British Empire

how much of a clusterfuck headache would ruling over these subhumans be? was it worth the trouble?

Kikes knew that America is capable to raise a much better army, so they moved the world kike hq from London to New York. Also they could use the freedom in America to subvert it.

Well, at least I can say "I told you so, nigger".

Britain's strategy when combating European powers was to use her navy control the waters and keep warfare off the island itself.Instead of conquering mainland Europe they used their advanced ships to colonize. When colonized areas got uppity they had the choice of cutting their losses or sending men and ships, leaving Britain herself under defended in the case of a European country declaring war.

Pathetic creatures. Shame this disease has infected European peoples too.

The good goyim syndrome is universal, kikes engineered a subjugation method and "pay off" for each group for a specific purpose.

it was just D&C by (((((them))))).
i know what youre thinking

by the time the empire started falling apart, (((((they)))))) already established (as is their nature) trading and finance routs and positions.
and the only thing bothering them was imperial regulation and imperial taxes.
i think you know what was the anwser to this.
not to mention, that just like in the case of the napoleonic french empire, austro-hungary, and the USSR a few decades back, its easier to manipulate small broken apart societies than to bet it all on one big one and risk it all

Most people here spout zog as its decline. And this is true to a degree but their influence is usually vastly overestimated.

The decline and fall of the empire is More due to the spiritual damage of ww1. Those hebrewes just seized on the opportunity to keep us demoralized. The granting of independence was a drawn out Process over 40 years. Perpetued by (((soviet))) subversion, morons, cucks and traitors. America was already a growing power with ease of subversion, seizing every opportunity to weaken the British internationally for their benefit. When Britain was no longer the most beneficial to them the Jews moved wholesale to america. The rats didn't sink the the ship, they fled it.

But all the stuff about Palestine/Israel was undeniably Jewish interests

The only exception I can think of is Singapore. (And Burma, but that is more due to a Communist dictorship) But your point is made.

This as well as increasing unrest in colonial territories. At a certain point it becomes more viable economically and militarily to give up the territory rather than try to hold it. Remember that Britain could only send so many men to suppress a revolt or restore order if one of these colonies acted up. What happens when what you can send and do is no longer sufficient? Start killing off entire sections of the colony until it is? You'd just be pouring gasoline on a fire. There was no viable path for the UK to maintain their empire, so they gave it up.

Britain insisted in starting a world war even though they knew it would cost them their empire.

The Queen is still the head of Government in Australia.

God, only shit answers. The plebbit influence really is cancer.

To answer your question:

Empires that large are unsustainable since they are under attack from so many different angles. The british empire had to deal with everything from popular movements to radical insurgencies in their colonies. Suppressing these proved to be harder and more expensive than just letting these colonies become independent.

The british learned that a big navy helps in securing the sea but is actually worth nothing in keeping a rebelling population in check. World War 2 accelerated the decline of the empire since it was almost bled dry in the war against the Germans. The US who was the determining factor in Britains survival also dictated the terms of the post war era which saw the Empire give up influence in most of its colonies, especially in the middle east.

It also became increasingly problematic to find excuses on why the British should pay for the incompetent and outright corrupt leadership that was established in most colonies. Usually you get something by bleeding a country dry, after granting the negroes, pajeets and others human rights they demanded stuff in return. Profiting was no longer possible and some colonies became a net negative.

We see the same happening with the US today. Their military makes up the biggest part of their domestic economy. It is impossible for them to cut the military budget since it would mean to lay off million of workers who are just being paid because the military budget is so high. A huge part of the american economy is war driven and its what puts a veil over the deeper job crisis the country is facing. It has to go to war on a constant basis to justify their increasing military budget which subsequently keeps the industry running.

Would the US cut back on military investments roughly 20 million jobs would directly and indirectly vanish. No presidency would survive something like that which is why America will keep finding enemies.

All that is paid by debt though, so once people lose faith in the dollar as a currency and stop trading using it, the US will come crashing down. Prepare your anus for the time when the US has an unemployment rate of 35%, 150 million non-whites and hyper inflation.

Brits never conquered the ME, though.

