This is something of a place holder video, apologies about the length and the fact it doesn't go massively in depth on the topic of Imperial Federation. My main focus at the minute is a biography of Lord Castlereagh which will hopefully be up in a few weeks time. Thank you for watching, I hope you enjoy the video.
Good video, and well edited. Deserves to do well. Also good choice of sources, if a little light. Can I ask what your qualifications are? Asked sincerely and out of interest.
Take your time, Old Britannia. These short videos are interesting anyway. And we don't want you to feel pressured and anxious, and this could make focus less on making the video as well as they are. Don't worry!
@@coolfreefullmovies8192 because he's highlighting the white dominions, which India is not one of. It's good that India is in red to begin with, as it was a major imperial space, especially after the loss of the US.
@@OldBritannia keep making videos, RUclips never has enough good history essays, your argument is decent and as I say you edit your videos well. Feel free to ignore this question but where did you study for your BA? Again asked sincerely and out of interest
The First time I’ve heard about Imperial Federation was from Hearts of Iron IV where if you play as Britain you have the option of forming the Imperial Federation.
Probably one of the strongest countries in the game considering if you go insane enough you can also get cores on the US, Italy, the Benelux, France, and Germany in addition to the dominions
@@novaexplorer2397 strongest nation is communist china. not even the best quality british tank division can break through a line of 10 50w infantry with unlimited chinese manpower to back it up
@@ojdavies7699 if you go facist you can annex the USA and unlock a decision to core all of it to Canada and then the focus will give you cores on it. As for Europe you can get a decision to unite most of Western Europe after finishing the imperial federation focus
@@Daniel-ih4zh that was a very British response. Imperial integration and stability I guess. Something done by Rome, the early caliphate, Spain and so many other hegemonic states. The problem with the British and American empires is that they happen by accident and circumstance, they never actively pursued empire and never had a clear ideology behind it
I think the mantra back in those day's as Margery Perham once said Empire was about the Four C's "Commerce , Conquest, Christianity and Colonialism." and in that order.
True, all the marketing of slavery and things like spices and other goods was all they looked for, and Colonialism came as a byproduct. Even then, Britain just kept expanding and didn't do as the Romans did and accept other ethnic groups as proper citizens of their Empire. But that argument of racism is for another time
Several years ago I watched a video about the British countryside. They explained that, because of free trade, agriculture languished and by 1914 much of the rural UK had reverted to wilderness. Because of this, the British almost suffered a famine during World War One because of the U-boats sinking so many ships, many of them importing food from North America. So during the war the British frantically planted crops everywhere they could (the so-called Victory Gardens), and after the war adopted a protectionist policy to encourage British agriculture. This lead to a return of farming to much of the British countryside. During the 1930's much of the world had become much ore protectionist than before the War, so the British Empire became a trading block with the policy of Imperial Preference.
It's interesting delving into the Corn Laws. Basically meaning that British farmers get priced out and the workers moved into the cities which helped the Industrial Revolution begin. The first party of Australia when federated was The Protectionist party, though all initial parties reformed or split into others except the Labor party.
This has had some disastrous environmental consequences. The entomologist Dave Goulson for example notes that many rare bumblebee species all went extinct in the immediate aftermath of WWII as a result of the clearing of wildflower meadows and old growth forests. He also notes that many insect species began to flourish more in the cities than the countryside as a result of the countryside being full of monocrop fields but the cities being full of a wide variety of flowers, planted as a result of the British working man's curious fondness for gardening!
It also caused a flight of capital out of Britian to investments in other nations. British industry started falling behind by the late 1800's because of it.
I definitely think the path of this period of the British empire wasn’t a set track down a single path. You really get the impression learning especially about Canadian Confederation that it was a very experimental period, with dominion politicians and the the British government never sure or in agreement on an exact path forward. I think one of the more forgotten but interesting proposals during this period was that a couple (primarily Thomas Darcy Mcgee) of the Canadian fathers of confederation wanted Canada to go down the Brazil route in terms of its relationship to Britain. AKA having a cadet branch of the British royal family establish a seperate Canadian monarchy. Quoting Monarchism, an Emerging Canadian Identity, and the 1866 British North American Trade Mission to the West Indies and Brazil: “In 1863, he proposed a permanent viceroy for Canada on the Brazilian model, suggesting that one of Queen Victoria’s younger sons should become Canada’s king. Upon his death, the heir of this viceroy would inherit the throne of Canada. Canada and Britain would therefore have separate but related resident royal families. McGee’s reference to Brazil was an allusion to the origins of the Brazilian royal family, which had begun as a cadet branch of the Portuguese royal house.” Canada’s main father of confederation John A MacDonald didn’t support that, but did support the official name of Canada being “The Kingdom of Canada” to assert equality with Britain, that was shot down by the British.
