Britain 1910 and US 2005

[Annie]

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/12853224.htm

Rule America?

Liberal elites ruined Britain as a hyperpower. The U.S. empire could meet the same fate.

By Jonathan V. Last

What does modern history have to teach us about the age of American empire? The final chapters of the British Empire offer lessons and parallels aplenty. Empires don't last forever, and the combination of martial victory, popular ennui, and liberal anti-patriotism is a dangerous mix for a superpower.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the British Empire was an unopposed hyperpower (much as the United States has been since 1989). As historian Colin Cross observes: "In terms of influence it was the only world power." The British people and their leaders accepted this fact. In the early 1930s, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin pronounced that "the British Empire stands firm, as a great force for good." Historian William Manchester argues that "most of the crown's subjects, abroad as well as at home, felt comfortable with imperialism."

But after the conclusion of the first World War, Britain's imperial psyche began to fracture. "After the survivors of the Western front came home," Manchester writes, "Britons wanted nothing more to do with war; most of them hoped never again to lay their eyes on an Englishman in uniform, and they were losing their taste for Empire." Winston Churchill despaired of this change. "The shadow of victory is disillusion," he noted. "The reaction from extreme effort is prostration. The aftermath even of successful war is long and bitter."

A deep desire to avoid conflict, even at the price of letting the Empire dissolve, permeated British society. In 1931, the House of Commons passed the Statute of Westminster, the first step toward independence for Britain's dominions. In 1932, a poll found that 10.4 million Britons supported England's unilateral disarmament, while only 870,000 opposed it. Historian Alistair Horne observes that, after World War I, it took just about 10 years for the "urge for national grandeur" to be replaced by "a deep longing simply to be left in peace."

Why did it all crumble? Several interrelated reasons - among them the grisly fact that England had lost virtually an entire generation of future leaders in the trenches of Europe. But another important cause was the waning of confidence on the part of liberal British elites, whose pacifism evolved into anti-patriotism.

In 1933, the Oxford Union - a debating society and one of the strongholds of liberal elite opinion - held a debate on the resolution "this House will in no circumstances fight for king and country." The resolution passed. Margot Asquith, one of England's leading liberal lights, wrote that same year, quite sincerely: "There is only one way of preserving peace in the world, and getting rid of your enemy, and that is to come to some sort of agreement with him. ... The greatest enemy of mankind today is hate."

Churchill disdained the new liberalism, mocking one of his opponents as part of "that band of degenerate international intellectuals who regard the greatness of Britain and the stability and prosperity of the British Empire as a fatal obstacle. ..." So deep was this liberal loathing of empire that even as the first shots of World War II were being fired, Churchill's private secretary, Jock Colville, witnessed at a theater "a group of bespectacled intellectuals" who, to his shock, "remain[ed] firmly seated while 'God Save the King' was played."

These elites could see evil only at home. The French intellectual Simone de Beauvoir did not believe that Germany was a "threat to peace," but instead worried that the "panic that the Right was spreading" would drag France, Britain, and the rest of Europe into war. Stafford Cripps, a liberal Labor member of Parliament, feared not Hitler, but Churchill. Cripps wrote that after Churchill became prime minister he would "then introduce fascist measures and there will be no more general elections."

In an important sense, the British Empire's strength failed because its elite liberal citizens stopped believing in it.

The parallels with 21st-century America are striking. In little more than 10 years, England went from victory in World War I to serious discussions about completely disarming herself. Talk of a "peace dividend" began with the fall of the Berlin Wall and culminated 10 years later with a major draw-down of forces and the abandonment of the two-war doctrine.

Where the Great War robbed England of a generation of its best and brightest, in America the baby boom generation was lost in Vietnam or, perhaps worse, in Canada, in the Air National Guard, and in the universities, where they learned to hide and not lead. This has taken its toll. Our two baby boom presidents have been exceedingly imperfect. (As Edmund Burke once cautioned, "A great empire and little minds go ill together.")

