[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


 

Despite France and the UK being pretty much equal in terms of economics and populations, and despite France having has the smaller colonial empire, France has managed to keep a much larger modern day empire
Britain's oversea territories : 18 000 km² and 272 000 inhabitants
France's Outremer : 120 000 km² and 2.8 Million inhabitants.
France's empire is then time as large and populated as Britain's.
Beyond that, Britain's oversea territories are often very autonomous, wheras France's generally don't have any autonomy, at least for the departments.
This is despite France being in a much worse situation during decolonisation, not only because it was recovering from WW2, but also because it lost against Vietnam and Algeria in colonial wars.
Nonetheless, France was able to keep those territories without much conflict, sure, there was a conflict in New Caledonia, but it wasn't major.
Britain had to fight for 30 years in a civil war to keep Northern Ireland, a territory barely a few kilometers away and whose majority (until recently) was radically in favor of unity.
What gives ? Why was France's Empire able to survive ?

This is without being an expert, but France fought to keep their empire to the bitter end. Indochina and Algeria showcase that. They did not want to leave unlike the British who was getting replaced by their powerful Anglo son

>>2709816
Really? In India France gave up their possessions right away when India asked.

>>2709816
I disagree that the British didn't want to Leave, Malaya and Kenya are exemple of the British fighting to keep a hold over their colonies, Algeria in the case of France was more similar to Northern Ireland, it was legally considered an integral part of France, but obviously the colonized people didn't have the same right as the colons.

>>2709816
Algeria was the last hurrah of the colonial lobby and was quickly dealt with once someone competent was put in power,whereas the first Indochina war was about anti-communism

>>2709250
Britain's ruling class didn't see themselves as "British" in a nationalist fashion, which I would presume France did. They were, broadly speaking, cosmopolitan liberal free-trade types with a handful of "protectionist" imperial-preference guys who only wanted free trade with 70% of the planet. As such, "America is going to eat your empire and you are going to become an American vassal" wasn't that scary an outcome, especially since America allowed Britain to believe that it was a particularly special partner. (America tells every country that they've got a special relationship, but Britain actually believes it)
One view would be that WW2 was a choice between Britain letting Germany conquer continental Europe and Britain keeping her empire, or mortgaging her empire to America to protect free trade. Britain chose the latter (which, truthfully, it must be said is the noble and correct choice.)

"Britain" as a nation state was created around 1945 when it became clear that an island that was once just the central point of a sprawling trade empire was going to have to develop a national economy when America took over and stopped giving them preferential treatment. Look at any Churchill speech and note how he speaks of England, note how even into the 1960s and 1970s produce was stamped made in England, made in Scotland, and so on. This is because Scotland and England never ceased to be nations - like a weaker Austria-Hungary they were two separate nations under one political arrangement. Scotland's ruling class were desperate to become "British", it's true, but England was the dominant partner and was quite content to remain English, and Scotland's working class were quite content to remain Scottish. Northern Ireland is an even more awkward hanging nail, it had its own parliament until the 1970s because it wasn't ever really part of Britain-proper.
For more on this, see David Edgerton's "the rise and fall of the British nation". Despite the title, it's not a right-wing screed, it's a serious work of history looking at the construction and destruction of a national economy in the British isles. It explains the rise of Scottish/Welsh nationalism (when the "British" economy is dismantled, the material conditions for "Britishness" are undermined) and the religious reverence for the NHS (it's the last real institution of that postwar British nation)

>>2709950
Malaya and Kenya were more like delaying actions that attempted to secure a beneficial position for withdrawal than an attempt to keep hold for all time. In particular, they bought time for building up Britain's domestic economy.

>>2709250
>large parts of empire
>handful of tiny islands
Is this a joke?

>>2711386
second biggest eez on the planet


Unique IPs: 7

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]