@@aaroncastilleja162 It would certainly mean that, for Canada, a brand new Royal Family and monarchical hereditary line would be starting up in and for Canada. As an Australian, I can't think of a worse fait for the Country, than to have a "newly minted" extension of the British Royal Family establishing itself in the Country!! To me, it would be a signal to take up arms, either that or shoot myself!! I just couldn't live with/under it.
I think if the Federation DID form, It would survive to the present day but it would lose a great deal of colonies like Egypt and India, but this new UK or Federation would remain powerful enough to maintain colonies like Hong Kong and Malta, It would act as a superpower in Europe and a great power in the world as a whole.
@@herewegoo2677 Yeah, but would most likely lose India, there is no way Britain would maintain India forever, especially when a revolt occurs that could be costly knowing how big India's population is
1. Why or how would Egypt become independent? Before they got independence from the Brits they have been a colony of a greater power for around 2000 years. 2. How would the British hold on to Hong Kong 😂. China would just steamroll strait through it if the Brits didn’t give it back and there’s nothing they could do about it. Imagine China trying to colonies Northern Ireland, that’s how ridiculous it is.
@@joshbentley2307 If the British united into the Imperial Federation, imagine the economic weight of the super-state. Got it? Okay, so when the Chinese want for this superpower to give back Hong Kong, why would they? They aren’t required to.
Parts of India probably would have stuck around. Some of the princely states were of a respectable size and importance, and a federation would have given those in power a better deal than an independent India. More than likely India would have ended up some ort of piecemeal of a dozen or so political bodies.
Woah I never knew Britain was directionless, or to a lesser extend purposeless. Or the fact that it was internationally shunned for Egypt. I always assumed they had clear goals of global economic hegemony and rough framework to work off of. Now I really do believe people that say that WW1 did not end the empires, it simply sped up the process
Many see this time as "the second British Empire", the first ending with the loss of the American colonies. And yes, it was an accident of sorts. Britain was fighting its rivals on pretty much every ocean and every continent (for instance, going to India to stop the French taking it). Such an effort required the building of infrastructure in all these areas, factories, ports, barracks, all linked by roads and railways. So when Britain prevailed, if found itself with these powerful colonies with a stranglehold of trade worldwide. It could either leave or violently and aggressively maintain them and the power over international trade that came with it. Unfortunately for many nations whose land was fought over, we all know which way Britain went
Britain had clear goals at one point but after WW1 it destroyed the British backbone. There also bad decisions made that caused rebellion in the colonies and vasel states.
@@davidcoshall8590 Egypt changed course to Nationalist Arabism ideas and Communisim as well. Egypt, Syria, Libya all become close to the USSR and rampant Nationalist Arabism took over, the British had to choose a full scale civil war to keep control and they had no chance to win multiple countries uprising at the same time. The British had to leave. The British Empire was not only totally removed culturally but as individuals people in these countries totally and fully broke from the British Empire. Within a few years, the influence of the British empire in these countries was totally 100% gone. Even the first underground movements in Israel were communist and that lead to Israel having a short but serious struggle between east and west, Capitalist vs Communist ideas and organizations but they eventually shared power under Israel's founder Ben Gorion but it was a close call with communisim there too. Asia was fully swept up by communisim, China, Vietnam, Thailand, and also India and Pakistan fell under the spell of communisim but eventually found a middle ground. If American ended the first British Empire, the Soviet Union and communisim ended the second British Empire.
Anything built by globalist free trade is necessarily directionless, interspersed with romantic ideas about what to do with it. At least the British didn't go full-on bonkers like the United States now is.
France being the second largest empire, they also had a similar idea of creating a world spaning empire called the French Union after ww2 and this was the whole purpose of the IVth republic However since France have a big tradition of centralisation and indivisibility, the idea of forming a federal state was widely rejected
France did end up uniting with some of its colonial possessions though; Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guiana, Réunion and Mayotte are fully integrated into France and in the EU.
I red that France during the Napoleonics era, had the idea of federalise all the conquered territories and creating a Pan-european empire. The idea was aborted by france military/nationalists, because it would had paradoxically weakened the power of France in this federation, so they preferred a centralised France with puppets governments.
Thank you -- I have created my own videos in the classroom, but this is made far more professionally. I particularly like the intertwining of attittudes to Empire and socio-economics.
I always found it ironic that this idea came to prominence just as the unity of the UK proper was showing severe cracks in Ireland with the ascendancy of Charles Stewart Parnell.
