The British Empire Shame Thread

[Picaro]

That point was made in this book and his latest publication also touched on the subject. In old days, coloured peoples were so used to be ruled by European colonists that they could never imagine that European troops would be defeated and expelled from Asia someday, thus ushering in a new era without European colonialism. It could have been much uglier, if there had been frequent uprisings and IRA-type terrorism targeting the British.

I've read those; they both like to ignore the point that the Brits, as well as the Dutch and Portuguese, and even Spain to a lesser extent, could 'dominate' their respective colonies with so few soldiers and administrators is because for those peoples the colonials were a far better option than their usual local fare of rulers.

 

[GLASNOST]

Britain withdrew from Asia only after the myth of British invincibility was completely shattered after the fall of Singapore and the British could no longer believe that British rule could be sustained in Asia in the post-war era. Subject peoples under British rule were under the illusion that white troops would never be defeated and they did not even think about rising up against British rule. As a result, the British rarely committed atrocities to maintain the empire, such as the Mau Mau massacre in the 1950s. Moreover, local ruling elites were in cahoots with the British, working as colonial administrators on their behalf. Overall, it was a benign and liberal empire.

You are using WITHDRAWAL in a voluntary sense. I honestly do not think that Britain was all that keen on giving up their accesses to both Asian resources and strategic advantages. I am sure you are right, but I am more inclined to give credit to the indigenous population who - just as with those in Indochina - began to see British nationalism and loyalty as something that they (the Asians) too could acquire. This was particularly true after having fought and died in the service of Britain against Japan and Nazi Germany. To die "For King and country!" must have had a profound affect upon them. Whose King ... Whose country?

 

[Picaro]

You are using WITHDRAWAL in a voluntary sense. I honestly do not think that Britain was all that keen on giving up their accesses to both Asian resources and strategic advantages. I am sure you are right, but I am more inclined to give credit to the indigenous population who - just as with those in Indochina - began to see British nationalism and loyalty as something that they (the Asians) too could acquire. This was particularly true after having fought and died in the service of Britain against Japan and Nazi Germany. To die "For King and country!" must have had a profound affect upon them. Whose King ... Whose country?

It was clear to those who had been around that the colonial era was at an end, and FDR was committed to supporting the development of stable independent governments in the post-WW II world, as were the more progressive Brits and Euros; the Soviets and Mao were equally committed to just the opposite.

As 'indigenous' populations learned how the British administrative and legal models worked, and likely having a pool of British and European educated 'Native Sons' around, it was the logical move to adopt what they saw worked best; some were never going to be happy with that, but is a fact of life everywhere.

Many colonials served in British armies willingly and loyally, Sikhs, and Indian engineers in the Italian campaigns and the ME, etc., etc., and some also opposed supporting the war effort. So what? A majority of India did, and the Indian troops under William Slim had one of the worst environments and logistical hurdles of the entire war, and triumphed. Most of their units didn't have a single European in them.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The History Thieves by Ian Cobain review – how Britain covered up its imperial crimes
Up in a puff of smoke.

 

[whitehall]

Why are British subjects so convoluted about their patriotism and core beliefs? In 1648 or so the Brits executed the freaking King and established government of the people. But wait, the timid Brits weren't ready for self government so they called the son of the king they executed, a freaking teenager Chuck #2, to show them the way. I't's possible that Americans are in the same dilemma these days. For the last hundred years Americans have been complaining about the elitist government that didn't give a damn about the common man and now they get a chance at a real change of government by the people but the radical left and moderate right are really afraid of change and so they might chose the safe corrupt establishment.