The American left, too, eerily echoes its British counterparts. Consider the "Peace is Patriotic" bumper stickers; the howls of protest against the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, for fear that he might be too assertive of American values; the comparison - by Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) - of American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis and Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet gulag; the protest cries of "No blood for oil" and the left-wing fringe speculation that the endgame of George W. Bush's 9/11 fear-mongering would be to cancel elections and establish a fascist police state.

The liberal opponents of the British Empire were proved wrong, but their misplaced disillusionment was enough to sap the vitality of imperial confidence. After rising one last time to fight Nazism, the sun set on the British Empire.

Likewise, it is pleasant to believe that the crisis of confidence in today's liberal elites won't affect the outcome of our war with Islamist extremism. The greater worry concerns what happens next. Will protestations of liberal elites become mainstream diffidence about America's place in the world? Will we, too, stop believing that America stands firm, as a great force for good - and then see our place in the world diminish?

History, it turns out, can be both a comfort and a caution.

 

[nosarcasm]

Its not liberalism that let them down, it was the enormous cost
of their empire, and the need to defend it.

Unlike suggested in the article most subjects of the British Empire
rejected colonialism. Since Gutenberg political agitation is easy
to produce, for some time the Western cannon boat and divide
and conquer methods prevailed but it was never a constructed as a solid
long term operations. They pretty much used their empire as a free
export place while exploiting the raw materials and playing the local
factions.

The US is positioned differently. Vietnam and Somalia make it clear that
there is some cost analysis going on. The Us also tolerates alot more
independence and created a series of allies like Japan and Korea.
In prinicipal democratic ideas are the same as in Europe , the closest
competitor. Number 3 on the horizon China trades hugely with
Japan, EU and the US.

I would assume that all of them prefer the status quo. There is
really no "Germany" top challenge the hegemony currently.

In the long run the US has to be worried about the deficits it is running.
The war in Iraq is just an example that the current hyperpower is
limited.

The war and occupation will probably cost around 1/2 a trillion $ before
its over. Operations like this should inflict fear into possible enemies mind.

Now we have to wait and see how long it takes before the next
intervention is necessary. If the other troublemakes obliege
to American interest for the next 20 years it was a good investment.
If more operations are necessary then it was a failure.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

You're forgetting that Britain's liberal labor party revitalized their industry and brought their lower classes out of poverty and provided medical care and education reform for all their citizens that brought them up to speed with the rest of the modern world. What ruined them was that their labor unions ran amock and caused their production expenses to go through the roof. And we mustn't forget the worldwide recession that hit during the seventies and eighties, which also worstened their conditions. Thatcherism and Reaganism were just what the doctor ordered during those times: fiscal conservatism. You can't blame English libs for the downfall of their empire. It's preposterous.

 

[archangel]

You're forgetting that Britain's liberal labor party revitalized their industry and brought their lower classes out of poverty and provided medical care and education reform for all their citizens that brought them up to speed with the rest of the modern world. What ruined them was that their labor unions ran amock and caused their production expenses to go through the roof. And we mustn't forget the worldwide recession that hit during the seventies and eighties, which also worstened their conditions. Thatcherism and Reaganism were just what the doctor ordered during those times: fiscal conservatism. You can't blame English libs for the downfall of their empire. It's preposterous.

Then why don't ya just move to England and experience the HIV medical benefits et al...good Lord ya are talking apples and oranges...to treat your so called perversion of medical benefits...when ya 'suck' ya must duck...or something like that...medical benefits in Britton are 'bust' for the most part...back to 'Health 101' for ya!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Then why don't ya just move to England and experience the HIV medical benefits et al...good Lord ya are talking apples and oranges...to treat your so called perversion of medical benefits...when ya 'suck' ya must duck...or something like that...medical benefits in Britton are 'bust' for the most part...back to 'Health 101' for ya!

Britain's healthcare system may be declining from what it once was when it was first set up, but the WHO still ranks Britain's healthcare system higher in overall patient value for the money than the US. The US is ranked 30th in the world in overall medical care. You smartass SOB. Keep dishing it out old man.

