It took 2 World Wars to Destroy Britain and the Empire

[TCO]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It took 2 World Wars to Destroy Britain and the Empire

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Good question.

U.S. are mostly a sea/air power. I think sinking their fleets and grounding their aircraft would suffice. But perhaps we should take some CivIII advice and also raze a few major cities, just to be on the safe side. I think Austria should be preserved for sightseeing, so we shouldn´t fight it out here. In the U.S. there is not much that is really worth keeping, therefore any WWIII land battles should probably be fought over there.

]


Stick to comp games, little girl...

[Simon Darkshade]

In my view, one factor that played a major part in the decline of the British Empire was the policies post WWI in regards to the Royal Navy.
They fell behind in production and maintenance of their capital ships, fell significantly behind in naval air operations (something they had been leaders in at the end of the war), and returned to the days of the Victorian fleet in being an exalted social club.
Factor in the non-construction of the naval base at Singapore, and power could no longer be projected.
It was still a large fleet, but was a shadow of that of the Great War.
Even the mighty Hood, pride of the navy, was an aged ship due for scrapping in the early 1940s, or at least a protracted overhaul in 1939.
The King George V class battleships were very good vessels, but were not produced soon enough in sufficient numbers to counter the various threats to Empire. The Lion I and Lion II class' never made it off the slip.
The Fleet Air Arm was inferior to that of Japan or the United States in numbers and quality of aircraft.
The British adherence to the naval treaties of Washington and London did prove to be a handicap when compared to the actions of its less scrupulous defenders.

Without the Royal Navy at an optimum level, Britain could not protect her Empire in the manner to which it was accustomed, as such.
And the decline in power of the Royal Navy can be traced to the policies and attitudes of the interwar period.
Thus, WWII was the final blow in a succession of blows that caused the contraction of British power.

[Saint Marcus]

and i thought itr was 12 british subs, oh well.

Trafalgar Class
- Trenchant
- Talent
- Triumph
- Trafalgar
- Turbulent
- Devonport
- Tireless
- Torbay

Vanguard Class
- Vanguard
- Victorious
- Vigilant
- Vengance

Swiftsure Class*
- Sceptre
- Sovereign
- Superb
- Spartan
- Splendid

* will be replaced by the Astute Class (2006: Astute, Ambush, Artful, 2 others)

[The Andy-Man]

'You make the mistake of assuming a zero-sum economic result. Just because Germany gets bigger doesn't mean that Britain gets smaller. The British economy would benefit from the rising German economy. If Germany has more money then it can buy more British goods that adds more money to Britain which can then buy more German goods and an upward spiral is created. '



the british economy has never declined, GDP has always been growning, but at a slower rate then rivals, plus German was protectionis, so britsh goods COULDNT enter their markets, BUT German goods could compete with british ones elsewhere.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man

the british economy has never declined, GDP has always been growning, but at a slower rate then rivals,.

Really? What happened to British GDP during the 1930s depression?

[Rogan Josh]

I don't see how anyone can argue that WWII helped Britain in any way....

Look at the most powerful countries economically after WWII: The US, Germany and Japan.

The US was powerful because it didn't have its infrastructure destroyed like all the other world powers. Furthermore, it used that position to help rebuild Germany and Japan. The reason why Germany and Japan thrived after the war was because of this new, completely rebuilt infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the two major powers of the 'loosing' side became so prosperous after WWII.

Britain on the other hand was completely bankrupt and couldn't even afford to switch back from War production to civil production.

To see this, compare two cities which were completely destroyed in WWII: Coventry in England and Muenster in Germany. Coventry is a complete hellhole because Britain had no money to rebuild it, whereas Muenster is a beautiful city which has been rebuilt in the original style of the old city which was destroyed (it is absolutely amazing BTW) using US funds.

This is not to mention that almost all of Britain's overseas business interests were transfrered over to American companies after the wars, for two reasons: firstly as a bribe for the US to enter the war on the UK's side and secondly to try and finance the rebuilding of the UK.

[The Andy-Man]

Really? What happened to British GDP during the 1930s depression?

what i meant was, britian is a trillion$ nation today, but it is not the #1 economy, and it certainly was never a trillion dollar nation before.

it used that position to help rebuild Germany and Japan

i thought Japan become an economic powerhouse because they weren't allowed to have a military, so the gun vs butter argument wasn't there and there was more money to invest in economy.

and germany is an industrial supernation, so it had an easier time recovering then elsewehere.


but back to the point, what i am saying is, without the wars, britian would have declined in a way that would have probably lead to war wit USA in the 30's of earlier, and by 1914, britiain's ability to fight a total war on that scale was diminished. i am also saying, that if neither world war happened, britain would never have been a victor in the 2 greatest wars in history, and so would have declined and became as significant as Spain has been since 1700's. The wars, even though destroying britian, in one way also kept them in a position to be an international forrunner.