The correct, historic answer is WW2. You see the reality is that WW2 was a war of empires, British and German.

What basically happened was the jews in America taxed the shit out of the British to participate in the war, through what was called Lendlease. They only recently paid back the Americans actually. But more than that, with the attacks on Britain, Germany and so on - manufacturing and industry was essentially fucked across the Empire. The British could no longer afford loss making colonies, nor could they afford to police the profitable ones. Gandhi's Indian peaceful uprising essentially put a pin in it. Then the Labour party, rather than rebuild the Empire - chose instead to cut and chop it off. The ww2 event also brought about nationalistic tendancies in the colonies and it was deemed more logical to let them go off as friends, than to fight their independence. Hence the close ties with the ANZACs and Canadians today.

False, they conquered whole swathes of it. However they had a series of defeats across Afghanistan.

Some things don't change apparently. You can't conquer a mass shithole with tribal tendancies and no structure. Unless you just genocide everything.

brits were unwilling to massacare their subjects, and their subjects achieved collective consciousness of that fact - they could tell the brits to fuck off with no consequences

There was no British Persia. They were under their sphere of influence, but not conquered.

Britain fought really hard to push Germany down on the Jews' behalf. This had two effects: one, it bled Britain dry and left them in a position where holding onto their colonies was largely beyond their capability, and two, it created a situation where there was no room for nationalism in western politics and the floodgates of immigration could be opened, as indeed they were. Indeed the only civilized nation to avoid this fate was Japan and only because they threatened to join the communists if America didn't let the Japanese fascists resume power.

...

>>>/britpol/

I should have been more clear:

WW2 (and to an extent WW1) weakened Britain massively and it couldn't hold such a large Empire. Dismantling it was the only way forward.

Then there's Murica. After WW2 Britain was no longer the world's most powerful nation. It didn't make sense to have the world's largest empire when there were at least 2 nations (Murica and Soviet Union) that were significantly more powerful than it. The Muricans hated the Empire and "encouraged" them to give it up.

The Empire gets way too much bad press especially from the left and liberals. It left every country in a better place than than it was before colonisation. The British have influenced the world far more than any other people in history, mostly for the best.

We should shill the Empire just because the left and liberals get triggered by it so much.

forgetting Malaysia as well lad
Malaysia stayed loyal to the Crown and Britain successfully managed to root out all the jungle commies of Malay in the 50's
something the yanks would fail to do 20 years later in Indochina

Kek German Empire
vid related

Yes the British Empire
teaching africans not to shit where they get their drinking water and trying to stop pajeets from burning their wives and daughters alive when her husband dies and handing the more arrogant asiatic races of the world a slice of humble pie looking at you Qing dynasty

that wasnt against afghanis though that was against russian troops in afghanistan
Palestine, Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Mesopotamia/Iraq used to all be British territory where the local nutty mudshits were kept under boot and thumb and the original inhabitants experienced some first world comforts
Persia and Egypt got independence eventually
Palestine got fucked over when the Americans decided to honour the zionists promises after the war
Arabia was created by Britain in order to use arabs as cannon fodder against turks
Mesopotamia got given to a dictator I think
and Pakistan was created by Britain by moving the muslim population north, drawing a line in the dirt and separating the majority muslim and majority hindu poopulations of the Indian subcontinent because neither could play nice together
I dunno that whole regions a shit show its not worth the effort to civilise it

Pics related

...

You've got to understand just how devastating WWI was. Most wars before the 20th century were heroic adventures, fought between kings, by small armies. Napoleon showed Europe a national army (as opposed to a royal army), and was able to muster up 680,000 men at peak. He's quoted as bragging "you cannot stop me, I can afford to lose 30,000 men each month!" - fighting against a nation in this way, rather than just the enemy king with his army, terrified the leaders of other European powers by its scale.

To contrast to this, a week into WWI the German army was around 3.8 million men. There were single days in WWI when one side would suffer 60000 casualties. The scale of this had never been seen before, and every country involved was involved in 'total warfare' - the whole society was purely focused on the war effort. Never before had armies been able to hit so hard, and more importantly, never before had countries been so able to take a punch.

