Was the fall of the British Empire inevitable?

[ray245]

The strained resources of the British Empire after the second world war and the rise of independence movement among its colonies is some of the few factors that brought down the British Empire.

So I was wondering if there was a way for the British could have avoided the fall of their Empire and what was the leading factor that lead to the collapse of the British Empire?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The British Government was heavily deep in debt that it had to pay to the US Government.

How does one maintain an empire when the Government was practically bankrupt?

[ray245]

The British Government was heavily deep in debt that it had to pay to the US Government.

How does one maintain an empire when the Government was practically bankrupt?

But wasn't the British already unable to maintain an economy strong enough to maintain an Empire before the world wars?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Racism was the leading factor in the collapse of the British Empire, because that meant it couldn't be integrated like past great Empires. An anglicized, British educated, British dressed Hindu man was still a wog, for the most part, and that was the ultimate downfall of the Empire simply because the Raj was more or less the heart and soul of the Empire and when they alienated its educated classes they could scarcely keep ruling it. Some sort of truncated British Empire could have perhaps been based around island and minor coastal territories creating a more prosperous and far-flung nation, especially if the Suez Canal was retained, but it would scarcely have more than a few millions in people more than what the UK does today. The decolonization of the mainland African states and India was more or less inevitable for decades prior to actually it taking place.

The true error of the British Empire though was increased autonomy for the Dominions. They should have been given representation in Parliament, instead, if they truly wanted to build a lasting Imperial structure, and thus at the very least bound the white dominions into London with rights and government based there.

[lord Martiya]

They should have been given representation in Parliament, instead, if they truly wanted to build a lasting Imperial structure, and thus at the very least bound the white dominions into London with rights and government based there.

OK... I know I'll probably get pounded by Thanas for this, but I have to ask: are you saying that the key for the Empire survival were the initial requests from a certain group of 13 colonies?

[Simon_Jester]

That isn't what she meant- she's talking about the Dominions established during the 19th and early 20th centuries: nations founded by European settlers that did not rise to prominence until after the American Revolution, and that had a shared history as part of the British Empire during its height. In particular Canada, Australia, and New Zealand come to mind. South Africa is a borderline case because of the Boer element.

Even so, I'm not sure the Dominions would have been interested in that option over the long term, Duchess. Maybe in the 1920s and '30s around the time of Westminster, but could that desire for unity have been maintained through and past World War Two?

South Africa's desire to stay in a unified London-based government would be limited by the same political forces that pushed for apartheid historically: the unregenerate Boers. For Australia and Canada the problem would be less severe, but in both cases, remaining in a united London-based government would mean being perpetually welded into support for London's policies, in a government that would realistically still be dominated by the British Isles (compare the population demographics, especially in the mid-twentieth century).

For Canada that wouldn't have been all that different from what happened historically, but for Australia it could have been bitterly frustrating to see their defense and foreign policy set by a government half way round the world. In effect you'd be committing Australia to joining NATO, which may help to illustrate just how perverse things could get.

[lance]

Could earlier development and long distance communication have helped with this?

[xt828]

On the note of defence and foreign policy for the Dominions, Simon_Jester, it's worth pointing out that while the Statute of Westminster was passed in Britain in 1931, Australia did not ratify it until 1942, though in the process they backdated it to 1939, while New Zealand didn't ratify until 1947. Australian Prime Minister Menzies' address to the nation on the outbreak of war in 1939 went along the lines of "the United Kingdom declared war, and as a result Australia is at war." I seem to recall reading that the main reason that the wartime Labor government ratified it during the war was so that they could have proper diplomatic relations with the Americans, who were seen as being more interested in the Pacific war and more likely to help us.

Postwar, we remained fairly strongly aligned with the UK, being involved in the Malayan Emergency and the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation, alongside Britain and New Zealand in both. It was the British with their East of Suez policy who gave up, and we jumped right into Vietnam alongside the Americans, again alongside the Kiwis.

[Simon_Jester]

Note that post-WWII, you see Australia jumping into "East of Suez" conflicts- where their interests mostly ran in parallel with those of the British. It's not so clear that the interests would run parallel in Europe, Africa, or even the Middle East. Still, though, your point is well taken.

(Note that I didn't mention New Zealand earlier, both because they are small and because as far as I can tell, they tend to align with Australia to the point where their behavior can be predicted by looking at Australia)

[thejester]

Postwar, we remained fairly strongly aligned with the UK, being involved in the Malayan Emergency and the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation, alongside Britain and New Zealand in both. It was the British with their East of Suez policy who gave up, and we jumped right into Vietnam alongside the Americans, again alongside the Kiwis.

