End of an Empire: Britain vs The United States 

Doing great. Great work.

Thank you!!!!

Yeah that shows but this video is still great I hope you return with more

rest in peace the other great game

Great series.

The USA has no aristocracy but they do have leading families...

​@gumdeo there is a central power in America no family runs America

Rome may have conquered Greece with hard power but the Greeks conquered the Romans with soft power.

@@geordiejones5618 maybe for a brief time, but Christianity totally overtook Greek cultural influence in Rome by late Antiquity.

@@dropandy1453Most of those Christian influences came directly from Greeks

@@goodpol5022 uh, no? there’s a reason the roman catholic and orthodox churches are separate.

@@dropandy1453 bait, used to be believable

By putting national pride over the economy and international standing. Prolly cos they were conquered easily during ww2 they had something to prove by acting tough.

France had a tighter grip on it's African colonies. Britain relied heavily on local elites to rule whereas the French more directly administrated and governed their colonies from the top down.

That didn’t really work out in the long run. France is getting kicked out of their former colonies like Niger. American troops are still in Niger and continuing to work with the Niger military. Only French troops were forced out

Major cope angloid ​@@christianbroadbent7489

They could not hold India after the Indian nationalists declared full independence. The survival of he empire largely rested on the manpower of the Indian Army. Once they mutinied in 1946 it was clear the British could not hold on to their dominions. As a result they yielded to the American demands.

Nonsense. Britain has always been in control of everything. You need to research the Cecil Rhoades Round Tables, Chatham House and the British American Pilgrim's Society. You won't get ANY Truth out of the Establishment Narrative, and the British Elite are the Biggest Liars in the Entire World. The Lies that come out of Oxford and Cambridge are far bigger than even the Tavistock Institute of Global Propaganda

"But if I'm the one to do it, they'll run their quill pens through it! I'm obnoxious and disliked, did you know that? But I say you should write it, Marshall! Yes, you!"

As if Truman had a plan. The man was a puppet. A habadasher by trade and completely under control of the banks. Roosevelt as well. Post WW2 Europe was all about who got to lend money to whom.

Makes sense. The US economy and population is way larger than Britains

eh by 1945, the US represented 50% of the world's economy and for a time was also the only nation with nukes. Britain was the #3 power in the world, but was not close to the same level as the US

​@@secretname4190France and Britain still maintained their prewar stature until the embarrassment of the Suez Crisis that they manufactured. When they publically backed down to US pressure, that was possibly the most peaceful hegemonic crowning in world history. Napoleon himself couldn't have changed a thing.

I've always viewed this take as some sort of British cope. By 1945 the USSR and USA were far and away the future superpowers. Britain's still large empire was a mirage - much of it was already in the beginning stages of being jettisoned, and what wasn't was unaffordable and many knew this.

Or, they backed down because the hegemonic crown had ALREADY passed to the US and USSR. @@geordiejones5618

*British Empire made its colonies bankrupt Edit mentioned below are almost all British side accounts after erasing the natives

​@@akhripasta2670Is Canada, New Zealand, Australia, America & Hong Kong bankrupt?

@@JoeeyTheeKangaroo Lol his entire world is India

England has a migrant prime minister who the people never voted for Scotland has a migrant first minster who the people never voted for Scotland first minster gave a racist hate speech against the white population of Scotland after he was made first minster of Scotland

@@akhripasta2670 Africa made Britain broke. The infrastructure and wars cost the empire all the money they made in India and China. Colonialization of Africa increased the population and economic wellbeing of Africans. Very different outcome from the Americas and Australia.

This is untrue, although not European, China is using the same methods now to take ports and tactical positions in foreign lands.

'European era' is kind of misleading. History has always had a procession of various empires that dominated at different times. Spain and Portugal dominated the world in the 16th and 17th century when England was a minor power. The 19th and early 20th centuries was one of British and French dominance. America is just the latest to assume leadership on the global stage.