[el freako]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
the british economy has never declined, GDP has always been growning

GDP figures only started in 1948, but since then there have been three largish falls in GDP, 1973-75 (3%), 1979-81 (5%) and 1990-91 (3%).

Many historical estimates of GDP for the period before 1948 show large falls in 1919-21 (18%), 1926 (5%), and 1929-31 (11%)

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
what i meant was, britian is a trillion$ nation today, but it is not the #1 economy, and it certainly was never a trillion dollar nation before.
forrunner.

That's a little disingenous, the main reason we are a trillion dollar (actually a $1.4trn) economy is because of inflation.
Since 1950 the level of prices in the US has risen by 527% (in other words what cost $1 in 1950 cost $6.27 in 2001).
That might sound like a huge rise and indeed, from a historical perspective it is, but it represents an average inflation rate of 3.7%.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
what i meant was, britian is a trillion$ nation today, but it is not the #1 economy, and it certainly was never a trillion dollar nation before.

But isn't that part of this hypothetical discussion. If Britain does not fight two world wars then its economy could have well have grown faster and higer.

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
but back to the point, what i am saying is, without the wars, britian would have declined in a way that would have probably lead to war wit USA in the 30's of earlier,

Whoa. Isn't this a whole new theory.

Why would war break out between Britian and the US when:
- Britian and the US had been at peace for almost 100 years (1815-1914)
-If there is no world wars, isolationist would have remained strong in the US

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
and by 1914, britiain's ability to fight a total war on that scale was diminished.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Andy-Man
i am also saying, that if neither world war happened, britain would never have been a victor in the 2 greatest wars in history,
[\QUOTE]
Ahh, finally something that everyone can agree on. Yes, if the wars do not happen then Britain cannot win the wars.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Andy-Man
and so would have declined and became as significant as Spain has been since 1700's.
[\QUOTE]

What would you say are the reasons for Spain's decline and are these factors mirrored in Britain's decline?

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
The wars, even though destroying britian, in one way also kept them in a position to be an international forrunner.

Did Britain remain an "international forerunner" in the post-45 period or did it become a relatively insignificant mid-size power?

[The Andy-Man]

Why would war break out between Britian and the US

in the inter war yrs USA and Britian were very anti-eachother. even during WW2 there were many hostlilties.

quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
and by 1914, britiain's ability to fight a total war on that scale was diminished.


Germany was a slighty stronger industrial nation then Brritain in 1914, USA was significantly better, USA vs Britian after 1890, no way Britain wins.

Did Britain remain an "international forerunner" in the post-45 period or did it become a relatively insignificant mid-size power?

both, britain is still a notable nation, which is thwe pint of this thread. without the wars it would be with spain.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Havak
Well he was referring to the time post WW2 and I can't name any conflicts we have fought in this timeframe to retain Imperial control. Please name one?

I can understand. The Falklands was a bit of a field trip, no?

[The Andy-Man]

well, there bin a handful of impiral battles post 45, nothing major though. falklands only cos argentina was involved, and it wasnt just an internal dispute.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
Germany was a slighty stronger industrial nation then Brritain in 1914, USA was significantly better, USA vs Britian after 1890, no way Britain wins.

I think that would depend on where the war was. If Britain tried to fight a war against the US on the American continent the US would have won, but if it had tried to fight on the European continent the UK would have won.

[KaiserIsak]

I read some of your posts, and i saw one of you writing about how europe conquered the world, just to loose it again in two bloody civil wars.
Let me tell you all one thing: Colonialism is´nt passed, it just changed form. The European Union and the US still have 100% economical controll of all the third world countries, and then it really does´nt matter much if they have their own flag and president. The money goes to europe/us anyways.
And dont tell me britain let their colonies go peacefully, what do you guys think they really are fighting for in afghanistan and iraq? "They have weapons of mass destruction"
Israel, the US, Russia, Britian and France. They are countries with "weapons of mass destruction". Israel and Russia uses them, and America is targetting nuclear weapons at the world. If our leaders were so idealistic they should bomb themselves.
Why are all of you so nationalists? Thats the worlds biggest problem.
I am norwegian but i hate my country for exploiting Burma, Nigeria and the rest of them. And i hate them for supporting the colonial wars of Bush and Blair.

[WhiteElephants]

Kaiser -- I got lost in your post. Clean it up a bit for me, eh?

America is targetting nuclear weapons at the world.

Big deal. So is every other country with nuclear weapons.