because it is spoken in Spain, Mexico, and most of latin America and in almost all countries of South America.
I can imagine that knowing Spanish has it's uses.

[QUOTE=Ring of Isengard;14828500]The greatest country in the world, yourself?[QUOTE]
I'm American. Today I just felt like gravedigging. Without the British Empire, this forum would not be here. I don't think we would have the Internet with the British Empire.