Technology had advanced at far too great a pace for military tactics to keep up with, and both sides were for a long time certain that if they could just hit hard enough at some weak point, they could break through and win the war within a couple of weeks. You might have heard the sentiment that was expressed at the start of the war that everything will be over by Christmas. Eventually they realised that the war would be won by attrition, and that the end goal was the total collapse of the enemy's society. The Germans were able to achieve this when they stoked the Russian revolution and sent Lenin in to establish communism.

Anyway, since the British thought that they could win the war quickly if they just fought hard enough for a few weeks, they were willing to throw hundreds of thousands of men into the meat grinder, and pay incredible sums to maintain the war (it's only for a little while, right?). The British empire was ludicrously wealthy before WWI which is the real key to all this. To give you a sense of just how great their financial power was (no doubt helped by the Jews), 90% of all financial transactions in the entire world were processed in London. This incredible wealth allowed them to subsidise the other allied powers, and buy food, supplies, and weapons from the US. Convinced that they wouldn't have to keep this up for long, the British were running a massive deficit. At first they were sending gold, but eventually that ran out, and the war was fueled by debt. All the wealth was transferred out of Europe, much to the USA - cementing the US as a world power.

Eventually the allies won the war, but it was a bloody, Pyrrhic victory. The empire hadn't lost its land, but the financial power was lost. Britain was now a paper tiger, set to slowly decline much like Rome had.

As the rot was starting to set in, WWII came around. The Jews who owned Britain (all that debt has only helped their position, since they are the creditors) pitted the Empire against Hitler rather than the greater looming threat of the soviets, causing Britain to again smash itself to pieces against the Germans. The big difference this time was the ideological war that was being fought by propaganda. WWI was a war between nationalistic European empires, but WWII was shown to the citizens as being "the last stand of democracy and freedom against the evils of fascism". Imagine the effects that half a decade of propaganda along these lines has on a society. Not just propaganda from a few Hollywood kikes, but a unified, concerted effort from the state and most of the populace who'd already bought into it. The propaganda efforts of WWII are why there is so much praise heaped on the concept of democracy within the western world today.

Now winning a victory for democracy, freedom and self-determination was all well and good for the ethnic British, but the non-whites in much of the empire naturally felt otherwise. WWI had sowed the economic seeds of decolonisation, but WWII sowed the equally deadly ideological ones. Britain had neither the economic power or the manpower left to combat the anti-British nationalist sentiments in the colonies, leading to the rapid loss of land all around the world. To make matters worse, the US only agreed to enter WWII on the condition that Britain agree to return its colonies to their 'rightful' mudskin owners - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter . America was now a world superpower, and this agreement allowed them huge leverage to weaken Britain over the coming decades.

So it was a combination of Jewry, the unprecedented scale of the world wars, and Churchill's deal with the devil FDR.

t. brit

Teddy Roosevelt, 20th century Liberalism and nukes.

Quality post.

I fucking love that picture. The addition at the end just seals it.

This. If we had stayed out of WW1 & 2 we'd be so much better of than what we are now.

Saving this.

As an American, this. You guys spent yourselves bloody on something largely unnecessary. I know the feel, we also fought in WWI (albeit briefly) and WWII (albeit briefly) for no truly good reason.

To my view, the colonies in what is now the United States were an important exception to the rule. We were a European majority colony that was ready to self-govern. This is in stark contrast to later independences from the British Empire.

pic related an altered portrait of my 6x great grandfather as the greatest creature in the land he was sent to rule, a great contributor to the British Empire in his day. Withdrawn by London to his home because he was "Ruling as an Enlightened Dictator" in the land he was assigned to govern. Nevermind that he was civilizing it and making it more productive. Also fought the USA as part of the 79th Regiment of Foot.

Why? It was overextended, being run from London mostly.

Jews.

It was in decline before the 1940s, but afterwards was really when it plummetted.

Now the Raj isn't in Pakistan anymore, but in Britain.

The unceasing thirst to slaughter their European ancestors to save the jews has made them the best golems they ever had.

But golems are just tools, it doesn't matter if it breaks in the end.

