As long as the Soviet Union existed the British could not maintain an empire. The Soviets were key allies to colonial nations in the anti-Imperial wars of the 50s - 70s and were strong supporters of the Non-aligned movement. Soviet generated anti-Imperial propaganda served as a powerful counter to Capitalist success even within the West.
Regardless of the budgeting and trade policies of Her Majesty’s government there was zero chance the Empire survives through the middle of the twentieth century while the Soviets stayed in power.
What do you think of the evolution of British presence in India from a corporation to a colony, and the British letting the Western educated elite form semi-autonomous councils like the Muslim and Hindu congress. The progression of British rule in India from outright demand and force to giving in and compromising with the ruling elite, is a sign of weakness. The fact the British had the Montagu declaration and the Cripps mission are signs of British power declining in India. If the British kept India the eventual result of British rule in India would be the Raj ending up like the Settler-White dominions, which is essentially independence. The British had one shot of keeping India and that was after WW1, when they promised the Indian ruling elite more autonomy in exchange for public backing of the war which meant loyalty from soldiers and manpower. The British failed to deliver their promises and led to people like Gandhi (who never wanted outright independence) to launch the Quit India movement. You cannot rule a country of 300+ million people by outright violence.
This is the absolute best historical reference I have read since my graduate days at NYU. THANK YOU!
Thank you, Bob!
Elites of empires always become greedier over time until they forget their roots.
An important lesson from Rome and the British Empires.
I'll remember this for my novels.
As long as the Soviet Union existed the British could not maintain an empire. The Soviets were key allies to colonial nations in the anti-Imperial wars of the 50s - 70s and were strong supporters of the Non-aligned movement. Soviet generated anti-Imperial propaganda served as a powerful counter to Capitalist success even within the West.
Regardless of the budgeting and trade policies of Her Majesty’s government there was zero chance the Empire survives through the middle of the twentieth century while the Soviets stayed in power.
It didn’t help that the post-War US leadership—yeah, President Eisenhower, I’m lookin’ right at you!—was almost viscerally anti-colonial as well.
Yes
I am curious on how you think the British could have held on to India?
Sand way they did during the sepoy revolt; violence
What changed was their willingness to use it, not its effectiveness
Also in India the problem was largely a western educated leadership caste, rather than the country as a whole
What do you think of the evolution of British presence in India from a corporation to a colony, and the British letting the Western educated elite form semi-autonomous councils like the Muslim and Hindu congress. The progression of British rule in India from outright demand and force to giving in and compromising with the ruling elite, is a sign of weakness. The fact the British had the Montagu declaration and the Cripps mission are signs of British power declining in India. If the British kept India the eventual result of British rule in India would be the Raj ending up like the Settler-White dominions, which is essentially independence. The British had one shot of keeping India and that was after WW1, when they promised the Indian ruling elite more autonomy in exchange for public backing of the war which meant loyalty from soldiers and manpower. The British failed to deliver their promises and led to people like Gandhi (who never wanted outright independence) to launch the Quit India movement. You cannot rule a country of 300+ million people by outright violence.