The Arabs are imperialists themselves. Just because their conquests happened earlier doesn’t make them any less imperialistic. North Africa, the Levant and most of the Middle East used to belong to the Roman Empire and the Sassanid empire. All those people living there were christians and zoroastrians who were forcefully converted and permanently colonized

@@khorps4756 The Big difference is that America is not a traditional empire so it’s not likely to collapse or decline significantly in power, wealth or influence. The US economy still makes up 25.3% of the total global economy and it’s hovered around that 25% mark since the early 1900’s. And unlike most developed countries such as the UK, Germany or Japan, the US economy is still growing very well instead of becoming stagnant or slowing in growth. And instead of overseas colonies, the US has military bases and mutual defense treaties with about half the countries in the world. Not even the British Empire ever got close to having such a global presence with their military. There are dozens if not hundreds of American military bases on every continent

@@tylerclayton6081 Exactly. With time, people tend to overlook/tacitly accept when colonialism has been so thoroughly successful, such as, to use some big examples, the Anglo colonialism across North America, the Han colonialism across China and East Asia, and the Slavic colonialism across Siberia. The US, China and Russia are just as big colonialists as the old European powers - arguably far more so, and far more successful, since their colonialism expansion and conquests succeeded and endured to such an extent that it's viewed as completely normal and how things always have been and will be. Not coincidentally, these examples all occured with lands that were contiguous with the colonial powers, so it appears more "natural" than the obviously unnatural expansion of old powers like Britain, France, Spain and Portugal overseas.

And now British are minority in London. I hate Churchill.

Well said 👏

Yeah WWII was a bit of a phyrric victory for the UK, same as WWI

To be fair to Churchill btw by the time he was actually in office Europe was already lost and there wasn't really anything he could do about it

Hitler was a fan of the British Empire, white people ruling was something he could subscribe to, although he was focused on creating an european empire that would be as powerfull as rising America. Churchill blew it, no more empire overseas, no western competition to US of A from europe.

Would that have stoped the tide of arab nationalists?

@@thepedrothethethe6151Not completely but the British had their fingers in the pulse of the Arab world far more than the Americans

Why it was none of Americans business, if something similar happened to the Panama canal would Americans inform the British

​@Gordon-hx8cp Probably not. The Americans *knew* they were at the top at the end of the war, basically, in terms of economic, industrial and military power, and they knowingly leveraged that power to exercise influence to forge a world order favorable to their foreign policy goals. Likwise the British also *knew* that their empire was on the way out if they didn't change course soon, but were more or less beholden to the United States. If the tables were turned with the British having the upper hand in this hypothetical scenario, then likely yes it would be a good idea for the Americans to coordinate with the British in a Panama crisis.

@@bennovak2708 Remember that Britain allowed the US to have the Americas as its backyard

Only thing I wish was fixed is the lack of transparency with sources

Then should have told the USA of your plans

​@@TheIceman567 You didn't tell us when you high tailed it out of Afghanistan

@@Apollo890 actually we did why you high tailed it out too.

@@TheIceman567 No you didn't you announced you were going on the day you started to evacate. So we were in quite a difficult situation for a number of days. British troops had to conduct rescue missions into Kabul to save people who could not get out. And an American general told them to stop. As for why we left: it was your campaign we were only there to support you.

@@Apollo890 Wrong, the USA has a treaty in place which the UK agreed to for the withdraw from Afghanistan. Yeah you had combat mission there for you left as well under NATO.

I noticed that while watching aswell 😂

As an American it’s not that depressing

obviously lol@@pretzelstick320

@@pretzelstick320 In fact I would say it's quite funny

What is the context of your depression, it would not be this video. Eden was disappointing to many, and Chamberlain effectively foresaw his health issue when advising him to return home and take an aspirin. Chamberlain was no failure. Your depression may be a result of bad history, not simply the present state of the world.

@@robertewing3114 what are you talking about?

I’m American and don’t know what this is. What do I Google to learn more?

@@ConnorDKimballstart by googling ‘sarcasm’

@@ConnorDKimballThis is joke about how there are a lot of influence American people named Roosevelt.

The real enemy.

@@gumdeolol We’ve been cleaning up your messes for over 100 years. Stop fucking up the world, you wankers!

Britain could’ve had a informal empire like the American 1

They should have formed the EU earlier.

No. She could not maintain her apartheid supremacist empire because we revolted. #MauMau

@@filangafree No man Im Kenyan too but that is false,, youve just seen from Suez they won militarily just as they did win over the MAU MAU, they were leaving already, the t5im e had come, ni kiherere ya mau mau honestly since everywhere else inc Nigeria, Uganda walipewa bila wars

Engaging in endless conflicts through dubious commitments was their undoing.

