How did America take power from Britain?

[rupol2000]

Britain at the time of ww2 was the largest and most powerful empire. Immediately after the war, the United States began to dominate, and Britain soon collapsed altogether. How did US manage to do this? Why has the world power changed?

 

[rightwinger]

We were more powerful economically by the late 1800s because of our rapid Industrialization and natural resources

We ignored our Navy and Army until WWII and then became a Super Power

 

[harmonica]

??????!!!!!!!!
1. the US was rich in resources--Britain not
a. US war making potential in 1937 [ before we upped it ] was FOUR times UK
--our manufacturing was MASSIVE--about the same as UK, Germany and Russia COMBINED- in 1937
2. US has a much greater population

Grim Economic Realities

 

[rupol2000]

Britain not

We were more powerful

Stop talking nonsense, Britain only officially owned a third of the world.
The pound was the world's reserve currency, and the US itself was in a semi-colonial position

 

[occupied]

Empires are expensive to run and eventually collapse because people do not want to live in a colony. America invented colonizing the economy of another nation rather than trying to rule the people.

 

[rightwinger]

Stop talking nonsense, Britain only officially owned a third of the world.
The pound was the world's reserve currency, and the US itself was in a semi-colonial position

Your map is from the late 1700s
By the late 1800s, The US had surpassed them economically

Britains colonial empire was unsustainable after WWII

 

[harmonica]

Stop talking nonsense, Britain only officially owned a third of the world.
The pound was the world's reserve currency, and the US itself was in a semi-colonial position

stop babbling crap.....you must be BLIND not to see the difference
and they are overextended--wars/occupation cost mucho $$$$$$
jesus christ----plain and simple -the UK did not have the resources/manpower/etc to perform anywhere NEAR what the US did
....sure, they conquered/etc all those places---but it takes MORE resources EXPONENTIALLY to occupy/police/use/etc those places
DUH

 

[sparky]

we threw their tea out.....

~S~

 

[rupol2000]

Empires are expensive to run and eventually collapse because people do not want to live in a colony. America invented colonizing the economy of another nation rather than trying to rule the people.

This is not an American invention, Britain did the same. This is exactly a British invention: the currency board.
Peoples are not liberated on their own; colonies are always liberated with outside help. This has always been the case, including during the collapse of Rome, it was done by the Huns. Subordinate peoples are not capable of resistance, they generally forget their history.

 

[MisterBeale]

Britain at the time of ww2 was the largest and most powerful empire. Immediately after the war, the United States began to dominate, and Britain soon collapsed altogether. How did US manage to do this? Why has the world power changed?

The US is still a puppet of the monied interests that have always run Britain, far back into the distant past. We were, have been, and always will be a pawn of the one ring.

. . . and, when the day comes when they decide to place the ostensible center of power somewhere else, we will still be a pawn of the one ring.

 

[rupol2000]

The US is still a puppet of the monied interests that have always run Britain, far back into the distant past. We were, have been, and always will be a pawn of the one ring.

. . . and, when the day comes when they decide to place the ostensible center of power somewhere else, we will still be a pawn of the one ring.

I used to think so too. But post-war politics contradicts this. Britain began to gain the upper hand in the United States again only after the Caribbean crisis. This can be seen both in culture and in world events, including a series of revolutions in the socialist camp, and in the collapse of the Brettonwood system. The European Union meant the withdrawal of Europe from the influence of the United States under the wing of Britain.

 

[rupol2000]

The US is still a puppet of the monied interests that have always run Britain, far back into the distant past. We were, have been, and always will be a pawn of the one ring.

. . . and, when the day comes when they decide to place the ostensible center of power somewhere else, we will still be a pawn of the one ring.

In any case, Britain would not voluntarily give up the world printing press, even if it wanted to give up the direct political control of the colonial administrations.

 

[MisterBeale]

I used to think so too. But post-war politics contradicts this. Britain began to gain the upper hand in the United States again only after the Caribbean crisis. This can be seen both in culture and in world events, including a series of revolutions in the socialist camp, and in the collapse of the Brettonwood system. The European Union meant the withdrawal of Europe from the influence of the United States under the wing of Britain.

In any case, Britain would not voluntarily give up the world printing press, even if it wanted to give up the direct political control of the colonial administrations.

For the folks that control the destinies of nation states? They don't care.

They never have, nor will they going into the future. It never was about the Westphalian system for these folks. That? Is just a tool.

So, I guess this thread is not for me, because your question is, IMO, in the final analysis, really irrelevant. It always has been an illusion from the start.

If you want to live in that illusion? Continue to watch your tele.

 

[rupol2000]

For the folks that control the destinies of nation states? They don't care.

They never have, nor will they going into the future. It never was about the Westphalian system for these folks. That? Is just a tool.

So, I guess this thread is not for me, because your question is, IMO, in the final analysis, really irrelevant. It always has been an illusion from the start.

If you want to live in that illusion? Continue to watch your tele.

Why are you sure that this force is only one, and all world power is reduced to it?
There were internal party wars behind the scenes and regime changes.
In fact, there are 2 forces everywhere, not just one. Even in the one-party system of the USSR, there was a split and a 180-degree turn.
And if it were as you say, everything would have long ago turned into slavery, for them there is no point in providing people with a decent standard of living and freedoms.

 

[White 6]

stop babbling crap.....you must be BLIND not to see the difference
and they are overextended--wars/occupation cost mucho $$$$$$
jesus christ----plain and simple -the UK did not have the resources/manpower/etc to perform anywhere NEAR what the US did
....sure, they conquered/etc all those places---but it takes MORE resources EXPONENTIALLY to occupy/police/use/etc those places
DUH

They should have read Sun Tzu. Perhaps some of our leaders should, also.

 

[rupol2000]

They should have read Sun Tzu. Perhaps some of our leaders should, also.

This is an interesting remark, but more interesting is who it was and how it relates to China in its modern sense. He lived in eastern Zhou, about a thousand years after the Aryan chariots arrived there. Namely, the Aryans was unsurpassed in the art of war.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why are you sure that this force is only one, and all world power is reduced to it?
There were internal party wars behind the scenes and regime changes.
In fact, there are 2 forces everywhere, not just one. Even in the one-party system of the USSR, there was a split and a 180-degree turn.
And if it were as you say, everything would have long ago turned into slavery, for them there is no point in providing people with a decent standard of living and freedoms.

Slavery is a woefully under-productive economic model when new models become available.

Just like the Soviet model lost out to corporatist model, or state capitalist model in China.

And yes, you are correct, the forces that control the public political forces use the Hegelian dialectic to push their paradigm forward, it is not always a straight road. I will admit as much.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

America had 75% of the world's oil production.

American GDP was greater than Japan's, Germany's and Italy's GDP combined.

 

[night_son]

Britain at the time of ww2 was the largest and most powerful empire. Immediately after the war, the United States began to dominate, and Britain soon collapsed altogether. How did US manage to do this? Why has the world power changed?

Great Britain was far, far from the most powerful empire on the planet just prior to or during World War Two. Germany and Japan were two superpowers of the day, while the USA and USSR were superpowers who did not know they were until pushed into full wartime production. Britain had been in decline for well over a century by the 1930's.

 

[rupol2000]

Slavery is a woefully under-productive economic model when new models become available.

Always, because additional money is spent on the freedom to choose a place of work to attract labor. Slavery is not introduced just because society is not ready for it, and this is fraught with riots. If there was such an opportunity, the left would introduce it right now.
The slave-type economy of the USSR of 30s was superproductive, which made it possible to turn an agrarian country into a heavy industry economy in 10 years.