British Empire

>>2193001
>by 1914 were in a position where they couldn't beat Germany and by 1939 were in danger of being annihilated
Rubbish. The British together with their allies managed to win WWI against another two superpowers and while they had a bad start at the beginning of WWII they managed to hold their ground and eventually start winning battles against the Axis powers even before the Yankees joined the war.

>>2193001

Zionism

>>2193001
Having a large empire is actually economically unsustainable. That's why they were losing their colonies in the time of crisis.

The power of the British Empire relied on a small, but well-trained and extremely disciplined regular army, backed with the support of the Royal Navy.

It was great when subjugating Indians or Zulus or Boers, but after the end of 1914, that army was by and large gone, killed off at Ypres or Mons or the Aisne. It was replenished with undertrained volunteers like every other Great Power in Europe resorted to as their armies took hundreds of thousands of casualties in mere months.

With the exception of India, and maybe Malaya, the Empire was not that profitable.

“If one compares the rate of growth during the nineteenth century it appears that non-colonial countries had, as a rule, a more rapid economic development than colonial ones. There is an almost perfect correlation. Thus colonial countries like Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain have been characterized by a slower rate of economic growth and industrialization than Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. The ‘rule’ is, to a certain extent, also valid for the twentieth century. Thus Belgium, by joining the colonial ‘club’ in the first years of the twentieth century, also became a member of the group characterized by slow growth. It is obvious that this correlation is far from being proof that all colonial ventures had been economically counterproductive. However, nothing excludes such a possibility. However, this correlation can at least be a partial proof that colonialism has not been such a powerful force for development and industrialization.”

File: redneckmansion4.jpg (289KB, 604x430px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 604x430px

>>2193089
>Belgium
>Germany
>United States
>non-colonial

>>2193102
We're talking about 19th century.
So Belgium joined the club around 1909, USA in 1898. Germany should be around 1884 or earlier so I don't know. Maybe it was still not enough time to observe the effects.

>>2193001
The empire was loosely controlled and relied heavily on the natives elites. It was very weak in case of a direct attack. The indian rebellion almost destroyed the british influence in India. What saved the UK was that some indian princes remained loyal. In 1850-1900, the only threat to the british empire were the other european countries and none of them had a navy as strong as the royal navy. But you can see in WW2 how easily Japan defeated the european powers in Asia. Colonial empires were just weak. It's that simple.

>>2193001
The British Empire never was a superpower in the same sense as the US are right now (uncontested hegemon)
They were kinda the most powerful country on the sea and ruled over a vast amount of nothingness but that's about it
At the height of the British Empire, Europe was still the most important place on Earth, and Britain had less infuence there than Germany, Russia and France
Their pathetically weak land army also meant that if they wanted to win a war in Europe, they needed a strong ally on the continent (most ofthen France) as shown by the Crimean War and WW1

T!;dr: America was the first true superpower

>>2193113
>joined the club around 1909

t. Leopold II

>it's just one big private property that happens to be the size of the Congo, n-not a colony or anything s-stupid anglos!

>USA in 1898

The US was born a colonial nation you dumbfuck. Seizing some islands from Spain doesn't suddenly excuse the land grabbing and the forced relocations of the 19th century.

File: alps.jpg (120KB, 647x768px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 647x768px

>>2193115
>America was the first true superpower
It was actually France

>>2193190

If France was the first superpower, would have been before Nappy, like the Sun king...

But the US indeed the first.

>>2193190

It was actually the empire of Cyrus the Great.

>>2193102

That's a pretty neat place to live I guess.

It was a great power, firstly, not a super power like the USA is today.

It had competition from continental powers and just because it owned a lot of land doesn't really equate to absolute power.

>>2193001
The British Empire never aimed to be a major land power, it existed in order to facilitate trade for the benefit of Britain and was basically a network of strategically located ports and natural resource hotspots ruled mostly by proxy held together by shipping lanes defended by the Royal Navy and a small Expeditionary Force to fight on land where needed.

>>2193059
this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxzMTfudjOw

>>2193030
>>2193115
>>2193190
>>2193229

As for terminology: Superpowers refers to the US and the USSR. Before that you had Great Powers.

>>2193102
Is that a pic of Brussels? Or anyplace in Belgium?

>>2193146
Yeah Leopold II had Kongo for himself. It's nice that you noticed.
And USA indeed originated as a former colony of Britain. Hooray for you.

>>2193001
Britain's power was in its navy, which meant it was never really in danger of actually being invaded but it didn't have a big enough army told hold of the Nazis momentum in Europe, not to mention the Nazis were much better at air-land integration.