MovieChat Forums > Michael Collins (1996) Discussion > A number of things to bear in mind about...

A number of things to bear in mind about the British Empire.

posted 18 years ago by nickcameron-1
39 replies | jump to latest

The British Empire was not just run by the English. The Scots, Welsh and Irish also played a role in creating and maintaining the British Empire. Plenty of Irish fought for the British Empire. For an abvious example look no further than the Duke of Wellington, who was born in Dublin. Granted the Irish were victims of the Empire but they were also agents in creating the Empire. By the by, the Scots tried to start their own Empire in the early 18th century by invading the Americas. They failed terribly, bankrupting the country, which caused them to sign the Act of Union in 1707. Oh and Scotland is named after the Irish tribe, the Scotii. So you could argue Scotland is an Irish occupied territory.

The main cause for the collapse of the British Empire was not a sudden growth in nationalism and resultant wars of independence, but was in fact World War 2, when Britain throwed the Empire against Nazism. Economically and politically Britain never recovered from World War 2, leading to the collapse of the Empire.

The Growth and Development of the British Empire should be placed in the context of the time. The notion of the nation state is a modern development, developed in the nineteenth century. Prior to the nation state, the empire was the prevalent and standard form of government. The Brits are not unique in having an Empire, they are only unique in having the largest and most 'succesful' empire.

If it wasn't for the British Empire there would be no USA, Australia, New Zealand or Canada and everyone in Europe would probably be speaking German.

[–] mcbain791 18 years ago

*Applauds*

'We all float down here.....' - It

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] derfie99 18 years ago

Hotrodder:

I am aware of the history of the United States and take no pride in the things you mentioned. Moreover, I find your social class analysis pretty much beyond despute(The assassination claims may be slightly more murky).

If anyone was preaching it was me and not the United States.

Thanks for reading.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tom_nelligan 17 years ago

You all seem to be forgetting the Spanish/French involvement in America - so to say it wouldn't exist without the British is bull. And your forgetting the American and Russian involvment in World War 2 - they are more responisble for Hitler's defeat than the British - particularly the Russians. I'm not denying British involvment, rather that it was just all down to them. History is not Black and White. The Irish have had a had time at the hands of the British, and the Irish have done things that were bad as well - particularly in the North from the 60's but in the most part we're peaceful in our little republic and just want to get on with our lives as everybody does - we're not all IRA/Sinn Fein supporters.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roll-up-and-shine 17 years ago

The Duke of Wellington had been quoted as saying, when someone referred to his Irish roots,
"Being born in a stable does not make one a horse."
He was very touchy about his Irish origins, however grand they may have been.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cytoplasmrox 17 years ago

it is disgusting that anyone would say that about their roots, its your roots that make a person who they are cx

[–] buzoncontacto 17 years ago

Please don`t mistake the Irish and the Anglo-Irish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish
As to the Duke of Wellington, he is reputed to have dismissed his Irish background by stating that "being born in a stable does not make one a horse". Sure being Irish wasn`t the hip thing in English dominant class, especially after the 1798 rebellion.

[–] john-penfold 17 years ago

"For an abvious example look no further than the Duke of Wellington, who was born in Dublin."

There is a reason why we call Dubliners Jackeens or West Brits. There are alot of British sympathisers in Dublin, due the the culture control of Dublin by Britain.

[–] Slew_Foot 15 years ago

It's funny how any IMDB conversation between Brits and Americans seems to drift toward who won WWII. Well, here's my two cents' worth. I'm American, in case anyone's keeping score.

I really doubt that the war would have been won without all three big allied powers. Consider this:

If Britain hadn't stood up to Hitler for the first couple of years, the Italians would've established a huge African empire. The Germans never would've had to divert their forces (to both Britain and North Africa) from their real objective: the lebensraum of eastern Europe. So the full force of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe would've come down on Stalin, and the Germans would've taken Moscow and Stalingrad.

If the US had not participated in the war, the Germans would've overrun Moscow, as in the first scenario. Note that the US was helping both Britain and the CCCP long before 08 Dec 1941; it was a de facto combatant. Without lend-lease, in particular, the Soviet Army would have been wiped out.

If Hitler had not launched Barbarossa, thus embroiling the CCCP in the war, it would've been the US and Brits against the full might of the German military machine. The liberation of Europe, if even possible, would have been so costly that the populations of the US and UK probably would not have supported it. This is a nonsensical scenario, of course, since Hitler's stated objective was to conquer vast tracts of land in eastern Europe.

So I really don't see much point in claiming that 'my country' won the war, or 'your country' didn't help enough. It was a team effort, and thank God almighty that we won.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] conorhal 15 years ago

Well, Jordan doesn't shy away from that fact. There aren't a lot of English voices in Dublin castle in the film are there?

So what's your point exactly, that the UK bares no ultimate responsibility?

Bollox.

The English merey did what they have always done. Without the numbers needed to control an empire they applied the simple concept of devide and conquer to maintain control over the empire. Elevate the protestant merchant classes over the catholics, or in Nigeria put the christians in charge of the army or in India, modify the caste system and create the Raj to rule for you.
Of course this insidious, underhanded and devisive means of rule is at the heart of half the ethnic conflicts in the world today. So cheers for that England, not only are you a bad ruler, by you also seem to enjoy leaving a civil war time bomb and ethnic hatered behind you everywere you go.

"Work is the curse of the drinking classes."

