From royalnavy.mod.uk: ‘In 1807, the UK became one of the first nations to end its own participation in the slave trade, and went on to lead an international campaign to put a final end to the transatlantic trade, and ultimately slavery itself. Following the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, it was the only nation with the political will, the economic strength, and a Navy strong enough to attempt it. >The Royal Navy has a proud history associated with the abolition of the slave trade and the pursuance of humanitarian rights, playing a significant role in the years following the 1807 Act to abolish the Slave Trade, through active policing and enforcement. This campaign which began in West Africa, lasted well into the 20th century and, by then was worldwide. Between 1807 and 1866, the Royal Navy captured well over 500 slave ships and prevented many more from loading their slave cargo. >The abolition was also very demanding for the sailors enforcing the act; the Royal Navy committed up to 13% of its total manpower to its West Africa squadron, which in one year lost 25% of those serving on the station, mainly to disease. Overall, the nineteenth-century costs of suppression were bigger than the eighteenth-century profits.’ Note that last line: the net effect of slavery on the accounts of the UK is negative. The country spent more on enforcing abolition than was ever made from conducting the trade. Home | Royal Navy (www.royalnavy.mod.uk/)
“The difference between the less developed and the more developed nations is a function of time: the British started to save sooner than all other nations: they also started sooner to accumulate capital and to invest it in business. Because they started sooner, there was a higher standard of living in Great Britain when, in all other European countries, there was still a lower standard of living. Gradually, all the other nations began to study British conditions, and it was not difficult for them to discover the reason for Great Britain's wealth. So they began to imitate the methods of British business. Since other nations started later, and since the British did not stop investing capital, there remained a large difference between conditions in England and conditions in those other countries. But something happened which caused the headstart of Great Britain to disappear. What happened was the greatest event in the history of the nineteenth century, and this means not only in the history of an individual country. This great event was the development, in the nineteenth century, of foreign investment. In 1817, the great British economist Ricardo still took it for granted that capital could be invested only within the borders of a country. He took it for granted that capitalists would not try to invest abroad. But a few decades later, capital investment abroad began to play a most important role in world affairs. Without capital investment it would have been necessary for nations less developed than Great Britain to start with the methods and the technology with which the British had started in the beginning and middle of the eighteenth century, and slowly, step by step - always far below the technological level of the British economy - try to imitate what the British had done. It would have taken many, many decades for these countries to attain the standard of technological development which Great Britain had reached a hundred years or more before them. But the great event that helped all these countries was foreign investment. Foreign investment meant that British capitalists invested British capital in other parts of the world. They first invested it in those European countries which, from the point of view of Great Britain, were short of capital and backward in their development. It is a well-known fact that the railroads of most European countries, and also of the United States, were built with the aid of British capital. You know that the same happened in this country, in Argentina. The gas companies in all the cities of Europe were also British. In the mid 1870s, a British author and poet criticized his countrymen. He said, "The British have lost their old vigor and they have no longer any new ideas. They are no longer an important or leading nation in the world." To which Herbert Spencer, the great sociologist, answered, "Look at the European continent. All European capitals have light because a British gas company provides them with gas." This was, of course, in what seems to us the "remote" age of gas lighting. Further answering this British critic, Herbert Spencer added, "You say that the Germans are far ahead of Great Britain. But look at Germany. Even Berlin, the capital of the German Reich, the capital of Geist, would be in the dark if a British gas company had not invaded the country and lighted the streets." In the same way, British capital developed the railroads and many branches of industry in the United States. And, of course, as long as a country imports capital its balance of trade is what the noneconomists call "unfavorable." That means that it has an excess of imports over exports. The reason for the "favorable balance of trade" of Great Britain was that the British factories sent many types of equipment to the United States, and this equipment was not paid for by anything other than shares of American corporations. This period in the history of the United States lasted, by and large, until the 1890s.” mises.org/library/foreign-capital-investment-antidote-global-inequality
It is not about the time factor but about the ideas and their quality. Some civilizations are very old, yet did not develop high level technology, good school systems, human rights, animal rights, and a scaffold of ideas on which administration is built and enables prosperity.
Enormous thanks for this speech, Mr. Robert’s. These are exactly the issues that should be at the top of our agenda as English speaking people, instead of obsession of going vegan (nothing wrong with NOT eating meat, of course), legalizing marijuana and “defending rights” of georgefloyds.
The brain drain material is fascinating, illustrated by Nobel Prize winners. And "our German scientists were better than your German scientists" quote is priceless.
Andrew Roberts' powerful presentation, many years on, remains shocking & pertinent. (a little correction: the west, notably the US & UK, were horribly delinquent in their response to soviet espionage.)
It's the second time I hear you hint at your theses that if the us would have not chosen an isolationist approach regarding the first ww that would have averted the second ww. Its the first time I hear that proposition and i would love to hear more about it.
What about the Gordon riots in England in the 1780s? These were anti-Catholic riots. Perhaps they were not a persecution or a pogrom. If you compare it with the example given about Limerick and the Jewish population.
If M. Roberts does not believe international legality is important, than he must requires surely that his country would withdraw from treaties that founded the UN. Members of the Security Council are the ENFORCERS of international law. If you are a part of it you OBVIOUSLY have to abide by the rules you proclaim to be the defendor of. What a weird idea to say that one who proclaim to be the protector of the law would also claim to have a right to violate it. The war in Iraq was illegal indeed and the diplomatic credibility of nations who participated in this crime took a serious hit. What kind of patriot or nationalist would want his country to undergo such a geopolitical mistake ?
We should question the legality of the UN if the original purpose of this mammoth organization was derailed, or certain laws have other effects than the one intended. No organization should be as rigid as to not being questioned and constantly adjusted to the changing realities of the world. No system can function properly without the feed-back loop. Rigid obedience to a set of laws have caused so many dramas in human history. Rigid thinking patterns are extremely unhealthy for all. Based on what premises do you claim that the war in Iraq was illegal? Sometimes an action proves to be a mistake but we don't know from the start. It is easy to critique many action post-factum at the comfort of your room/office.
You would do well to acknowledge these past glories that you benefit from. Churchill got great pleasure from watching paint dry because he was a talented landscape painter. If the chap’s pompous, that does not annul the argument he makes.
