Why does no one mention the British Empire?
How can something that happened so recently have been totally forgotten?
Do Americans not mention it because of the fall, meaning that they will also one day fall out of power and become unimportant?
Do British not mention it because it would hurt too much to acknowledge what they were then and what they are now?
It seems so strange for something so huge to have totally fallen out of the picture. It's like if in 100 years no one will know that America went to the moon. Not that "it was faked!" just that no one will even mention it. Like it never even happened.
I suppose the same applies to the other European imperial powers.
>>1002913
we aren't taught about the empire in school really.
we're told we had one, all we learn about in school is why the nazis were evil, 2 roman emperors and stuff about communism. GCSE history was a huge mistake
>>1000794
>The
>British
>Empire
The agglomeration which was called The British empire was neither "the", nor British, nor an Empire.
>>1002913
>Why does no one mention the British Empire?
who do you talk to? I grew up hearing people laugh about the sun never setting on TBE. I forget the comedian who has a skit about the Falklands being the 'strategic sheep raising island.
>>1002913
Because it was a garbage empire built by conquering subhumans
Millions times less impressive than other Western European empires built by beating equally advanced yuros
>>1002952
I'm against the empire but you must be a non brit euro with the biggest case of sour grapes.
Portuguese I presume
>>1002952
>Because it was a garbage empire
That allowed Britain to become the sole superpower of the world for over a century.
>built by conquering subhumans
Just like every other mid 19th century empire.
>Millions times less impressive than other Western European empires built by beating equally advanced yuros
Kek, this is one of the dumbest posts I've seen on this board, go back to your hugbox on /pol/.
>>1002952
>this is what the Portuguese actually believe
>>1003159
>Britain
>sole superpower of the world for over a century
That's not remotely true.
>>1003159
>That allowed Britain to become the sole superpower of the world for over a century.
How deluded can one be?
At its height (1914), the British Empire could barely even match the lone German Empire's power despite being allied with France and Russia
>>1003159
>/pol/ boogey man
i got to /pol/ regularly and people love the british empire is regarded highly there
>>1003305
t. Alberto Barbossa
>>1003290
>At its height (1914), the British Empire could barely even match the lone German Empire's power despite being allied with France and Russia
>>1003305
Portuguese on 4chan are the most obsessed about their former holdings
>>1003346
>4 years stalemate against Germany (a mere great power) despite being allied with France and Russia (two great powers)
>"B-Britain stronk! W-We're totally an hegemonic superpower, r-right?"
>>1002913
Political correctness. Slavery was bad so everything about colonialism and imperialism is bad, other than reminding our youth that the Empire was evil because of slavery, we're not allowed to talk about it/this is all young people have to say about it now.
I remember being told in GCSE History that the English INVENTED slavery.
How did all this happen, hell if I know. I just know it's horrifying that so much history has been forgotten in so short a timespan.
>>1003290
>At its height (1914), the British Empire could barely even match the lone German Empire's power despite being allied with France and Russia
You are using the word "power" vaguely, in terms of a land army the German Empire trumped the UK, however in every other area the German Empire was doomed to fail. British military thinking at the start of the war was centered around Naval domination of Germany, from the very beginning of the blockade the German war industry was being strangled of vital supplies as well as general foodstuffs that starved the population which proved to be one of the primary decisions for capitulation in 1918. By late 1915 the British army pretty much equaled the French in offensive power.
On top of that the British Empire was fighting the Ottomans in the middle east in at least three theaters (Palestine, Gallipoli and Mesopotamia). In Africa against German possessions there, and in the far east.
>>1003373
>>4 years stalemate against Germany (a mere great power) and Austria Hungary (FTFY).
Caused by totally outdated military thinking on both sides.
>>1003373
Germany was allied with two other great powers also.
It was a stalemate in a land war, whereas Britain was primarily a naval power. (Thus outside of mainland Europe, the allies were always totally dominant.)
Germany was also at its height in 1914.
>>1003458
>How did all this happen
>>1003479
>Germany was allied with two other great powers also.
Only one actually, Turkey ceased to be a great power in the 18th century
And A-H was terrible at war, great power or not
>>1003458
The English were responsible for the slave trade taking off in the Pacific, that much is true. Now the British Empire itself was a mistake only rivaled by England's fomenting of TWO fucking world wars.