@@philbrooks5979 Endless Conflict during the 1600-1900's worked just fine. It was when Europe collectively destroyed generations of its people(Blood and Treasure) for very very little "gain" 1914-1918 and then again in 1939-1945. They exhausted themselves so much trying to beat each other up they ended up being permanently passed by USA and lesser so by the Soviets, by Japan briefly and now by China. It was those 2 destructive wars more than any other reason, Some have called it Multiple Civilizations Suicide. They have never and will never recover from those events. Even Germany which was close to being a world power is now just a regional power.

@@Kruppt808 we shot ourselves in the foot then rolled over to american power, the exeception to this was france and the pourtuguise, but the we not powerful enough on their own, britain could have maintained some colonies, but america said otherwise

@@philbrooks5979 And endless conflicts in this century is the US undoing, ha nothing like waching history repeat itself

Good comment.

they had such a way with words

Because only the good quotes get retold

@@thomas6617”CornPop was a bad dude”

You cant skip that kermit roosevelt joke 😂

​@@carnetplank625919:45 😂

​@@carnetplank625917:30 😂

Well done!

why?

US say ‘we have your backs..’ but no Suez advised the world where US loyalties lie ..

@@alanhutchins5916because it could have lead to nuclear war

The French government was a puppet of Britain in 1938. Britain (and the United States) supported Germany against France and Belgium after World War I, so France had no more choice in 1938 to follow Britain and keep the peace, or to bleed like hell to satisfy some British and American capitalists. But after all, in history France fighted many time for strangers interests.

Appeasement was actually a plan to buy time for Britain and France to up-arm themselves, not to prevent a war. So your little meme is wholly wrong

@@derrickstorm6976 My dude. How is preventing war from breaking out at an unfavourable moment not the same thing as buying time? That's literally what I indirectly refer to.

Anti-Americans when americans exist and do something

​@AFGuidesHD this is hardly accurate. The idea for war only sprang from mussolinis demands and America ditched its responsibility to its wilsonian project first which spooked the French causing Stalin to assure his Slavic influence. There wasn't a moment until France declined direct action over Czechslovakia that a European war was contemplated by the British government. The idea of appeasement is totally with hindsight of German plans, Britain didn't have any obligations to eastern Europe and so any idea of diplomatic or specifically military adjustment hast to be made in concert with France and its obligations. In short a European War was never on the table for the British government until the fruition of the pact of steel. Any basis of the British government negotiating with Germany for time only occurred until after Hitler had achieved his superiority over french arms at which point war was already the aim of the British government and no securities were exchanged and any accord was ignored by both sides.

No it is quite accurate as a comparison depending how you look at it.

Same, and I'm an American

I am from Australia and have British Irish background and this video hurts me bad

Oh, grow up.

​@@TheRealTurkFebruarygeez, good thing you are never passionate about anything

As an Indian I wasn’t able to feel anything but smugness

I am at the position that American Civilization means not merely a new society, but a truly knew civilization. One that hasn’t recognized itself for what it is yet, and therefore held back.

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Yes, I agree. Arnold Toynbee listed 23 civilizations in his 12 volume work, of which only 4 remain (Western, Islamic, Hindu, and Far East). More granularly, as per Toynbee, the Minoan Civilization bifurcated into Hellenic and Syriac. Hellenic trifurcated into Western, Russian Orthodox, and Byzantine Orthodox. Syriac bifurcated into Iranian and Arabic, which later re-unified as Islamic. In the East, Chinese and Japanese-Korean civilizations bifurcated out of the older Shang, and the Hindu civilisation remains unbifurcated from the Indus. It is safe to say that since 1945, Western civilization has also split across the Atlantic. That split was set in motion by the events between 1776-83. The West-Atlantic Western (American) civilization has its own interests divergent from the East Atlantic Western (European) civilization.

@MrLee-gj2jz Sounds like an interesting read, thank you for that! Not merely manifesting different interests, but continuing developments of different high moral values and ways of viewing reality.

fantastic joke really

I strongly disagree with one part of the characterization. The Soviet and Americans fought on nearly every corner of the globe. That includes Central Europe, Africa, the Americas, under the oceans, and by various covert actions and operations everywhere else in-between.

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Thank you for your opinion. However I have to stand by my words. Their confrontation indeed extended to almost every continent (with the exclusion of Oceania) and even to earth's satellite, the moon.. but in the end I am of the opinion that the locations where it produced significant geopolitical shifts were only around the area known as "Pivotal". These locations were the only ones which were affected in a way that, without their personal interventions, history would have hardly gone in that direction. If you believe otherwise though, please mention me one such case, outside those areas, and I will gladly examine it.

