For King and Country?

would it even work in today's world of global insurgencies? Probably not. But I've never been opposed to a stronger Britain.

f-yeah! bring er back, the whole damn thing. minus the US of course.

On the negative side, they've released 2 terrorist on Bail recently and seem to have a problem with the muslim population they've let into their own country. On the positive side, various places in the middle east, Pakistan, and Rhodesia, at least. The latter it is nearly impossible to imagine them running worse than has been done. Still, the forces that lead to the breakup of the empire would have had some outlet, and who knows what all the other changes since then would have done under different rule.

If the Brits had the same head-set they had during those years you've got a point.

The Brit head-set of today however just argues against this proposition.

what vanderleun said. The Brits today are weak weak weak. Their sailors in Iran was disgraceful.

Don't I miss the days were America had powerful friends OR enemies to compete against though.

To answer your last. I enjoyed the Decline and Fall of the British Empire, though the author's name escapes me.

I have to admit, I don't have any basis for comparison, as that was the only book I read on the subject.

As to the question itself: yes, I miss the British Empire. Though I suppose it's purely for selfish reasons. I liked the stable world it fostered, and I liked the idea of finding British culture and class in nearly every corner of the world. What I'm not considering is the people who suffered under British rule. Some suffered terribly.

Ultimately it was the British dissemination of the ideals of freedom filtering down to all of Her/His Majesty's subjects that untied the knot. Though I suppose bankruptcy after WWII had more to do with it....

Good post and question though. Quite stimulating.

This is all alternate universe stuff, BUT -

I think the great colonial powers (France, England, the Netherlands, etc) should admit that it hasn't worked and go back to the lands they once ruled and tell the natives it's over. Countries now well established, like India and Australia would simply re-affirm their allegiance to the Crown. But some of these other "nations" would go back to being colonies. The trade-off is that the colonizing nations must act as good stewards and not marauding Huns. The new colonies would be citizens of their own country; the monetary system, legal system, etc., would be that of the colonizing nation.

Back to reality: I think a strong British Empire, led by strong Brits (can you say Maggie Thatcher) who've thrown off the mulitcultural PC shackles, would be a boon to the world.

Can anyone argue that Zimbabwe would be better off as Rhodesia right now?

Another Opinion: No argument from me. Rhodesia could feed itself and still export food, had a strong economy, a pragmatic people, and a stable political system that extended the franchise to some blacks while excluded some whites. Ian Smith's exhumed corpse coule do a better job than Comrade Mugabe. (See Smith's memoir, "The Great Betrayal." Incidentally, *not* England's finest hour.)

Also... If I remember correctly, in Smith's memoir he recounts having his guns confiscated just before the great decline began. A lesson there for us all.

If it were not for the British, half the world would not be civilized.

Look at how many democracies in the world today have their roots in England, as former British colonies, etc.

And even the biggest democracy, India, reflects the English influence. Their primary language for government and commerce is English, a very sensible choice.

FDR had a lot to do with making sure that the Empire did not survive WWII.

I would also add that a Westminster Constitution, where everything relies on all the leaders "doing the right thing, old chap" has been a major problem in a lot of the former colonies, particularly the African ones. I don't know if a US-style separation of powers would have worked better.

Goldberg wrote awhile back for a return to the Mandates, which sounds a lot like what Jaxsolo is arguing for.

The obvious point to raise today, July 4, is that we used to be part of the British Empire as well. As I recall, we didn't particularly like it. (Well, OK, there were plenty of tories...)

Wonder what our Empire map looks like?

Now the sun never sets on the American flag.

The third world would be better off, but not Canada. We should have severed all ties to England way back in 1867. Then we might have become American states by now. We'd have more freedom and you'd have more oil.

And Quebec would be a quaint foreign country where we could have cheap vacations.

The third world would be better off, but not Canada. We should have severed all ties to England way back in 1867. Then we might have become American states by now. We'd have more freedom and you'd have more oil.

And Quebec would be a quaint foreign country where we could have cheap vacations.

The world would have been better off plus I submit the British Emprie would have evolved with the World. Problem is that once World War II exposed how vunerable the Empire was-all bets were off. However if nations like Malaysia and Singapore and many in Africa had stayed in the Empire their populations would have benefited.

John:

I can't think of one book that would cover the subject, but you would certainly enjoy "Remote People" by Evelyn Waugh.

jpp 89

Oddly enough, I think what created the success of the Brit empire was American Independence. Without it, the U.K. would have matured a lot slower, and some of the great reforms of the early 19th century wouldn't have happened. The U.S. revolution woke up the Brit establishment.

Without losing the U.S., the incentive to establish Australia would have been much lower, too, so as an Aussie, I should be grateful.....

"The Prize"by Daniel Yergin. It is about oil and ties in the British Empire to the situation today and Churchhill's vision for the navy. It is a riviting page turner, and full of facts and great arguments for today's energy and geo-political situation.

Joel-- America is not an empire.

A book about the British Empire I highly recommend is Niall Ferguson's "Empire: The Rise & Demise of The British World Order".
He also wrote a book titled "Colossus", in which he argues that America SHOULD embrace empire.

Might I suggest "The Great War and Modern Memory" which chronicles how the flower of the empire was killed off during WW I. 60,000 dead at the Somnne. The empire never recovered.

---do not post publically below here--

I enjoy your blog--it's a welcome read. However, as one of the barracks liberals, I appreciate when you keep out of current politics unrelated to the military. Example: George Marshall said he never voted...[as he advised Truman not to recognize Israel]. I am bothered when I see the military in partisan political action.

Yours in the Bond,

Louis VMI '94