During the 2nd World War, President Roosevelt's Atlantic Charter had committed the USA to dismantling the British and French empires in Asia, although not to dismantling their own.
Roosevelt had struck up an apparently close relationship with Stalin, and regularly humiliated Churchill. Quite rightly, he decided that the USA and Russia were now the most powerful countries in the world and European countries had worn themselves out. He disliked European imperialism but failed to see the USA's own example or that Russia was building one up in Eastern Europe.
Transition period of world politics. USA may initiated global policy formulation through UN establishment for peace ful world. Integration of nations under UN General Assembly has potential to defend any unforeseen event any where in the world and under colonial powers inverse phenomenon happened.
Sorry Pankaj this was actually a plan on the part of Roosevelt, not simply an unfortunate side effect. After the war, economically Britain was virtually crippled, its most prosperous areas bombed and industry barely functioning. The USA demanded it pay back loans. Did it lean on Britain over India? Who knows? Rightly Roosevelt despised colonialism but ignored USA colonialism.
Nevertheless, when Vietnam asked the USA for help according to the Atlantic Charter when France took back Indo-China, the USA ignored Ho Chi Ming.
India is benefited via political reform of Govt of India Act. 1919 and Govt of India Act 1935 initiated by British Govt of India as democratic values reinforced in India, scientific temper accelerated, Education fast tracked. Sir Harcourt Butler initiated education reforms and foundation of technical education for Indian. Today India is technical human capital.
Yes, I agree that the empire wasn't all bad, but I wonder if the same developments could not have occurred simply with trade and more peaceful means. Again, given human societies, people and peoples jostling for position, that might not have worked. To some extent, the British began in India as traders but then got into competition with the French for territory.
The Atlantic Charter was not a bad idea and reflected events after the 1st war when Britain and France expanded their territories in the Middle East and Africa. Roosevelt wanted to prevent that. He mistakenly believed that Stalin was against territorial gain as well.
Stanley, Original credit of bicameral parliament form of democracy is with 'British' adopted by leading countries and have limitations of worlds as matter is 'Diplomatic' in principle.
Thanks! for knowledge sharing
I think not, Arben, though not quite the issue. Britain could not have defeated Germany, but Germany could not defeat Russia. Germany did not have the expertise, armaments to invade Britain especially after suffering defeat in the air. So? Would the Germany economy have supported Hitler's adventures for much longer? Again, probably not.
Please refer to the following: The Decline, Revival and Fall of the British Empire by J. Gallagher (Cambridge University Press, 1982).
I am sure you will find it appealing.
Arben, I see what you are saying but this is simply an academic question, not subjective. I feel we are talking slightly at cross purposes. But doing ao can be interesting by itself.
Certainly with the failure of the German airforce over Britain, any immediate invasion would have been impossible. And true, Hitler would not have been terribly bothered about Britain's continuance as an independent force. That is a reasonable view, except Hitler knew his history and he was aware of the part Britain played in Napoleon's downfall.
Was Hitler fully aware of Russia's power. Again, yes to some degree. But the movement of Russian industry back to the Urals was not I suspect a strategy he foresaw. Of course this question is nothing to do with either development, but interesting anyway.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia