Are British people stupid? Why did they end up with the shitty

Too polite.

>>128233280
Murrica was growing too powerful and they were too busy in Europe with other feuds, anyway.

>>128233280

The Atlantic is a big ocean.

Because it was too hard to do. War of 1812 was costly.

>>128233280
The shitty and cold parts were more dependent on the home country and had a harder time fielding their own armies because they were shitty and cold.

They didn't keep trying to retake the US because they couldn't. Serious attempts at it would leave them wide open to being buttravaged by European rivals while they were bogged down crossing a massive ocean to deal with a massive land area full of guerrilla woodsmen.

The only way the British Empire could've resolved the situation positively would've been handling the colonies better before the revolution and building more direct links between them and the crown so government could be more responsive. That didn't happen because hereditary aristocracy leads to arrogance and reckless disregard for outsiders.

File: so called exhaustive map of british empire.gif (1MB, 3072x1662px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x1662px

>>128233280
>Why didn't they keep making attempts to retake the United States?

Too busy colonising the rest of the world.

Do they not teach you any world history in school?

>>128233280
France Spain and america was in the american revolution. France had didn't want a strong america and Spain was still at war with Britain in the Caribbean.
america ignoring France went to Britain for peace we saw an opportunity to split the relationship between France and america and took it

>>128235323
Yeah, Im not even an expert on british or world history but I could infer that being spread too far and too thin across all of their empire is a big reason they were unable to maintain the Colonies.

>>128233797
4 u

The European empires didn't see much value in the new world in general, outside of the West Indies because they were lucrative trade ports. I mean, consider the fact that the Dutch traded New York to the British for fucking Suriname. Or that France sold us half of our landmass for pennies on the dollar.

They didn't see the long-term potential. They only saw short term gain.

They were busy.

Keep in mind NA wasn't really all that exciting back then... the 'jewel in the crown' was India in those days.

File: stoneroses.jpg (80KB, 908x605px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 908x605px

>>128233280
>Are British people stupid?
u wot m7

>>128236628

In fairness, the Louisiana purchase was mostly an act of desperation on the part of Napoleon.

>>128236643
This, they got more outta the poo in loos at the time, and as a country it had more potential revune/resources

Funny how it turned out today kek

>>128236137
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783)

>>128233280
>Why didn't they keep making attempts to retake the United States?
They noticed, that quite a few weirdoes, madmen, criminals and idiots already had gathered in the United States.
They already had their share of those in Australia.
Deporting all of them somewhere els afte the victory wasn't really an option, as there was nowhere to send them due to Australia being at maximum capacity already.

So they decided to let them stay in the US, where they wouldn't be able to do much harm, apart from killing the real americans.

Guess they regret that now