The Us And The Destruction Of The British Empire

[bojan]

...

Excuse me, do you have a reputable source for that?

 

It was not terribly common, but was not uncommon either. It was however mostly practiced by the "converted*" families that failed to raise in status during the hard years - kids would be formally declared as of their unconverted relatives.

*Just as in Austria and Hungary where conversion to Catholicism was popular and "encouraged", conversion to Islam was done by Turks the same way, by offering economical benefits and with pressure (higher taxes) on non-converted.

[sunday]

Thanks, Bojan. History of the Balkans in the 17th-18th century must be another of those very interesting fields of study.

Edited August 2, 2019 by sunday

[Yama]

Excuse me, do you have a reputable source for that?

What, isn't my word good enough? I'm the only honest Scorpion!

 

Devshirme began as form of slavery to get soldiers indoctrinated to loyalty towards Sultan, but as often happens, elite 'palace guard' ended up ruling the Empire (see Mamelukes, Strelts, Pretorians, KGB...). Pretty soon Turks and other Muslims began to notice how the 'slaves' were getting all the cushy and influental jobs, and began to insert themselves or their offspring into system.

 

[MiloMorai]

Well, the parts of Quebec that were English speaking or had industries controled by English speakers were the most developed parts of the country.

 

And the other part, the French speakers, were controlled by the RCC. That began changing after WW2 as did the increase in the separatist movement.

[bojan]

Thanks, Bojan. History of the Balkans in the 17th-18th century must be another of those very interesting fields of study.

 

And none would touch it with a 10 feet pole, cause it together with haplogroup work it would send a lot of sacred cows to a slaughterhouse.

Edited August 2, 2019 by bojan

[sunday]

 

Thanks, Bojan. History of the Balkans in the 17th-18th century must be another of those very interesting fields of study.

 

And none would touch it with a 10 feet pole, cause it together with haplogroup work it would send a lot of sacred cows to a slaughterhouse.

 

 

Probably, and there are curious things, like modern Croatia being part of Hungary, the whole social structure of Transylvania (not in the Balkans, but close), etc.

[bd1]

´´nobody is the villain in their own story´´

 

harry turtledove GRRM

Edited August 2, 2019 by bd1

[Murph]

Would the Empire have survived if there had been no WWI? I think not Gandhi would still have done his best to get the British out of India.

[sunday]

Would the Empire have survived if there had been no WWI? I think not Gandhi would still have done his best to get the British out of India.

 

Seems so.

 

https://africasacountry.com/2011/04/gandhi-in-south-africa

[Stuart Galbraith]

Would the Empire have survived if there had been no WWI? I think not Gandhi would still have done his best to get the British out of India.

 

The better question to ask is, would he have been set on getting India out of the Empire, if we hadnt opened fire at Amritsar. Im led to believe he previously wanted Dominion status (he did his law training in London after all, so he was an Anglophile up to a point). When we shot those innocents at Amritsar, it changed his mind that only independence would do.

 

It might be fair to suggest it was WW1 that killed the British Empire. WW2 was just the final nail in a coffin that was already built. But thats true of pretty much all the Empires that engaged in WW1 I guess.

[Adam_S]

What always shocks me was that rationing in the UK lasted till the 1950's, and I have never been able to get a good grasp on why it was so bad that rationing had to go on that long? Was it a Socialist thing, or was the country just that wrecked?

 

Sorry to drag this up from a couple of weeks ago, but I only just got round to reading this thread.

 

The basic problem is that food imports have to be paid for with something and Britain was desperately short of foreign currency. The way the Empire was supposed to work economically was that the colonies were supposed to ship raw materials to Britain which would use them to produce manufactured goods which would then be sold back to the colonies again. The whole thing was protected by a system of tariffs called Imperial Preference which made goods from outside the Empire much more expensive.

 

The British government after the war was faced with several different, and somewhat contradictory requirements. In no particular order these included:

 

Rebuild the country's infrastructure and economy

Keep the empire together

Maintain large armed forces to accomplish the previous point

Divert money into social programs such as the NHS

Develop a nuclear weapons program and modernise the armed forces for what would eventually become the Cold War

 

All of these required money but the country was completely skint. We'd sold off everything of value to fund the war effort and were massively in debt to the Americans to boot. A condition for ongoing American financial support was that Imperial Preference be abolished and the Empire opened up to the (now US controlled) free market. Britain needed to earn foreign exchange to finance everything but with the abolition of Imperial Preference, British goods now had to compete on the open market with those from America and were largely unable to do so.