 

[archangel]

Britain's healthcare system may be declining from what it once was when it was first set up, but the WHO still ranks Britain's healthcare system higher in overall patient value for the money than the US. The US is ranked 30th in the world in overall medical care. You smartass SOB. Keep dishing it out old man.

now there is your clue...I have had a great and long life...still active and the youngn's still find me 'sexy' now where is it that you will be...save Brittons...health care program...ROTFLMAO!


side note...Hetro being the game.....geeeeez!...reality check here!

 

[fuzzykitten99]

The US is ranked 30th in the world in overall medical care.

You got a link to back that up? And a credible link, not some rag so full of shit I could fertilize my yard with.

30th huh? and who was first? Funny how the US is 30th (or so you say) yet people come from around the world for our revolutionary disease treatments and cures that we invented. While many countries whined and complained and panicked about HIV/AIDS, we DID something about it. Now getting the virus is no longer a death sentence. Where were the other countries in the aid in researching treatments for it? Hmmm...I will wait for a true, factual answer from you.

I live in MN, and I know for a fact that the Mayo Clinic alone has discovered more vaccines, cures, and breakthrough treatments for more illnesses than all other able countries combined. Many world leaders come here for cancer or other illness treatments.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I live in MN, and I know for a fact that the Mayo Clinic alone has discovered more vaccines, cures, and breakthrough treatments for more illnesses than all other able countries combined. Many world leaders come here for cancer or other illness treatments.

The WHO ratings have nothing to do with technological advances. They are based on what patients get for the money they put in. How much bang for the buck. I misspoke when I said the US was 30th. The 2000 world health report has us ranked 37th out of 191 countries.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

http://www.ufcw.org/worker_political_agenda/health_care/envyoftheworld.cfm

You got a link to back that up? And a credible link, not some rag so full of shit I could fertilize my yard with.

I assume this is some backhanded insult directed at me and the New York Times. I would take you seriously except for the fact that the NYT is the most prestigious and well put together newspaper in the country. Sorry it's not Michelle Malkin.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I would take you seriously except for the fact that the NYT is the most prestigious and well put together newspaper in the country.

Guess that's why all those watch dog organizations have sprung up to make sure that what the NYT prints is the truth. Name one other newspaper that has to have watch dog organizations to make sure its readers get the truth and not liberal propaganda. The NYT is just another liberal MSM outlet, and I, for one, am glad I do not have to depend upon it for my news. Unless you like the lies and slated news reporting, it is neither "prestigious" nor "well put together".

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You got a link to back that up? And a credible link, not some rag so full of shit I could fertilize my yard with.

30th huh? and who was first? Funny how the US is 30th (or so you say) yet people come from around the world for our revolutionary disease treatments and cures that we invented. While many countries whined and complained and panicked about HIV/AIDS, we DID something about it. Now getting the virus is no longer a death sentence. Where were the other countries in the aid in researching treatments for it? Hmmm...I will wait for a true, factual answer from you.

I live in MN, and I know for a fact that the Mayo Clinic alone has discovered more vaccines, cures, and breakthrough treatments for more illnesses than all other able countries combined. Many world leaders come here for cancer or other illness treatments.

Actually, Americans are starting to travel more and more overseas to other countries where the government hasn't stalled medical progress.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It was the Great War that began to unravel the British empire. It was expensive on a scale we can hardly comprehend; the taxes and inflation used to pay for it hobbled the empire, and they never really recovered after that. There wasn't much of a "roaring twenties" like there was in america; that's because they kept their high wartime taxes and economic controls for the most part, whereas ours were cut during the Coolidge administration. (see supply-side economist Jude Waninski's explanation in [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895263440/102-4805798-5666548?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance]"The Way the World Works"[/ame]).

Also, the author stupidly implies that WWII was caused by Britain's lack of military preparedness after WWI. No, it was caused by a vengeful peace agreement signed at the end of an avoidable war.

 

[manu1959]

It was the Great War that began to unravel the British empire. It was expensive on a scale we can hardly comprehend; the taxes and inflation used to pay for it hobbled the empire, and they never really recovered after that. There wasn't much of a "roaring twenties" like there was in america; that's because they kept their high wartime taxes and economic controls for the most part, whereas ours were cut during the Coolidge administration. (see supply-side economist Jude Waninski's explanation in "The Way the World Works").