Of course, you're a patriotic Brit who scoffs at historical revisionism but then in the same turn relies upon British """historians""" who turn every British defeat in a victory and every British victory into an Earth-shattering event. Remember boys, Dunkirk was a glorious and victorious advance in the direction of England and Waterloo was the high water mark of Napoleon's empire.
>>1003553
>England's fomenting of TWO fucking world wars.
Time for you to go back to /pol/ m8, or you can post proofs while bearing in mind that the blank cheque is a fact and that Operation Himmler is as well.
>>1003576
Germany dindu nuffin
He a good boi
Because it's a shitpost beacon with some french anon or some recent immigrant to the U.S. flinging shit
It's because Britain was a superpower, the first of many; but the United States is a hyperpower, the first of its kind and since the twentieth century the only sustainable power to retain that status. The public discusses powers based on historicity, so it makes sense why the British are as not as relevant in this age when Americans have been the centerpiece for recent events and the turn of the century.
You also have to commend the United States for practically replacing a former power's global presence culturally, scientifically, politically and militarily in a matter of 40 to 50 years.
>>1003531
>no Safavid Empire
Its shit/10
>>1003635
American culture is an offshoot of English culture. It wasn't that big of a change
>>1003635
> culturally
People really do overstate America's culture; it's shit and not as pervasive as Americans like to think it is.
>>1003553
> The English were responsible for the slave trade taking off in the Pacific
The British Empire singlehandedly and forcefully abolished the slave trade for the entire world, based on the conception that all Englishmen (and therefore, lesser peoples) should be free.
>>1003686
Perhaps, but we would have to ask ourselves why it isn't seen as an extension of English culture but given its own name.
>>1003717
I think the fact that it's seen as so contentious only furthers the idea of American culture having legitimacy. There isn't a point in discussing non-existent ideals.
>>1003749
How can a culture be 'legitimate'? Do you mean 'hegemonic'?
I think Americans have this vision of the entire world constantly listening to their music, watching their films, and eating their food.
We just don't.
>>1003762
You seem to think alot about Americans.
Have you ever actually considered the possibility that not only does no one here believe that, but that we dont care if you watch our TV or eat our food?
Its the same way im sure Brits dont have a vision of everyone eating their food and listening to their music (although music is a bad example, because British musics gets pretty widespread somehow).
>>1003635
>It's because Britain was a superpower, the first of many; but the United States is a hyperpower
>the first of many
Are you retarded?
The only two superpower that happened after Britain were the US and the USSR
>>1003717
>People really do overstate America's culture; it's shit and not as pervasive as Americans like to think it is.
American hegemony is the single reason why English is the international language
At the height of the British Empire, French still had this role
German officials addressed to British ones in fucking French (remember the "chiffon de papier"?)
>>1003635
>the first of many
You are actually retarded, aren't you?
>>1003749
Because America didn't want to be seen as independent England in its early years
>>1003807
No he is too obsessed
>>1003717
>People really do overstate America's culture.
It's still a culture, and it's much harder to tell the difference due to the influence it has had in the anglo world (and to a lesser extent the whole world) in the past 50 years. Brits need to stop taking so much damn credit for English being the lingua franca.
>The british empire singlehandedly and forcefully abolished the slave trade.
This part is true, and it was started by the Spanish/Portuguese.
>>1002913
>Why does no one mention the British Empire?
What the fuck are you going on about
>>1003576
Don't mind me. Just posting best Hitchens
>>1002913
Give me a good reason why people should talk about ut, in what way would having a conversation about something everyone knows about fulfill my life
>>1003703
That's because Richtugal is exactly as guilty of conquering lots of colonies but almost no European possessions as the Brits are.
>>1003159
>That allowed Britain to become the sole superpower of the world for over a century.
I don't think you understand what "sole" or "superpower" mean
>>1002952
>being this buttmad
Ain't even anglo and this is hilarious
>>1002913
When Brits talk about "Pax Britannica" I always burst into laughter. How deluded the Brits actually are to compare their empire with Rome ?
>>1003493
The definition of super power doesn't necessarily mean omnipotence.
The US couldn't hold on to Vietnam and was completely routed in North Korea. But no one with sentience denies they are a super power.
Britain was completely untouchable for Germany. They fought around the world and were eventually gained complete victory in all theatres. Germany gave everything it had and came up wanting and starving. The British ended the war with food in their bellies and a still thriving industry.
