Thread 17926761

>Prevents the unification of Europe 3 fucking times
>Becomes a vassal state to the US because they are so small and have no bargaining power
In retrospect, what did they hope to achieve?

Englishman here and I have no idea, we’re throwing this country into the gutter

>>17926761 (OP)
i agree, euros never deserved our help

Arthur will come back and drive the Saxon vermin out of Britain.

>>17926761 (OP)
>Prevents the unification of Europe 3 fucking times
How is that a bad thing?

>>17926826
Being a superpower is a good thing. Why do you think countries compete for attaining and maintaining superpower status?

>In retrospect, what did they hope to achieve
Gee I dunno anon, they probably wanted to become a huge world power with a massive globe spanning empire which controls more land than any other before it.

They probably wanted to make a metric shitload of money from trade, and to shape the world as they saw fit in order to maximise the benefit they could draw from it. They probably wanted to do what history tells us they did, you fucking retard.
>noooo but now they are not strong
correct, because Britain taught the world that money is all that matters. they realised in the early 1900s that they would either give up the empire willingly, or lose 900 wars of independence and collapse entirely. so instead, they
>cut their losses and ditched shitty extraction colonies
>strengthened ties with settler colonies
>somehow managed to convince the latter to remain economically and politically tied to them

All things considered, things went better than expected.

>>17926761 (OP)
The funny thing is that if Europe would've successfully unified, the US would have had even more interest in protecting Britain and keeping it independent. But they were too retarded to realize.

>>17926761 (OP)
>colonize the coasts of a continent
>tax them heavily, make them suffer
>refuse to provide them a choice in your affairs
>start wars outside where you send your colonists to
>colonists revolt
>you lose by a long shot
>you become the vassal state of your colony
lol bongs

>>17926863
Their trade empire was unsustainable from day 1, completely impossible to defend and everyone knew it. It was just a quick cash grab for their merchant and banker class.

It was not whatever long-term, world-shaping edeavor you are fantasizing about

>>17926880
I literally agree with you. I know the history of the British Empire, which is why I said what I said; that it was for money, and the vast majority of the land in the "biggest empire ever" was mostly undeveloped or unpopulated beyond whatever was needed to extract resources.

The 19th Century was indeed one dominated by British Imperialism, but most people think this therefore means nobody else did anything at all. A lot of anons, including Britons, have this retarded notion that the British Empire was some grand eternal beautiful world elevating entity instead of literally just a money printing machine and career ladder for aspiring geezers.

>>17926863
This.
The British navigated their way through de-colonization far more competent than all the other colonial powers. France especially did the complete opposite and aggressively with her military tried to maintain a centralized control their empire and failed every time.
Ultimately globalization was far more successful model for the former colonial powers including Britain because now they could exploit natural resources and cheap labour without being burdened with the cost of maintaining it, these independent states would have to pay that bill themselves.
And unlike the other colonial states, Britain could see the de-colonization coming many decades before it hit. Canada, Australia and South Africa were practically independent by the outbreak of ww2 yet still remained religiously loyal to Britain to join the conflict.

>>17926916
As if the British didn't initially try to fight wars to keep their imperial control, lmao

>>17926945
Key word
>initially
As soon as they realised that they simply could not hold somewhere, they cut it loose. Ireland was the blueprint for this; they realised that if they struggled so much with something on their doorstep, it'll be bad if it happens elsewhere.

Nobody is saying they didn't WANT to keep the land, just that the only real reason for keeping the vast majority of it was money; once the money is worth less than the trouble it is to get it, they cut it loose.

>>17926959
It's also the fact that British public were outraged everytime Britain tried to fight back.
The Amritsar massacre almost had several British officers thrown into prison.

>>17926916
If only they used their genius British minds to develop an economy instead of buying bad loan bundles from the US in 2008. Oh well, I guess economics is just that difficult.

>>17926980
If you want to talk about mismanaging their economy, look no further than the Spanish. How do you think their hegemony collapsed?

>>17926959
And what makes you think that also applies to France? They still maintain some presence in Africa. They get their Uranium from there.

>>17926995
France very, very famously tried to forcibly cling to colonies and then got their shit pushed in so hard by the impact of the war with the Algerians that the Fourth Republic collapsed.

Britain has "presence" all over the world too.

>>17926761 (OP)
They managed decolonization far better than France or Portugal.

>>17926761 (OP)
>>Prevents the unification of Europe 3 fucking times
wrong
one country conquering the rest of Europe can never be a genuine unification no matter how hard you cope about it. The EU is genuinely the closest thing to actual real unity between Europe's peoples that Europe has ever seen.

>>17926761 (OP)
>In retrospect, what did they hope to achieve?
Squeeze wealth out of the continent by instigating infighting. Worked pretty well too, until their younger cousins learned to play the game, and the student became the master.

>>17927194
What about the war of spanish succession, where England declared war on France and Spain to prevent Philip V, the Duke of Anjou, from becoming King of Spain because he was King Louis XIV's grandson, so could potentially become both king of France and King of Spain. Philip had been specifically named as heir and successor to the throne of Spain in the will of King Charles II, who died childless, which had not been an improper thing to do as Philip was his grandnephew. This war raged for 12 years and caused over 500,000 deaths.

>>17927021
Sure but none of that is about money. Britain has military bases here and there and supposedly good relations with ex colonies but nothing close to the control the French have over west Africa.

>>17927249
you mean a war started when England was ruled by a Dutchman and where the Holy Roman Empire was the primary instigator of hostilities?

>>17926875
I genuinely thought this was going to be about India or something because I didn't think Americans were delusional enough to cry about colonial oppression and discrimination when they themselves are the descendants of the colonists doing the oppressing

>>17927296
French control over west africa is a complete meme
There are plenty of former french colonies there that align just as much if not more with russia and china

>>17927351
>genuinely thought this was going to be about India
It is.

They just wanted to avoid total annihilation.

>>17927194
>The EU is genuinely the closest thing to actual real unity between Europe's peoples that Europe has ever seen.
... And Britain ruined that by leaving and becoming a US vassal state that is hard at work sowing conflict in Europe at the behest of the US

>>17927828
Total annihilation of what? The government apparatus? Who cares, that's not a living thing.

Do you think if Napoleon conquered 10 million Brits, he would massacre them or something?

>>17928158
Britain aligns with the EU in every way despite Brexit

>>17926916
a pretty insightful post.
while france was scrambling to maintain control of vietnam, bongistan was bartering deals with the carved out middle east and africa to shadow control their petroleum and mining exports and the corruption that grew in these places (thanks to western encouragement) acted as a defence to any do-gooder who tried to reclaim independence for their countries major industries.
britain was raking in hundreds of millions without a military presence whilst others were paying the same amount to lose control of their colonies.
obviously this has carried over consequences into the modern age.

>>17928161
No, but he would tax the hell out of them.

>>17926796
t. ahmed von pajeetovich

>>17928328
More than today? No.

>>17928596
this

>>17928161
>Do you think if Napoleon conquered 10 million Brits, he would massacre them or something?
Probably. Napoleon was even more ruthless than Hitler. The latter simply had the technology to do it on a larger scale.

>>17928752
>Napoleon was even more ruthless than Hitler

>>17926880
>It was not whatever long-term, world-shaping edeavor you are fantasizing about
The lingua franca of the world is English. That should say enough of how "world shapping" th British Empire was

>>17926761 (OP)
Unfortunately Europe is unified right now under the Franco-Belgian financial cabal and England didn't do shit to prevent this timeline. England has actively favoured French interests for the past 120 years

>>17928310
>>17926916
>neoliberals on my 4trans
Why?