>>17860386
No, the British Empire fell because it was fundamentally flawed. Resource extraction-type colonialism is very much a capitalist, short-term gain thing. Eventually you're going to get tired of putting out so many native rebellions, eventually those native rebellions are going to get access to modern technology.

Settler colonialism is what works in the long-term and it's why America's Empire is successful (still) to this day. Its because it has a really, really, powerful metropole. A tiny ass island in Europe being able to put down the entire Indian subcontinent and keeping it up for centuries is just laughable. The fall really was inevitable. Now if the Brits actually started SETTLING India, that would've been different. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, these wouldn't have boosted the UK's power that much, but they were fundamentally Anglo, and integrating them into the UK would've been child's play, but Westminster didn't want to expand their elite circle and allow those not from Eton and Oxford to govern alongside them.

The Americans actually TRIED resource-type colonialism with the Iraq War, but it flopped much for the same reason. Now if the US wants to compete, it is going to have to expand in terms of territory and people. That's why Trump's floating around the idea of annexing Canada and Greenland.

tl;dr logically speaking, Hitler was kinda right about Lebensraum/Generalplan Ost being necessary.