[–] Hotrodder 15 years ago

Conorhal- It was the BRITISH Empire, not just consisting of the English. There were plenty of Scots, Welsh and yes, Irish involved in the maintenance of that Empire. Or do you think Irish soldiers in the British army took notes from their Mum's asking to be excused suppressing the natives that day, do you?
Divide and conquer, my arse. Every Empire had colonial troops which were used to police their countries. Britain did for the pure and simple reason it could never have sufficient British troops to do so.
The reasons for elevating the Protestants is very simple- that Catholic countries were hostile to Protestant ones, the Pope even encouraging war on them. Hardly surprising that Catholics weren't exactly seen as friendly in that context is it?
The caste system was always strong in India and by and large the British just left the Indians to get on with it, they hardly modified it.
The partition of India was to try to give the hostile elements seperate countries- it was done in the hope that conflict would be avoided, not to encourage it. The historic hatreds between Hindus and Muslims s hardly the fault of the British. They were the ones who chose war after the British left. No-one forced them to. As for many of the other countries- half BTW?, Britain only held a quarter of the globe, much of that Canada and Australia so again you exaggerate- the hatreds are all tribal and were there well before the British colonised them.
About time some Irish lost the chip on their shoulders about past history and the English, methinks.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

[–] Slew_Foot 15 years ago

Erik --- I agree with a lot of what you said. No point in holding grudges against people long dead.

But as for the part about the Irish soldiers in the British army...Some of these folks were 'troublemakers' at home and thus were given the choice between prison and military service. You can't blame them for taking the one option over the other. Once in the service, they didn't have a lot of say about the orders they were given. So I'm not sure these pawns were a driving force in determining British foreign policy.

And unfortunately, some areas of the former empire are engaged in civil strife, either because of groups pitted against each other or just arbitrary decisions made about drawing borders and appointing rulers. I'm not casting blame --- that won't get us anywhere --- but surely you agree that a few things could have been managed better.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] d_killa_b 15 years ago

exactly.they were conscripted(thrust)into service.perhaps some loyalist paddys signed up on their own but most would have rather fought the british than fought with them.the same could be said of the scots if england had not broken them of that habit long ago.

i could never quite figure why the scots and the irish couldn't put it together to whip them once and for all.divide and conquer i suppose.

[–] Slew_Foot 15 years ago

I think that was Robert the Bruce's plan --- to unite the Scots and Irish in opposition against the English. He never quite worked out the details, though.

[–] conorhal 15 years ago

"Conorhal- It was the BRITISH Empire, not just consisting of the English. There were plenty of Scots, Welsh and yes, Irish involved in the maintenance of that Empire."

Well, The British Empire also included Indians, Chinese, Kenyans... .and the list goes on. But ask youself this about the British empire, how many Irish, of Indian or Kenyans were in charge of this empire and calling the 'shots'? Yeah, at the end of the day it always comes down to some English toff in a top hat.

You simply fail to accept the simple fact that the British Empire at the end of the day IS the British Parliment in Westminster. That is the seat of power and face of the British Empire.

"Or do you think Irish soldiers in the British army took notes from their Mum's asking to be excused suppressing the natives that day, do you?"

There were many reasons why Irishmen served in the British army, (there were draft riots in Ireland during WW1 BTW). Many were IRB men fighting in the Somme because they believed that if they sided with England than that loyalty would be rewarded with an Irish Free state, Many were Northern Protstants trying to prove a point and many more still did so because it was the only option available to put food in their families bellies.
Sure many Irish helped run the system (for reasons I explained in my previous post) but none of them called the shots. Those that give the orders are where the ultimate responsibility lies.

"Work is the curse of the drinking classes."

[–] Slew_Foot 15 years ago

That's where I'm coming from.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] d_killa_b 15 years ago

lol such an assessment of history is askewed to say the least.

yes,while it is true great nations arise out of oppression and resistance to tyranny,that does not give cause to laud the boot on the neck for forcing the body into action.

in your line of logic,slave owners are justified in history because the ancestors of slaves have greater oppurtunity in the united states than they would in africa.that is just silly.

the british empire was just the same as all other empires thruout time.and equally the same,the irish were justified in their rebuke of encroachment by a foreign power.

it's not that all empires didn't act this way,only that the british empire was the most recent one in memory.it is quite hard to fathom though that it has not even been one hundred years since atrocities were committed in the name of the crown.within our own modern age,we have seen massacres of indigenous people by a seeming enlightened society.it truly boggles the mind to consider.thank god the monarchs finally got it sorted that they weren't exactly great policy makers eh?

and yes.,..without the british empire maybe there would be no united states...but there would certainly be more native americans around.

the same can be said for australia and new guinea and new zealand.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hotrodder 14 years ago

Furthermore, his assessment of WW2 is naively nationalist and patriotic as it gets. If Hitler did not invade Russia and the US did not enter the war to open up a second front, there is no way in Hell Britain would have been able to do anything.

The OP doesn't actually say that much about Britain's role in WW2, but I personally would argue this- it was vital. If Britain hadn't decided to fight on after the fall of France and had sued for an uneasy peace instead the war may have had a far different outcome. The fact that Churchill with the British people behind him did fight on when the odds looked unsurmountable says a lot for them IMO. Once the Battle of Britain was won Britain started to take the war to the enemy in the air, at sea and on land- inflicting the first defeats on the Axis in North Africa with the drubbing of Italian forces there. The operations in North Africa, Greece etc may have proved difficult for the British and Commonwealth forces but it helped to make the German offensice against the USSR a lot less formidable than it could have been (the loss of aircraft and experienced aircrew in the Battle of Britain has been estimated to have made a big difference) and very possibly delayed Barbarossa itself and stopped the conquering of Moscow and more importantly the over-running of the USSR's armaments factories.
Britain was a major influence in winning the war and that can't be doubted by anyone rational, of couse it couldn't have won the war without the USA and others but certainly the USA couldn't have done it without Britain's contribution either.
As for the British Empire of course it was good and bad, considering it's size it couldn't be anything else but I would still contend that compared to most other colonial empires it did far more good and wasn't just an instrument of oppression.

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."