If they forced countries to take peerages, that might have created a more stable empire situation, because, as it was, it was mostly the upper class in Britain enforcing their will on the realms through governorships, not local aristocrats.

For example, if the British had pushed aside this: infogalactic.com/info/Canadian_titles_debate#The_Nickle_Resolution

regardless of Canadian opinion, then the decentralisation would be more authoritative, and not the basically seperate, though with common identity and heritage, seen today.

Wiki. link if you prefer that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_titles_debate

Anti-Anglo!

Not enough military power to keep all the territories. Especially since most of them were inhabited by nonwhite non Brits. A lot of unrest and separatism.

I actually like Brits, really, but:
I'm German. What do you expect?
I mean, I get blamed by them for cuckoldry and being too soft on invaders even today.
I didn't occupy Germany back then to "re-educate" and "denazify" them.

I'm the kind of guy the allies would have killed back then.
The cucked Germans are the ones that really took on the re-education.
They're basically Anglos that speak German.

I'll warm up again if they don't mess things up for the west again.

But yeah, I don't hate Brits/Anglos. Most of my online friends are that, and I don't say any of this out of malice.

You guys are victims of propaganda, too.
The truths of the past must be used to improve ourselves.
I don't blindly worship Hitler, either. He made mistakes, but ultimately it was the Allies who ruined the west.

I don't want any of us to die at any of our hands anymore.

Ok.

And I know it's just an ad/commercialism, but.

This kind of shit you would never get from anyone else.
Especially not from desertdwellers.

The anti-Anglo poster has been filtered, now he can get lost.

Also
made you look
Sage for non discussion, though.

We like you too, mate. Whites must stand together. Saxon/Anglo-saxon/Anglo/Celt/etc, we have more than enough shared historical grandeur that we can become the best of neighbours.

Speaking of the British Empire.

C'mon

The Empire was at least 40% Britbong

Yes, countries are expensive.

Which must have been the reason for why the british pledged for war.

traditionalright.com/origins-of-the-first-world-war-part-ii/
“Balfour (somewhat lightly): “We are probably fools to not find a reason for not declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.”

White: “You are a very high-minded man in private life. How can you possibly contemplate anything so politically immoral as provoking a war against a harmless nation which has as good a right to a navy as you have? If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.”

Balfour: “That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war.”

White: “I am shocked that you of all men should enunciate such principles.”

Balfour (again lightly): “Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.”

continuation

The British elite got together in the early twentieth century with the American, French, etc elite and said "Why should we each have a national empire with a piece of the world, when we could co-operate together and have the whole world?"
Then came two world wars, demonisation of nationalism, the UN, the IMF, the various unions like the European Union, and the G20.

...

Britain never held interest in south Louisiana faggot

...

Britkikes

That is such charming word, user. You really know the right words for such an occasion…So charming.

Or Florida. They only US territory they controlled was the 13 colonies, the Ohio territory for a short time, and some border disputes with Canada.

Wouldn't surprise me to be honest, although the 'British, French and American' elite are more likely to have been jewish.

In the majority of cases I do no believe the British were serving the interests of the jews. The jew had wormed its way in and was likely trying to push for what it wanted, but much of what Britain did and achieved was not in line with their desires.

They needed Britain on its knees so that it would be forced to come to terms, which it got through WW2 and a deal with the 'Americans' (again unfair to blame the American people, just a few twisted kikes or traitors in their leadership).

The idea that Britain should not fight to keep Germany from unifying the continent is stupid. It was in Britain's best interests to keep the continent divided. In hindsight we can say that it would have been better for the Nazis to win; but at the time Britain would have been more interested in maintaining its Empire, which meant they had to stop a single united continent, and it meant they had to stop overtly nationalistic ideals of the Nazi variety. (Today I am a nationalist, but in an age of Empires you do not want to go around telling Indians or the Chinese that they should rule themselves; that's just hurting yourself). If anyone had any idea of the cost of WW2, I do not believe anyone would have got involved. It was the war that cemented jewish power in the world; though thankfully it looks like that is about to end. … And yes, a few select evil jews had power in many nations in Europe before WW2, but they did not run the show until afterwards.