Haha, my videos are naturally laden with my own interpretations, so it would frankly be absurd if you weren’t critical of my views at times. Thank you for the kind words.

And after the Brexit, UK lost more soft power, when there were in the EU they could influence the EU but even the tiny bit of power they had, they lost.

You didn’t fight in Vietnam because you were fighting in Aden.

The problem is most Brits can't see the woods for the trees and have the ridiculous idea that we and Americans are one and the same

Exactly

@@ibobeko4309 Brexit was suicide but they never lost all their soft power, they still retain them, the question is how they will fit in to this new emerging order

You would have to explain the other policies and circumstances of Haj Ali Razmara before I view him as “corrupt” as the demagogic Mossadegh.

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 You’re right that Mossadegh became authoritatian, givin the state of the nation during the 3 years, I doubt that he believed he had any other choice…not to alleviate fault. As for Razmara, he was a military officer who effectively was a Shahist yes-man. He helped to uphold the corrupt status quo. Mossadegh attempted to reform the nation, the government, and alter Iran’s relations with the world for the betterment of the Iranian people. The aforementioned Zahedi, who would be the CIA/MI6’s puppet to lead the coup, would thusly be appointed prime minister by the Shah. Zahedi, like Razmara, personally benefited from upholding the corrupt status quo which is exactly why the Shah supported both. They were both military men, some of the greatest beneficiaries of the Shah’s corruption were the high-ranking individuals in his army.

@@rodmaknouni thank you, very much appreciated. I understand the criticisms of the Prime Minister were coupled with feelings of long overdue resentments, the Shah’s father had been seen as not only corrupt but a political sellout, etc. That said, Ali Razmara seemed to rise to the occasion and things would’ve been satisfactorily improved, only for figures like Mossadegh to come along and make demands that were in reality outrageous but which were effective in terms of riling people up even more and gaining electoral support. Such a political environment leading to an assassination, etc. In terms of the last Shaw, despite his periodic authoritarianism and cronyism using the military and others to keep his position, and arguably the country stable during that stretch of The Cold War, he did not sell out the country economically and politically in my view. He arguably led it to true independence, and with allies, not what gets claimed after the fact. I would contrast this with Mossadegh who was increasingly attempting to go around the parliament and the constitution and doing so, becoming more anti-democratic in his own right, while reaching out to the communists who had connections and support with the Soviet Union when his popularity with the Clerics and other voting blocks began to turn against him. He knew Iran didn’t have the trained knowledge, expertise, and trading connections to run the oil industry they did not build, but was openly okay with bankrupting the country and turning to the communists if it just resulted in sticking it to the British. I still agree with your criticisms though.

And when did Admiral Burke offer to or suggest attacking the British fleet? It sounds like a joke.

1930s. Search up the red war if you don't belive me

There is much in what you say, unfortunately. My grandfather was an ardent imperialist who - to the bafflement of his colleagues - proposed that the capital of The Empire/Commonwealth should be shifted to Delhi. If that had been done in the mid-30s, then the world may have been spared from Pax Americana which seems to me to have not been all that effective. Best wishes

@@robertcottam8824 The fact that this idea sound baffling *before* any kind of strategic considerations are even taken into account makes it clear why the British Empire was doomed to collapse. They failed to create a true sense of united identity among their various subjects. I will certainly like to hear the rationale of your grandfather behind this idea though. Best wishes from India.

@@Progamermove_2003 Thank you for your courteous response. My grandfather had served in India and his brother was in the Indian Army (Lahore Division) that fought for a time - extraordinary bravely - on the western front. I must further digress here for the sake of tribute. Great-uncle M and his men were gassed - many died horribly - but they didn’t run. M didn’t have that option because his leg was blown off 🤣. But his men did have a choice but they didn’t leave him behind. M never forgot that and neither did my grandad on his brother’s behalf. They both took the trouble to learn Hindi and so were more ‘in touch’ with their comrades and the customs of (northern) India and what is now Pakistan. I think they both formed the impression that one day, if the Empire endured, then the dominant economic power within it MUST be India. Therefore it made sense for the seat of political power to move there. Plus, being one day militarily stronger (if not at already at the time), it made sense to have one’s capital city further from quarrelsome Europeans… Most importantly though, was their utter ‘colour-blindness’ which was quite remarkable for old men in their late sixties, in sixties Britain. They’d got to ‘know India’ - to a small extent at least, when they were young - and liked what they knew. They’ve both been dead for close on fifty years now and I was only an impressionable child when I was privileged to know them. But I’d be CERTAIN that the pair of ‘em, if offered the choice between living in London and living in Delhi* would have chosen the latter. Grandfather, in particular, was always loud in his praise for all things appertaining to India and Pakistan. Incidentally, the volume of grandad’s comments were understandable: He had lost most of his hearing, due to shell-concussion in WW1. He had the tendency to assume that everyone else was deaf too! 😩 M was a bit quieter because the gassing at Loos had left him a bit short of lung power and very wheezy. He was a superb violinist and preferred to communicate that way. Sitting close to him and listening closely to what he had to say was always a joy, despite the long pauses. Wow. This is a long comment so I’d better pause for breath. I have the tendency to trumpet about those two wonderful men because I’m proud to be related to them. They were ‘imperialists’ to the core but of the nicest variety, I think. Best wishes. *or Lahore, Calcutta, ‘Pindi indeed anywhere on the Trunk Road…