And this was at the Empires' weakest state, by comparison with other countries, for a century. If the war had started a decade earlier the German coast would have been ravaged daily and it wouldn't have lasted two years.
>>1006923
And the UK mostly won because it had France and Russia as its allies. Let's face it, today no armies in the world could beat the USA. On the contrary, the british army was weak by european standards. The UK could never have defeated Germany alone. More than that, its empire was only loosely controlled. The indian rebellion of 1857 proved it. British relied heavily on the natives. Let's face it, the British empire was weak, the Japanese proved it when they easily conquered the britishn colonies in east asia.
Britain drained its colonies of resources, food and wealth to protect Britain. India held up against the Japanese, the Chinese, Singaporeans etc were never loyal. It was India which was the base of operations for British Empire, for the Pacific especially. India entered multiple famines and operated in theaters across the Middle East and Asia. Britain for the most still has a lot of power and influence over the world and that largely rests with Queen Elizabeth who is the last connection to the Empire. The Commonwealth, the intelligence alliances are all powerful control mechanisms which keep people from fucking with Britain.
>>1006958
The US is literally scared shit less of fucking Persia but it's still a super power.
You're drifting into world war 2 here which is a completely different can of worms. Britain wasn't weak in WW1. On the contrary they gained a glorious victory. The British army started the war as a small professional force dedicated to colonial skirmishes, because they didn't need a big standing army like Germany. They ended it with the most effective offensive force in the world - the Germans literally couldn't do anything to stop them.
What I'm saying is that the British empire as a bloc was individually the most powerful in the world. It's purpose want blitzkrieging France, like the very survival of Germany depended on, so it by nature wasnt good at that. But they held mastery over every ocean, fought successful wars all over the Old world, all during the greatest war in human history, during which time invasion of their homeland was never even on the table.
In a rapidly changing world the British Isles themselves were essentially untouched through two general European wars, and gained complete victory in both (the second by partnership with the yanks - I won't deny that the interwar period killed the empire). If that doesn't make them a super power at least until that point (~1920) then I don't believe there has ever been one.
>>1006958
I should add that the white dominions except south Africa were completely pro-British and that the very idea of Indian independence was another twenty years away (the reforms after the Indian rebellion were actually very effective. I understand that many educated Indians of the era were rather pro-British and the uneducated Indians were still too dependant on field work for mere sustenance).
>>1002913
White guilt desu
Don't worry Americans, the demographic shift of your nation dooms you to failure. Just as with Europe.
>>1007100
We've always been full of blacks, though.
Of course, blacks are way better than Muzzies, but they'll hopefully criticize the Muslims for us without fear of being called racist and having their lives ruined.
>>1008385
>We've always been full of blacks, though.
No, you've only recently been FULL of blacks, and spics.
Until recently they were a minority.
>>1002913
>Why does no one mention the British Empire?
Are you fucking blind and deaf?
>>1008422
Not that guy but
>No, you've only recently been FULL of blacks, and spics.
Spic yes, but not blacks. Blacks used to constitute a bigger percentage of American population than they do now.
In 1850 the US was 15.7% black. Now it's 12.6% black.
>>1008385
>blacks are way better than Muzzies
Not necessarily. It depends on the country.
>>1008699
Moreover it's not like blacks and muslims are mutually exclusive cathegories. Many blacks are in fact muslim.
>>1008854
I would much rather muslims over any kind of black. At least in my country they integrate and obey the law.
>>1002913
>Why does no one mention the British Empire?
Way to beg the question. People talk about it plenty.
>>1002913
The British Empire was in no way comparable to the 2 superpowers of the 20th century, USA and USSR.
The latter 2 demonstrated an unprecedented level of global hegemony, where no Great power could hope of challenging them. They had (and still have) the potential to destroy the entirety of human civilization.
Britain never came close to this. It could not throw it's weight around other great powers without forming coalitions. The fact that they weren't able to diffuse WW1 demonstrates that they in no way dominated the other Great powers.
They weren't a superpower.