 

With all this going on there was little money available to pay for imports of food and, for that matter, fuel so rationing persisted, in some form at least, up until 1954.

[Adam_S]

Japanese fire balloons were more effective than the allies let on, the Spanish consulate in Vancouver was a known agent and he was leaked information that the balloon were not effective and press stories were also suppressed. That information made the Japanese abandon an effective offensive measure which actually had minimal costs.

 

They actually managed to shut down plutonium production in the USA for a couple of days, so they were perhaps more successful than they were given credit for.

 

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/japanese-balloon-bombs-fu-go

[Stuart Galbraith]

They also started a few forest fires, though none very severe, and none ascribed to the Japanese.

[Murph]

 

Would the Empire have survived if there had been no WWI? I think not Gandhi would still have done his best to get the British out of India.

 

The better question to ask is, would he have been set on getting India out of the Empire, if we hadnt opened fire at Amritsar. Im led to believe he previously wanted Dominion status (he did his law training in London after all, so he was an Anglophile up to a point). When we shot those innocents at Amritsar, it changed his mind that only independence would do.

 

It might be fair to suggest it was WW1 that killed the British Empire. WW2 was just the final nail in a coffin that was already built. But thats true of pretty much all the Empires that engaged in WW1 I guess.

 

Very good point, and one I have often considered as where the Empire fell. A good part of me wishes that the UK had remained out of WWI and let the Germans, French and Russians fight it out. Then the US would not have gotten involved either.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I know, a lot of Conservatives wish that too. But it was unavoidable as soon as the Germans put foot in Belgium. We would have had the German HSF across the channel from us at Dover, which was completely unacceptable. After all, this was a generation raised on 'Riddle of the Sands' and 'The Battle of Dorking'. Like American's, it was imperative we fought our wars abroad.

 

I know we had a treaty with France over mutual defence, but it was far from certain another Government would honor it. It the attack on Belgium that swung it, and act of such colossal stupidity, you almost wonder if the German Empire wanted to fight the British one.

[RETAC21]

I know, a lot of Conservatives wish that too. But it was unavoidable as soon as the Germans put foot in Belgium. We would have had the German HSF across the channel from us at Dover, which was completely unacceptable. After all, this was a generation raised on 'Riddle of the Sands' and 'The Battle of Dorking'. Like American's, it was imperative we fought our wars abroad.

 

I know we had a treaty with France over mutual defence, but it was far from certain another Government would honor it. It the attack on Belgium that swung it, and act of such colossal stupidity, you almost wonder if the German Empire wanted to fight the British one.

 

Having the German fleet in the Channel wouldn't alter the strategic equation. The problem was the same Napoleonic France had, you can't get to the Birtish isles without the Royal Navy appearing at some moment and cutting your lines of communication. In Napoleonic times armies could live off the land, in 1914 that wasn't feasible anymore.

 

The best result of WW1 would have been a German victory in 1914 if you think about it.

[Adam_S]

 

 

Would the Empire have survived if there had been no WWI? I think not Gandhi would still have done his best to get the British out of India.

 

The better question to ask is, would he have been set on getting India out of the Empire, if we hadnt opened fire at Amritsar. Im led to believe he previously wanted Dominion status (he did his law training in London after all, so he was an Anglophile up to a point). When we shot those innocents at Amritsar, it changed his mind that only independence would do.

 

It might be fair to suggest it was WW1 that killed the British Empire. WW2 was just the final nail in a coffin that was already built. But thats true of pretty much all the Empires that engaged in WW1 I guess.

 

Very good point, and one I have often considered as where the Empire fell. A good part of me wishes that the UK had remained out of WWI and let the Germans, French and Russians fight it out. Then the US would not have gotten involved either.

