From The American Way of Strategy, by Michael Lind, pp. 100-101:
OK, but why? Britain had not suffered a major military defeat since 1783, it still controlled the markets and resources of two-fifths of the Earth’s surface – why did its military and economic power decline?
Well, England did emerge victorious from WWI, but they were in debt to the USA-and smetime in 1919, the UK became a net debtor nation. Germany and the USA surpassed England in steel, chemicals, and many manufactured goods. Plus, India was begiining to act up. So yes, England was past its peak in 1919, and the burden of mainatining the royal navy was severe.
World War I was expensive, both in manpower and money. Also, and this started at the end of the 19th century, having had an early technological lead, Britain failed to develop and invest in new technologies quickly. Added to that, the price of British goods was high. Plus, at that time, a fairly rigid class system kept labor relations poor and large numbers uneducated. So Britain’s relative productivity declined, compared with nations that industrialized later.
Plus, Britain had a large colonial empire which wasn’t cheap.
Cheap, no. Profitable, yes. (To business, not government.) Which is why it existed in the first place.
There were also numerous uprisings in Ireland, beginning on Easter Sunday of 1916.
Britain was first to fully exploit industrial mechanisation, but by 1900 not necessarily best. First mover advantage doesn’t last forever.
I don’t know that it was particularly profitable, really. Both the Hudson Bay Company and the British East India Company had to be bailed out by the government, and by the middle of the 19th Century, Britain was committed to global free trade, so they couldn’t even guarantee captive markets anymore, and, in fact, by the end of the century, there were large amounts of foreign goods coming into British colonies and dominions. A lot of the money made by British investors were in places like Latin America and the US, not part of Britain’s colonial empire.
So, is that the answer? Was free trade bad policy?
Britain also didn’t have a significant military victory since Napoleon. The British Army didn’t do particularly well against the Boers or Russia in the Crimea. Britain had no chance of defeating major powers like the USA, Russia, Germany, or France from say the 1850s on. It’s doubtful that they could beat second rate powers such as Japan or Italy either. Of course, none of these powers could defeat Britain either because of her Navy.
At the beginning of WWI Britain’s navy was large enough compared to the other powers that she essentially controlled the high seas. Between WWI and WWII this control ended. The US was strong enough to challenge Britain in the Atlantic, and Japan could challenge her in the Pacific and Indian ocean. This partially lose her dominance in trade, because other countries could tell her to piss off and trade with the US or Japan. In addition to these countries, Germany also had a fleet that demanded respect.
Britain had essentially lost most of her colonies too. Sure, Canada and Australia were still in the common wealth, but they had industry of their own. They no longer had to buy their industrial goods from Britain. As mentioned before, Britain was hurting a bit financially from WWI, while the US ended up with surpluses.
In short, what it came down to was that from Napoleon to WWII, other powers grew up while Britain largely stayed the same. Germany unified, the US grew enormously, Japan opened to the outside world, and Russia/USSR modernized. She simply lost her power because everyone else became big enough to stand up to her.
My understanding is that by the 1920’s the Empire administration was pretty light weight in terms of expense and manpower - I have a memory that the total number of people employed by the Foreign and Colonial Office was 20,000.
My theory, which is rather childish, understandably so as I formulated it a rather long time ago, is that people learnt how to read maps, and despite the distortions of the Mercator projection, Britain is a tiddler on a map.
I also suspect that being a ‘victor’ is not all that it is cracked out to be, you have returning armies who are dispirited and have high expectations. When they get back home they are treated to the joys of unemployment and seeing male non combatents enjoying the fruits of exploiting a niche.
Also in WWI and II the ‘victor’ had to repay its debts.
Well, no, like I said before, I think the main answer was that the British, due to their early industrialization, were slow to modernize. It’s like this:
You have country A and country B. Country A is quick to adopt the new technology of mechanized goat felching, and they rapidly become the most effective goat felchers in the world.
Thirty years pass, and technology advances…new and better mechanized goat felchers are made. Country B, now, decides it wants to get into the goat felching business too, so they buy the new improved goat felchers. Meanwhile, in Country A, there’s less incentive to invest in the new goat felching machines. The companies there have perfectly good primitive goat felchers. So, Country A’s productivity slips as compared to Country B. And, also no, Country A no longer has a goat felching monopoly. They’ve got to compete with rivals in Country B, and maybe Country C and D as well.
Question: Wasn’t “Imperial Preference” around into the 1970’s? basically GB tried to force its colonies to buy from eachother, and trade policies favoring the "Mother Country’ were put into effect-that is why i saw British cars 9crappy little Austins) ,and new Zealand butter , being sold in the bahamas Islands 990 miles away from the USA)?
No, not at all–but combining free trade and empire kind of defied logic. One of the traditional justifications for empire was to find cheap raw materials and a market for manufactured goods, and under free trade you can have these things without the bother of sending out viceroys, garrisons, and a civil service.
as was mentioned, the cost of maintaining a two ocean navy was immense. The UK (rather foolishly) insisted upon parity with the US Navy-why, i don’t know. I think there was a mutiny at the naval base at Scapa Flow (in 1922?); it was because the navy tried to cut the pay of enlisted men. So, evidently the navy was causing a big financial problem for GB, well before WWII.
Not disagreeing with anything here. Would add or echo as the case maybe:
Britain also controlled the trade in “invisible exports” (banking, insurance and shipping services) and dominated the trade in Industrial and textile goods (and all but cornered the market in exporting the raw materials and unique products of many of these places) e.g. India, China, Latin America, or the coasts of Africa. Until after WWI - when for many of the reasons listed already this became less viable and her trade began to slip.
I would also mention the nascent Nationalist movements abroad (and sympathizers inside the UK) began to pick up steam in the 20’s and 30’s. Some of this was due to the Colonies having “played their part” in World War I, some just because the World was a different place (in attitudes, education, development) than it had been as the decades rolled out post-1918. Colonies like Australia and Canada demanded more not less after the war - and even places like India and Nigeria saw the birth of serious Nationalist movements (that would take decades of building up steam to bear fruit) all of which required some combo of attention, Money, military and/or concession.
The UK’s best weapon in the event of war was blockading the enemy. The United States was very adamant about freedom of the seas. In fact, one of Wilson’s 14 points regarded freedom of the seas. This was an enormous source of contention between the two countries, and had been for a century (it was partially the cause of the War of 1812). It was not beyond the realm of possibility that the two countries would come to war over this issue. If that did happen the UK better have at a minimum an equal navy to the US, and preferably a bigger one.
WWI made the Empire wobble, and WWII made it fall over. I think it sums it up nicely.
Well, no, not really. Britain was on the winning side of both wars. Other countries fought in both world wars and were stronger afterwards. And Britain had fought in other major wars like the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars and emerged stronger for it. So there isn’t any inherent reason why fighting two major wars should have sent Britain into decline.
Yes, well, a war is like a boxing match. Just because you win doesn’t mean you’re strong at the end of it.
My point is that saying the wars happened isn’t sufficent explanation for Britain’s decline. It’s necessary to explain why these particular wars caused a decline in this particular country.