@@robertcottam8824 thank you for sharing!

@@robertcottam8824 What a great story. If I ever ended up as a writer, I would certainly like to meet you and other descendants of such persons and might write an account about them. Was your grandfather also in the army, or did he served in some other role in India? Do you know what was the exact rationale behind his idea of turning Delhi into the capital of the British Empire/Commonwealth (other than his emotional attachment to India). *Why* they thought that India would eventually become the most important part of the Empire militarily/economically? What do you exactly meant by 'color blindedness'? Did they literally had a medical problem or were you trying to indicate something else?

Two out of three of the things you said are completely made up.

Britain should honestly wake up and follow the French path with their own style

They’re still top 5 most powerful counties right now

@@AustinSauce3 Really? The US, Russia, and China are obviously the top 3. Japan, India and France are in the rung below them. Japan has a larger navy, industry and population than the UK by far and India is almost certainly more powerful than Britain now, though cannot match the big three or even Japan in power projection. France possesses a better land army, as has always been the case, and increasingly France's Navy and Air Force are looking to be more capable as decades of inept UK governments have hollowed out British defenses and capabilities. Is Britain in the top 10 most powerful nations? Definitely, but it is also quickly diminishing itself to the point "Airstrip One" would be too great a compliment.

@@michaelthayer5351 nah your discounting the common wealth, and also the British navy is still second best in the world.

@@AustinSauce3 Oh forgive me for disregarding the ceremonial trappings of independent nations with their own interests. Second Best? By what Rationale? So the Royal Navy is still better than the PLA Navy that worries even American planners and the Japanese JMSDF that has 36 destroyers to Britain's six? Not to mention the French fleet that boasts nearly 100 modern vessels to Britain's 70. Please explain to me how The Royal Navy is still second Best when there are Navies that have a quantitative advantage while either being comparable or greater qualitatively.

@@michaelthayer5351 missile technology, Radar, Fleet air arm and the QE class make it more capable than France and LMAO India. Japan lacks a real carrier and the chinese are about 40 years behind in Radar/missile tech.

Ummm I guess youre forgetting British soft power is only second to that of the US

@@ryandanngetich2524 Im not forgetting that, I am very aware of it since I consume a ton of British entertainment.

It exhausted itself from two world wars, both of which were optional for Britain.

Should of just listened to germany

@@jeffs4483 1914 was an act of suicidal insanity for the Brits...

@@jeffs44831914 was optional 1939 wasn’t

@@Jake_5693 Why wasn't 1939 optional?

Same, it's so depressing. Just constant mistakes.

rubbish. it's no coincidence that Europe's colonial empires began disintegrating immediately after ww2

So is US Imperialism, all stories end

in 1900 Egypt had less than 10 million inhabitants, now it has over 100 million. That's ten times more, while Britain and most other European countries have more or less the same population as they had a hundred years ago, maybe x 1.5 but not more. The demographics just made it impossible for Britain to continue the way they were used to.

Indeed its my understanding there were contingencies for war between the US/UK until as late as the 1930s. Am thinking the fact that Churchill was half American and also was very powerful politically within the UK may have played a part. He was a little too chummy with the US, more so than was necessary to fight WW2.

You signed your vassal warrants to us long before Suez, it was sealed in 1914 and 1939.

There's a British TV series called "End of Empire" here on YT which has a whole episode devoted to the British exit from Palestine. Well worth looking up, and the whole series has some surprisingly frank admissions from the last wave of imperialists