 

 

When it comes to foreign policy, Britain's biggest fear going back probably to sometime before the Spanish Armada was seeing Europe dominated by a single power which, having brought all of continental Europe under its sway would be free to concentrate on building up its navy to a point that it would be able to force a crossing of the English Channel. A secondary fear for a nation dependent on trade was a Europe completely closed to British goods and a slow economic death spiral.

 

While Britain never possessed an army big enough to fight alone on the continent, it could hope to tip the balance of power against the dominant nation in Europe by allying itself with that nation's enemies. Britain's small army, judiciously committed to support an ally, could hope to make a decisive contribution out of proportion to its relatively small numbers. Britain could also use its naval strength to carry out raids and snap up colonial possessions overseas and could also contribute considerable financial support to help sustain the fight. Thus Britain successively allied itself with the Dutch against the Spanish then the French, the Germans against the French and the French against the Germans based on a judgement of who represented the greatest threat at any particular point in time.

[bd1]

so, now with the russia against EU?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I know, a lot of Conservatives wish that too. But it was unavoidable as soon as the Germans put foot in Belgium. We would have had the German HSF across the channel from us at Dover, which was completely unacceptable. After all, this was a generation raised on 'Riddle of the Sands' and 'The Battle of Dorking'. Like American's, it was imperative we fought our wars abroad.

 

I know we had a treaty with France over mutual defence, but it was far from certain another Government would honor it. It the attack on Belgium that swung it, and act of such colossal stupidity, you almost wonder if the German Empire wanted to fight the British one.

 

Having the German fleet in the Channel wouldn't alter the strategic equation. The problem was the same Napoleonic France had, you can't get to the Birtish isles without the Royal Navy appearing at some moment and cutting your lines of communication. In Napoleonic times armies could live off the land, in 1914 that wasn't feasible anymore.

 

The best result of WW1 would have been a German victory in 1914 if you think about it.

 

 

Different times though. That was in the age of sail when the wind direction and the relative difficulty of landing troops made it an all but impossible task. Even then the RN still kept a very large chunk of its fleet in home waters. In the age of steam, wind is nearly irrelevant. You would have had a German army camped in Belgium glowering at Britain, implying it could just take a hope across any time it like. Bearing in mind how weak the British Army was, it would have took maybe a few days of the High Seas Fleet holding the RN off, and London had fallen.

 

Think of the technical innovations in the 20 odd years before the first world war. Sea mines, Torpedo's, Torpedo Boats, Submarines. And Airpower wasnt sufficiently developed to tip the balance back towards the British.

 

I think the value of fiction is exaggerated, but Childers Claimed in a later foreword to 'Riddle of the Sands', that his nightmare scenario had made the RN invest in more facilities and warships at Chatham. Ive no reason to disbelieve him.

 

 

The best result of WW1 would have been Britain and France staying the hell out and allowing Germany to trounce Russia. The Tsar would have fallen, and its difficult to see the Communists getting control of Russia, because the Germans would have seen no need to allow Lenin back. Its probably the best possible outcome for Russia Ironically.

[Murph]

 

 

I know, a lot of Conservatives wish that too. But it was unavoidable as soon as the Germans put foot in Belgium. We would have had the German HSF across the channel from us at Dover, which was completely unacceptable. After all, this was a generation raised on 'Riddle of the Sands' and 'The Battle of Dorking'. Like American's, it was imperative we fought our wars abroad.

 

I know we had a treaty with France over mutual defence, but it was far from certain another Government would honor it. It the attack on Belgium that swung it, and act of such colossal stupidity, you almost wonder if the German Empire wanted to fight the British one.

 

Having the German fleet in the Channel wouldn't alter the strategic equation. The problem was the same Napoleonic France had, you can't get to the Birtish isles without the Royal Navy appearing at some moment and cutting your lines of communication. In Napoleonic times armies could live off the land, in 1914 that wasn't feasible anymore.

 

The best result of WW1 would have been a German victory in 1914 if you think about it.

 

 

Different times though. That was in the age of sail when the wind direction and the relative difficulty of landing troops made it an all but impossible task. Even then the RN still kept a very large chunk of its fleet in home waters. In the age of steam, wind is nearly irrelevant. You would have had a German army camped in Belgium glowering at Britain, implying it could just take a hope across any time it like. Bearing in mind how weak the British Army was, it would have took maybe a few days of the High Seas Fleet holding the RN off, and London had fallen.