Because /his/ is full of anglophobes who think people like napoleon were good boys who dindu nuffin
>>1008944
This is a French controlled board
Deal with it, Eternal Anglo
Waterloo never happened in this dimension
>>1008967
waterloo was all the jews fault and if it wasnt prussia did everything
>ITT: people think that Britain reached its peak (relative to other powers) near the beginning of the 20th century, and make judgements off that.
t. Frenchman who loves Napoleon
>>1009352
The British Empire did peak in early 20th century though
Now if you're talking about the moment it had the most power compared the the rest of Europe (and therefore of the world), it must be somewhere between 1850 (the moment the British Empire started to reach a decent size) and 1871 (German unification)
>>1002913
I have no respect for anglos and I think Brits are not only the most despicable, but also by far the ugliest motherfuckers on this planet, but still I have to admit that the British empire probably was one of, if not the, most powerful empire of all times at its height.
>>1009558
>I have to admit that the British empire probably was one of, if not the, most powerful empire of all times at its height.
Well, you clearly have no clue
The British Empire was very large, but it was far, far from an hegemon
Current USA, the USSR, Napoleon's empire and Rome are all leagues above it when it comes to sheer power compared to other countries of their era
Literally did this at uni
WW2 made UK broke, which
a) Made the UK subject to the whims of its creditor, the USA, who slying wanted the British empire out the picture, so adopted an anti-imperialist view to force the UK to dismantle its empire
b) The UK coulnd't afford to police it's empire, and the failed "second recolonisation" to make the empire pay for the war massively failed, hence the second wave in the 60s
c) the economic miracle of West Germany then de Gaulles stepping down made Europe more accommodating for British integration.
d) UK had to spend it's money on developing then purchasing Nukes off the USA in the context of the cold war, and to maintain a great power status
Thread over boys
Have a Stolypin
>>1006958
> the Japanese proved it when they easily conquered the britishn colonies in east asia.
could you post a little more about this? i am oblivious about these wars
>>1009653
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore
JUST
>>1009578
you define power in a very simplistic way, then.
what about power of representation?
power of influence, say culturally?
general relevance, internationality, trade?
sure, >sheer power (military power) they're pretty embarrassing for their size.
anyway, the best empire was neither the roman nor napoleon's one, it was suleiman's closely followed by alexander. maybe achemenid persia.
>>1009673
>Best empire
>Not the American Empire
>>1002913
This is fucking post is the /his/ equivalent of a girl fishing for compliments by saying she's fat.
>My empire's so dead, /his/!
>Nobody talks about it anymore!
>please tell me how great it was!
You have a right to be proud, but please don't do it in such a petty way.
>>1009667
that might be the single biggest instance of JUST... in the history of GB
can we just turn this pile of shit into another "embarrassing wars" thread? I love those
>>1009667
>strenght: 85k
>5k dead 80k captured
>>1009688
>Britain definitly didnt have this one at its height
it definitely did. those posts are pretty laughable.
look at the huge british influence in SEA, India, Egypt.. it is absolutely undeniable.
>>1009710
>SEA, India, Egypt
Yeah, you forgot to add Zimbabwe, Sudan....etc
It's the influence over the civilized world that counts (Europe, NEA...)
Fact is that English language wasnt the lingua franca outside of the shitholes ruled by the British Empire until America made it replace French after WW2
>>1009740
>Yeah, you forgot to add Zimbabwe, Sudan....etc
I did not, I just think the influence was most significant in Egypt and India
>It's the influence over the civilized world that counts (Europe, NEA...)
you're not worth talking to.
>>1003717
> People really do overstate America's culture; it's shit and not as pervasive as Americans like to think it is.
you're delusional m8. At least here in Lelgium we end up sucking freedomculture cock
>>1009667
It's even more depressing when you realize a British force well over double the besieging force held out for seven days, while the Hong Kong garrison (half of which was Canadian and Indian) outnumbered over three to one in one of the least defensible locations on earth held out over twice that time.
The Malayan campaign was one huge disaster, really.
>British Losses
>138,708
>7,500 killed
>130,000 captured[6]
>Japanese Losses
>5,171
>1,793 killed
>>1009667
>>1009764
The worst part is when you realize that the Vichy French (Axis vassal state) 3,000 strong garrison in Indichina inflicted nearly as many casualties to the japs as the 85,000 British troops in Singapore
>>1009795
Fucking Britain.
>>1002932
History teaching in Britain is so shit, it makes me sick how little I learned about. GCSE history that i learned literally had one fucking section on Britain and all it was was young people, women and immigrants from 1945-1970. What a fucking waste of time, thank god I have been able to do my own research .
>>1003290
Britain didn't invest in a continental sized army because it simply didn't need one to pursue its interests. Britain's global power projection was utterly unmatched in this period.
