Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote?

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by C0ckney


no we didn't. at its height, britain controled 1/4 of the world with around 1/4 of its population.

At its height the total landmass of the British Empire was 300% of England herself.

The issue in pre-revolutionary America was direct versus virtual representation. When the colonials clamored for representation, they had in mind being represented directly. However the Parliment argued that they were already represented by the virtue of virtual representation. A MP from location A didn't represent location A only, he represented the entire interests of the Empire.

In a sense, the War of the Independence was the anvil upon which the British Empire was forged. The British took lessons learned in America and applied it everywhere else. The result was the new Imperial period for the Empire.

One of many factors for the British success was their tendency to rule indirectly. Basically that means they would pick someone from a local populace to rule as a figurehead and local people were allowed to become civil servants. The result was that the populace often felt that they were pretty much ruling themselves since the government in London rarely intervened directly except for dire and serious matters.

If the British managed to retain American colonies, their imperial adventures in other locations might would have not been so successful.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Colon


Hey what's up with that stuff, my history books, or wherever else I read it said Dutch.

Maybe just a typo on Deutsch? That's how the Pennsylvania Dutch went wrong.

[Colon™]

Either how, I feel cheated.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Even Chamberlain opposed negotiations with Germany in 1940, as did the Labour members of the war cabinet. Halifax was isolated. See John Lukas, Five Days in May.

Actually there's a lot of unwritten history about this period. If Britain had followed it's traditional appeasement policies, as Hitler expected, it would have made peace after the fall of France.

When I say "traditional" I don't mean Chamberlain, I mean it's continental policy over the preceding 3 centuries. More often than not Britain went for negotiated settlements in wars with France, Spain and Holland.

Churchill's was by no means as secure leader of Britain in the period 1940 - 42.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Colon


Hey what's up with that stuff, my history books, or wherever else I read it said Dutch.

Delusions on your part?

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Actually there's a lot of unwritten history about this period. If Britain had followed it's traditional appeasement policies, as Hitler expected, it would have made peace after the fall of France.

When I say "traditional" I don't mean Chamberlain, I mean it's continental policy over the preceding 3 centuries. More often than not Britain went for negotiated settlements in wars with France, Spain and Holland.

Churchill's was by no means as secure leader of Britain in the period 1940 - 42.

Actually, British foreign policy rested on two principles: 1.naval superiority 2.maintaining the balance of power on the continent, preferably through proxy armies and expeditionary forces combined with control over the seas.
Whenever Britain felt a power began to dominate the continent it would switch allegiances to counter that power, be it the Habsburgs, Napoleon or Hitler. In that sense the war against Hitler was perfect continuation of their traditional policy, except for the fact there wasn't a proxy army left anymore. (Russia wasn't much of an ally until Hitler attacked it)

[Alexander's Horse]

If Hitler had been treated in the traditional way, a deal would have been done.

Churchill kept Britain in the war beyond the point of reason.

[Ted Striker]

Are you being serious AH or are you planting troll bait?

Could the same thing be said of Britain in the WW1? They kept themselves in beyond the point of reason?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Are you being serious AH or are you planting troll bait?

He's being trollish. There was no way the UK was going to grant Germany hegemony. The only traditional strategy the Brits followed was buck passing.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Could the same thing be said of Britain in the WW1? They kept themselves in beyond the point of reason?

If France had fallen in WWI Britain would certainly have been looking for a negotiated settlement with Germany.

[notyoueither]

Just like she did after France in '40 when she really did stand alone, right Horsie?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
At its height the total landmass of the British Empire was 300% of England herself.

errr, dude look at a map. take canada for example, on its own it's a damn sight more than 3x the size of england...

[Imran Siddiqui]

If France had fallen in WWI Britain would certainly have been looking for a negotiated settlement with Germany.

I agree with this. If France fell, there would have been peace made. Britain would have tried to start a counterbalancing alliance soon afterwards though... perhaps trying to bring Austria-Hungary to a neutral side and Italy to within Britain's friendship.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Just like she did after France in '40 when she really did stand alone, right Horsie?

This is the point. Churchill was saved by Hitler's invasion of Russia and the Japanese attack. Had the military disasters continued, as they would have without US and Russian entry into the war, Britain would have had to make peace and Churchill with his policy of belligerence beyond reason would have fallen from power.

What would have triggered this? A threat to the empire, particularly anything that threatened communications to India, the jewel in the crown, such as the fall of Egypt and the canal zone.

Fortunately for the allies, Hitler was too impatient.

[notyoueither]

OK. You make some sense, but they did fight practcally alone, along with the Commonwealth, for a little over a year in '40-'41. During that time, the threat to Britain itself was greater than it ever could have been in '15, '16 or '17.

On your side, had the French been forced to terms, they would likely have had to give up a border province or two and recognise German gains in Poland and the Ukraine as well as the Austrian position in the Balkans. It wouldn't have been the same choice for Asquith or Lloyd George that Churchill faced.

However even given that, saying that the Brits would have accepted German hegemony on the continent in that case is still a little suspect considering what they did in the case of both Boney and Hitler. I would still say that your supposition contradicts the observed behaviour of the Brits for the last longest while.