Australian policy postwar was geared totally to the prevention of a repeat of 1942, and the various interventions in Malaya, Vietnam and to an extent Korea all reflect that. The effects of 150 years of national dependence were hard to reverse but keep in mind throughout the '40s the Australian government was trying hard to get the US to base significant forces at Manus in PNG; the fall of Singapore opened eyes as to the wisdom of depending on Britain (or indeed anyone) for our defence against the yellow peril external threats.

And in answer to the OP: no, not at all. If nothing else the whole economic structure of the Empire is bound to collapse at some point and that renders the UK disinterested and the Dominions/colonies looking elsewhere. From an Australian perspective the real death-knell of Empire wasn't the 'east of the Suez' policy or even the fall of Singapore but the British entry into the EEC in the '60s. Luckily for us a new export market opened up almost straight away (Japan) but it basically underlined the total failure of the Empire - no market and no security to protect that market.

[ray245]

Racism was the leading factor in the collapse of the British Empire, because that meant it couldn't be integrated like past great Empires. An anglicized, British educated, British dressed Hindu man was still a wog, for the most part, and that was the ultimate downfall of the Empire simply because the Raj was more or less the heart and soul of the Empire and when they alienated its educated classes they could scarcely keep ruling it. Some sort of truncated British Empire could have perhaps been based around island and minor coastal territories creating a more prosperous and far-flung nation, especially if the Suez Canal was retained, but it would scarcely have more than a few millions in people more than what the UK does today. The decolonization of the mainland African states and India was more or less inevitable for decades prior to actually it taking place.

The true error of the British Empire though was increased autonomy for the Dominions. They should have been given representation in Parliament, instead, if they truly wanted to build a lasting Imperial structure, and thus at the very least bound the white dominions into London with rights and government based there.

Was there any reason for the British to avoid implementing measures to further intergrate the Dominions into their Empire?

[NRS Guardian]

I think part of the reason was a fear of a repeat of the American Revolution, which was precipitated by British efforts to further centralize and integrate the 13 colonies. So Britain policy for its Dominions was to avoid a repeat by offering home rule, which is what the 13 Colonies basically wanted. Though if Britain had offered Parliamentary representation similar to that enjoyed by Scotland, that might have been acceptable to the 13.

[StarshipTitanic]

The true error of the British Empire though was increased autonomy for the Dominions. They should have been given representation in Parliament, instead, if they truly wanted to build a lasting Imperial structure, and thus at the very least bound the white dominions into London with rights and government based there.

We are delving deeper into hypotheticals here, but I'm skeptical of the idea that direct rule from London would cement a lasting structure between all the far-flung white outposts given that direct rule couldn't stop Irish Home Rule or devolution in Scotland and Wales.

On a slight tangent, I'm fascinated by how the Irish basically threw away their political advantages in the UK Parliament because of nationalism. They were massively overrepresented and they could squeeze minority Liberal governments for concessions.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think the Irish wanted those political advantages. They didn't really have any desire to be part of Britain's defensive umbrella, and being part of the British economic sphere was only in their interests if they could trust the British economy not to harm them- which they (with reason) thought they couldn't; the Potato Famine was still within living memory as the agitation for Home Rule peaked in the early 20th century.

[montypython]

I don't think the Irish wanted those political advantages. They didn't really have any desire to be part of Britain's defensive umbrella, and being part of the British economic sphere was only in their interests if they could trust the British economy not to harm them- which they (with reason) thought they couldn't; the Potato Famine was still within living memory as the agitation for Home Rule peaked in the early 20th century.

It's a bit more complicated than that; had Catholic Emancipation been followed by greater economic development in Ireland the way Scotland had been, much of the nationalist resent would never have occurred at all. Stuff like the Corn Laws to protect English farmers and landowners and the policy negligence exacerbating the effects of the Potato Famine, on top of failing to properly promote the monarchy in Ireland (like setting up a Royal Residence in Ireland) didn't help matters either.

[PainRack]

Was it possible to even reverse the trend of increasing costs of maintaining and defending the Empire, even as the world war showed how committing the entire resources of the Empire could not keep her whole?
Similarly, the profits from Empire was supposedly going to become more marginal and Europe would become a more central trade partner. Malaya and India at the time suffered from economic depression due to war damage and a global downturn in the economy.