Also, the author stupidly implies that WWII was caused by Britain's lack of military preparedness after WWI. No, it was caused by a vengeful peace agreement signed at the end of an avoidable war.

so germany, japan and italy have no responsibility in WWII? they were victims of a vengeful treaty? who started WWI?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

who started WWI?

World War I was started by an Eastern European extremist group called the "White Russians" (Bolshevics). They assassinated the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand who was in line to be the emperor of the Austrian Empire. After that, Germany took Austria's side for obvious reasons and the chips fell into place as countries took sides. The politics behind everything that happened are still playing out today in Eastern Europe.

 

[manu1959]

World War I was started by an Eastern European extremist group called the "White Russians" (Bolshevics). They assassinated the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand who was in line to be the emperor of the Austrian Empire. After that, Germany took Austria's side for obvious reasons and the chips fell into place as countries took sides. The politics behind everything that happened are still playing out today in Eastern Europe.

but we both knew that didn't we......so when germany becomes difficult again....you blame the treaty for WWII.....would the treaty exist but for WWI and the actions of the germans?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

but we both knew that didn't we......so when germany becomes difficult again....you blame the treaty for WWII.....would the treaty exist but for WWI and the actions of the germans?

Well, I didn't blame anybody, someone else did. But it's true that the first treaty of Versailles that was written after WWI was one of the contributing factors in starting WWII. The WWI treaty imposed huge sanctions and debts on Germany, which caused a recession in Germany that left many starving and out of work. That recession made German life terrible and created the perfect conditions for the rise of Hitler. After WWI, the Germans were so discontented that Hitler's message, as demented as it was, was like music to their ears.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

WWII could have theoretically been avoided had it not been for the first treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations. Some in the League, like Britain, did not want to punish Germany as severely as they eventually did. But France was insistent since they had recieved the brunt of the German attack and the US agreed. I think. Or maybe it was the Brits who agreed and the US who didn't want to severely punish. It's been a while since I studied British History.

 

[manu1959]

Well, I didn't blame anybody, someone else did. But it's true that the first treaty of Versailles that was written after WWI was one of the contributing factors in starting WWII. The WWI treaty imposed huge sanctions and debts on Germany, which caused a recession in Germany that left many starving and out of work. That recession made German life terrible and created the perfect conditions for the rise of Hitler. After WWI, the Germans were so discontented that Hitler's message, as demented as it was, was like music to their ears.

many say WWII was simply a continuation of WWI

but the germans are responsible for their actions in WWI if not for their action there would have been no treaty....so to blame the treaty is .... well you pick the word that makes you happy...

 

[Hagbard Celine]

but the germans are responsible for their actions in WWI if not for their action there would have been no treaty

Yeah, I agree. It's just that I guess you could technically list the treaty as the catalyst that ignited...No. The treaty is the fuel that...No. The treaty is the hand that poured the fuel (discontent) over Germany and Hitler was the catalyst that ignited that fuel, which led to the fires of the war. Nice analogy or what?

 

[manu1959]

Yeah, I agree. It's just that I guess you could technically list the treaty as the catalyst that ignited...No. The treaty is the fuel that...No. The treaty is the hand that poured the fuel (discontent) over Germany and Hitler was the catalyst that ignited that fuel, which led to the fires of the war. Nice analogy or what?

hitler could have chosen a different path and those that chose to follow him could have as well.....to blame the treaty is not to accept responsibilty for ones actions

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

WWII was a continuation of WWI but it didn't have to happen. The allies were in complete control and were able to dictate the exact terms they wanted; therefore I'd say that the lion's share of blame goes to the allies. To punish the people of a country with perpetual poverty because of the actions of their leaders--leader who have been defeated and ousted from power--is irresponsible. To expect that they will vote for tame, nonmilitant regimes is naive.

At any rate, you can't really point at 1930's Britain and say, "Ah ha! If they'd been real hardasses, Hitler could have been taken out early on!". When in fact you can look just a little further back and see that it was Britain's hardline Versailles treaty which was the foundation of Hitler's rise.