 

Think of the technical innovations in the 20 odd years before the first world war. Sea mines, Torpedo's, Torpedo Boats, Submarines. And Airpower wasnt sufficiently developed to tip the balance back towards the British.

 

I think the value of fiction is exaggerated, but Childers Claimed in a later foreword to 'Riddle of the Sands', that his nightmare scenario had made the RN invest in more facilities and warships at Chatham. Ive no reason to disbelieve him.

 

 

The best result of WW1 would have been Britain and France staying the hell out and allowing Germany to trounce Russia. The Tsar would have fallen, and its difficult to see the Communists getting control of Russia, because the Germans would have seen no need to allow Lenin back. Its probably the best possible outcome for Russia Ironically.

 

Good point, although what would Germany have done with the Russian Royal family? Put another member on the throne as a puppet, or perhaps a minor German Prince as Tsar?

[R011]

If the Tsar fell in 1914, I would expect a republic - most likely a more or less social democrat one like the Kerensky regime. If the Germans aren't despatate enough to let Lenin return, the Bolsheviks might fade away.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

I know, a lot of Conservatives wish that too. But it was unavoidable as soon as the Germans put foot in Belgium. We would have had the German HSF across the channel from us at Dover, which was completely unacceptable. After all, this was a generation raised on 'Riddle of the Sands' and 'The Battle of Dorking'. Like American's, it was imperative we fought our wars abroad.

 

I know we had a treaty with France over mutual defence, but it was far from certain another Government would honor it. It the attack on Belgium that swung it, and act of such colossal stupidity, you almost wonder if the German Empire wanted to fight the British one.

 

Having the German fleet in the Channel wouldn't alter the strategic equation. The problem was the same Napoleonic France had, you can't get to the Birtish isles without the Royal Navy appearing at some moment and cutting your lines of communication. In Napoleonic times armies could live off the land, in 1914 that wasn't feasible anymore.

 

The best result of WW1 would have been a German victory in 1914 if you think about it.

 

 

Different times though. That was in the age of sail when the wind direction and the relative difficulty of landing troops made it an all but impossible task. Even then the RN still kept a very large chunk of its fleet in home waters. In the age of steam, wind is nearly irrelevant. You would have had a German army camped in Belgium glowering at Britain, implying it could just take a hope across any time it like. Bearing in mind how weak the British Army was, it would have took maybe a few days of the High Seas Fleet holding the RN off, and London had fallen.

 

Think of the technical innovations in the 20 odd years before the first world war. Sea mines, Torpedo's, Torpedo Boats, Submarines. And Airpower wasnt sufficiently developed to tip the balance back towards the British.

 

I think the value of fiction is exaggerated, but Childers Claimed in a later foreword to 'Riddle of the Sands', that his nightmare scenario had made the RN invest in more facilities and warships at Chatham. Ive no reason to disbelieve him.

 

 

The best result of WW1 would have been Britain and France staying the hell out and allowing Germany to trounce Russia. The Tsar would have fallen, and its difficult to see the Communists getting control of Russia, because the Germans would have seen no need to allow Lenin back. Its probably the best possible outcome for Russia Ironically.

 

Good point, although what would Germany have done with the Russian Royal family? Put another member on the throne as a puppet, or perhaps a minor German Prince as Tsar?

 

 

I seem to recall the Throne was actually offered to a cousin of the Tsar after he abdicated, he turned it down. Possibly he might have accepted if the circumstances had been different.

 

Or it could have been a Republic. If the war had been shorter, Kerensky may have had more options. Certainly I cant see the Bolsheviks being half as successful without Lenin being the lightning rod.

[Mikel2]

Speaking of a hypothetical German victory in the East in WWI - one that wouldn't be lost to the Western powers - How did the Germans treat the local occupied population in Ukraine? I have to assume that they must have been far more humane than their successors 25 years later. Did they do their "collective punishment for franc-tireur activity" shtick there too?

Edited August 12, 2019 by Mikel2

[Stuart Galbraith]

I seem to recall a German Ambassador or commissioner was assassinated by local insurgents, but I can remember maddeningly little else about it.

[bojan]

They stripped every last bit of grain to ship it to Germany that was starving.