[ray245]

Was it possible to even reverse the trend of increasing costs of maintaining and defending the Empire, even as the world war showed how committing the entire resources of the Empire could not keep her whole?
Similarly, the profits from Empire was supposedly going to become more marginal and Europe would become a more central trade partner. Malaya and India at the time suffered from economic depression due to war damage and a global downturn in the economy.

Was the resources even that great to begin with? Wasn't the strength of a nation or Empire's economy largely determined by the industrial might of a nation by the end of the 19th century? There's no point holding on to so much land and having access to so much raw resources if most of your Empire isn't industrialised.

I have to wonder how much stronger the British Empire would be if they started to industrialised their colonies. That would have certainly increased their war making potential.

An industrialised India would have make a huge difference in the war against Japan.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think the Irish wanted those political advantages. They didn't really have any desire to be part of Britain's defensive umbrella, and being part of the British economic sphere was only in their interests if they could trust the British economy not to harm them- which they (with reason) thought they couldn't; the Potato Famine was still within living memory as the agitation for Home Rule peaked in the early 20th century.

It's a bit more complicated than that; had Catholic Emancipation been followed by greater economic development in Ireland the way Scotland had been, much of the nationalist resent would never have occurred at all. Stuff like the Corn Laws to protect English farmers and landowners and the policy negligence exacerbating the effects of the Potato Famine, on top of failing to properly promote the monarchy in Ireland (like setting up a Royal Residence in Ireland) didn't help matters either.

Thing is, that fulls under what I said above. The Irish did not trust the British economic and political establishment to rule Ireland in their interests, even if they were given substantial influence over those establishments. They made a (not unreasonable) decision to push for 100% control over their own system rather than, say, 20% or 30% control over the British system, figuring that the former would give them a better chance of achieving their own interests.

I'd say it seems to have worked out fairly well. Ireland might have been better off as a British province, but it hasn't suffered horribly from decolonization the way that, say, Zimbabwe did. There are troubles, especially in the northern part of the island which never did decolonize (not to say it should; I do NOT want to weigh in on that), but by and large Ireland is doing about as well as could be expected given their status as an agrarian society full of subsistance farmers back in the Victorian and Edwardian era.

[montypython]

I don't think the Irish wanted those political advantages. They didn't really have any desire to be part of Britain's defensive umbrella, and being part of the British economic sphere was only in their interests if they could trust the British economy not to harm them- which they (with reason) thought they couldn't; the Potato Famine was still within living memory as the agitation for Home Rule peaked in the early 20th century.

It's a bit more complicated than that; had Catholic Emancipation been followed by greater economic development in Ireland the way Scotland had been, much of the nationalist resent would never have occurred at all. Stuff like the Corn Laws to protect English farmers and landowners and the policy negligence exacerbating the effects of the Potato Famine, on top of failing to properly promote the monarchy in Ireland (like setting up a Royal Residence in Ireland) didn't help matters either.

Thing is, that fulls under what I said above. The Irish did not trust the British economic and political establishment to rule Ireland in their interests, even if they were given substantial influence over those establishments. They made a (not unreasonable) decision to push for 100% control over their own system rather than, say, 20% or 30% control over the British system, figuring that the former would give them a better chance of achieving their own interests.

I'd say it seems to have worked out fairly well. Ireland might have been better off as a British province, but it hasn't suffered horribly from decolonization the way that, say, Zimbabwe did. There are troubles, especially in the northern part of the island which never did decolonize (not to say it should; I do NOT want to weigh in on that), but by and large Ireland is doing about as well as could be expected given their status as an agrarian society full of subsistance farmers back in the Victorian and Edwardian era.

The thing is that even the Irish themselves had pointed out that if the British system really had treated them as full equals there wouldn't have been all the bad blood and mistrust developing that led to the whole home rule and republican issue, especially since Ireland was supposed to be a constituent kingdom in the UK rather than a colony like the 13 colonies, Canada or Australia for that matter. That's why it really is more complicated than meets the eye, of which if the British had done better there wouldn't have developed a sense of separate interest to begin with.

[Sea Skimmer]

Was it possible to even reverse the trend of increasing costs of maintaining and defending the Empire, even as the world war showed how committing the entire resources of the Empire could not keep her whole?