nah first part of that I blame on yanks
southerner yanks were the ones bringing nigger slaves into the house to fuck their wives at the height of their degenerate decadency
and the second part come off it you are soft on invaders

you're right that was yanks again and the soviet commutards
u w0t m8
I dont hate Germans either besides your godlike levels of arrogance, being equally as emotionally unstable as a flamboyant italian covered with a thin veneer of a robot-like facade and spawning some of the worst goddamned ideologies in Europe from your jewish population
could have at least expelled them en masse at some point like the rest of Western Europe m8
I dont even like Churchill tbh, not because of the war or because of his numerous faults, he had his heart in the right place but he was horribly naive
I dont like him because hes the bastard son of an american whore and loose noble
seriously nothing food comes out of the house of spencer
the last noteworthy one bareback fucked pakis before the royal family decided to off her for being a paki whore

provocation?
not the first time or the second lad
Germans broke the treaty, twice
the second time round
we tend to stick to those, usually even when its not in our best interests
im sure you'd rather we were more like France and reneged on deals when we felt like it
and the first time was because of serbs vs austrians nothing to do with anybody

well in those days it was easy
Qing China was so corrupt and retarded the British administration was the only real stability of the era
and India didnt get dreams on nationalism until entire generations of indians were taught how to read and write in English schools and they started reading republican literature
without Britain India would still be ruled by the muslims even today

Aside from the obvious World Wars destroying the economy; the push for welfare in the post-war period took all the remaining money. Another important reason was the defeat at Singapore and Malaya destroyed confidence in British Asia and it gave all of British Asia more autonomy. After losing Malaya, Singapore, India, as well as influence in the Pacific realms keeping the empire alive was really just taxing the people to provide law, order, and development to Africa.

...

It very much describes them mindset of a typical brit, ie not much better than your typical kike

*cough projecting

Interesting how the stralian states are broken down. "Commonwealth" remember.

The way out is the way in.

The Brits had to cede world power to America for 70 years because we bailed them out of WW2.

But the English Monarch remains personal head of the "Commonwealth" reigning over billions of people.

a position of power which gets eroded by the year by the globalist elite
Britain was literally paying off loans to America with interest in return for a huge loan to rebuild British industry which had been bombed into dust by the Luftwaffe

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF AUSTRALIA is not Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, the sovereign.

Uh oh.

Oh, also, almost forgot:

We're your warehouse.

This has to do with the fact CANADA is a company. The Nickle Resolution is the cover story.

Conran Black should be given a medal for uncovering this.

Yeah half of Europe took out loans from America after the war
and most of them paid it all back with interest and inflation in the early-mid 2000's

Quality post, although I don't really view WWI as being a phyric victory for the Allies, they outright came out on top

The aftermath of WWII was what really un did them

Also can't we view both wars as basically one thing? Even during the "inter war" period there was shit ton of fighting, chaos and destruction, the Soviets invaded all the Baltic countries plus Poland, went as far as right outside warsaw

There was a brief civil war in German plus general chaos and revolution, the giant civil war in Spain, fighting in what used to be the Austrian-Hungarian empire, basically everywhere on the map that was changed as a result of the aftermath of WWI there was crazy shit

And this isn't counting the great depression, and all the societal decline in the countries that won WWI

I really feel like 1914-1945 was one giant thing
Then 1946-1991 was another, see article related about the entire cold war being fake including all of the fighting that happened in it

radixjournal.com/journal/2015/6/4/our-kind-of-enemy?rq=our kind of enemy

And then 1992 to present is another thing (the rise of nationalism)

And then all 3 of these things (the 31 years war, the divided world, and the rise of nationalism) can all be lumped together into one giant thing from 1914 to present which is globalism vs nationalism

What went wrong? Everything went exactly as expected. You can get into all sorts of details as to why or how, but in the end nobody wants to be ruled (and taxed) by some faceless assholes a thousand miles away. People like to keep their governments close. Ultimately, it's a good thing, as it makes for a difficult obstacle to globalist ambitions.

If we stayed out of WWI there would be no WWII. Possibly a British Empire would remain, but most importantly, America wouldn't have it's absurd invisible empire and it's rapidly becoming worthless dollar.