No way. The British Empire was formed at a time when basically nothing but sea power was required to defend and control it, and the only British colony that needed a large land army to defend it by the mid 19th century, India, could provide a lot of local troops. That is a major factor in why India demanded and got independence so quickly too. Once you reached WW1 you've got air power and much higher paces of warfare kicking in, nothing can change this, and the halt of new heavy naval construction meant that by the time of the Washington Treaty the RN was no longer absurdly on top of the world either. The need for air power alone was going to ensure defensive costs went up enormously, and the population of colonies rose steadily which meant more and more scope for ground troops and more value in a colony to defend. Then after WW2 the pace of war was going to be so quick that mobilization didn’t mean what it used too. You had to plan to fight with what you had not, what you could build or call from all across the Empire given some time. That was crippling. A place like Kenya could provide some regiments given time, but if a Soviet cruiser decided to nuke Mombassa things are not so good.

Nothing could reverse the trend except to shed colonies or else develop them to the point that they could pay to defend themselves. The former happened; the latter happened some places but typically would lead to colonies becoming independent anyway. Of course plenty of former British colonies today basically have no military anyway. But they also simply aren't worth attacking by anyone since they are no longer a way of weakening the British.

[HMS Conqueror]

I don't think the fall of the British Empire had anything much to do with the wars. It may have sped things up a little, but that's all. Rather, the Empire ceased to provide any economic value, while the costs of maintenance increased enormously.

Australia, Canada, NZ and to an extent South Africa, being essentially Britons living abroad, with all the British institutions, had value, and they could conceivably have been welded into a single nation that would still be a great power today. There never was any effort to do this, however, and separation began in the 1800s already.

Africa was mostly worthless, expending British resources for little benefit. For the most part, it was colonised to abolish slavery, or else by private mining expeditions, with the exception of the sea lanes at the extreme ends, Suez and the Cape.

India had once been extremely rich, but after the Mutiny Britain ceased to reform its feudalist institutions, and economically it stagnated until the 1980s. By the 30s and 40s it wasn't even paying for its own defence.

All the evidence I've seen indicates the Empire was a net cost to Britain. Sometimes a wartime necessity, but for the most part not even that. The decolonisation reflected the fact that Britain itself was no longer relatively powerful enough to hold it. Other countries had industrialised to the same extent, and they now had equal or larger populations. The empire was an expensive luxury that Britain could no longer afford, nor morally defend.

[irishmick79]

To answer the question, yes, the fall of the empire I think was inevitable. In fact, Piers Brendon in The Decline and Fall of the British Empire argues that the wheels of collapse began turning when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. He argues that, rather than confront the inherent political, social and economic contradictions within the British empire that helped to trigger the American revolution in the first place, the British embraced their role as an imperialist power to the hilt. Ultimately, the increase in imperial power only delayed the inevitable settlement of disuptes over the the role of colonizer vs. the colonized and what that meant for the british notions of individual freedom and liberty which had been brewing virtually since the founding of the empire.

Ultimately that's why we got dominions and why former colonies pushed for indpeendence. When it came time to settle the questions of sovereignty and rights of minorities, the british simply couldn't pay a fair price for continued alleigance to the crown.

[lucretiabrutus]

I would suggest reading Lawrence James' The Rise and Fall of the British Empire and Bernard Porter's The Lion's Share. The former is a very interesting read and I would highly recommend it (helped me with a few history essays), while the latter was the recommended text for British Colonial History at my university (ANU).

My opinion on the 'inevitability' of the fall is that the word in itself is too restrictive. No, if the perfect sequence of decisions and events occurred, the British Empire would have lived, but one could easily say that of the Roman Empire too. Looking back at history, though, it would have been exceptionally difficult to salvage.

I had written up more, but decided to delete it. It's best that you form your opinions on your own from reading as much as you can.

[Starglider]

What if the UK never signed the Entente Cordiale and thus was not required to spend massive manpower and industrial resources defending France (i.e. remained neutral in the Great War, with the possible exception of US-style supplying arms and piling in at the end)? Would this have resulted in German victory, or would France/Russia have found other allies sufficient to win or at least stalemate the alliance powers? The UK would have been much better off economically and demographically, although the lack of combat experience might have retarded military development?

[Sea Skimmer]

If the British don’t enter the war then Italy probably never would either, and victory for the central powers would be more or less assured. They might have managed to win the real war as it was. The Germans would have demanded a lot of colonies from France as reparations had they won, and that would be absurdly unacceptable to the British. British would have been forced to war to prevent a handover around 1916 whenever the French collapse. Otherwise the Germans would keep building up a fleet and now have positions which could not be blockaded to base it from to cut England off from India and the Empire. This is all why Britain happily leapt into war in 1914 in the first place. The outcome of a war in central Europe was going to have enormous international repercussions. German colonies falling to the French was going to be okay but not the other way around. Germany could build a world class fleet and was doing so.