That is because the British Empire was largely built on ever-expanding commerce and wealth creation rather than strictly military conquest and resource exploitation. Military conquest only served to expand commerce and wealth building. It was those values that were fused into the DNA of the United States that helped make it powerful as well. The manner in which the British Empire expanded and the cultural values it planted around the world is largely why all the English speaking nations rank among the wealthiest in the world to this day.
Doesn't it just. I mean, you also had it as a result of conflict. Britain was essentially caught up in what was almost a world war, fighting against all the world's other powers and the American states. We lost against the latter obviously, but won the former. After that victory, Britain suddenly found it had troops, families, barracks, ports, factories and railway tracks on all these different continents. I wonder if at some point after the fighting had ended, if British politicians and military leaders had the chance to sit down and look at a map and suddenly thought - hang on, wtf is all this? They could do a Monty Python movie about it lol
Loved this video, thanks for your hard work (it means a lot!). Do you think such plan could have been possible and what would be the benefits? I think conservatives in post-Napoleonic Britain never had a common view between themselves, and it's why such plan was never possible. Carlyle is very different from Chesterton, who also is very different and loathes Disraeli. They usually followed somewhat of a plain philosophy of Burke, and not even all of them followed it. Chesterton even calls Burke not a conservative, and said he was almost punched during a conservative event for saying this.
I think that’s certainly true regarding conservatives. I hadn’t heard of that anecdote with Chesterton and Burke, quite funny. Most at least were generally consistent in their patriotism and belief in defending British interests. The difference between a Canning and Disraeli was much less than the difference between Palmerston and Gladstone. As regards to the federation I honestly don’t know. On the one hand I think there would be so many contradictions in trying to bind so many colonies together in such a way, it could never have really lasted. On the other hand, something had to be done eventually if the empire was to become a permanent entity.
@Schooey yeah, because they took the wealth away from all white people and kicked them out of the country... oh wait no, all those white people kept being the richest people in the country and basically still control South Africa but now there's a black president. Yeah, the good old days when black people couldn't travel and needed to report to the police each time they received visits, South Africa was a paradise indeed... for white people.
@@victorfergn Black people had voting rights in South Africa under the British. It was the Afrikaaners that removed it in the late 50s when they formed a republic and away from British rule.
@@PitchBlackTales You realize the British Parliament could do anything they wanted to South Africa, right? So voting in that country was basically useless :V
@@victorfergn South Africa is was principally a resource Colony, not a settler colony. The fact that the country is 95% native supports the idea they wouldn't really want to join anyway. They weren't British, they were African, at least they largely didn't see themselves as British. Secondly, the 5% non-natives were mostly made of Dutch hangers-on after the Boer War, traders who had previously made a living selling slaves from the continental interior. So even among the white population of the colony, most of them didn't see themselves as British. That Dutch demographic would take government positions after the country achieved independence and begin apartheid rule. Democracy still isn't really a thing in South Africa right now, by the way. The settler colonies were by definition, largely composed of British settlers who still largely identified with the ethnically British Diaspora. Those are the ones included because those are the ones who actually came from Britain and so they could reasonably accept divesting Federal Authority onto Britain because for all intents and purposes they still were British. India did initially lobby for Dominion status, I am inclined to believe it should have been given to them, considering their size and contribution to the Empire. But I suspect the Indians only really wanted Dominion status to further political interest of eventually arguing for independence anyway.
Huh this is pretty damn interesting timing (though I suppose my recent google searches probably tipped off the algorithm) for the Alt History Scenario I’m writing. Specifically involves Joesph Chamberlain succeeding Salisbury when he retires as part of an imperial upswing as part of the lore. Broader setting is about the US devolving into Warlord Cliques/Internal Disunity after the Civil War is prolonged (PoD is Antietam and Union still wins) and the historical fall out of that, mainly looking at France, GB and Japan. Didn’t know what Imperial Federation was beyond spotting the term in the wiki page, so Chamberlain’s dedication to it and the context of a more robust British Empire with “purpose” is helpful for the setting. Great Video!
Very interesting idea. Always unlikely Chamberlain would succeed because he led the Liberal Unionists rather than the actual Conservatives. Yet not impossible, as Balfour had little ambition as to the premiership. A Chamberlain ministry would have huge implications on British foreign policy: Another attempt at the Anglo-German alliance perhaps? Would love to read it once you begin.
@@OldBritannia I can send you the Google Docs as it goes (I’m roughly 77 pages in on the basic lore and I have the British Content earmarked) and frankly I am thrilled by your response. I am aware of the precarious position that Chamberlain as leader of the Lib Unionists rather than the Tories places him in and yes I have Balfour’s deference being a factor here. More significantly however I tie it to the successes and character of the Disraeli years and his intentional moves to harness “radical” support from both parties (in the form of Chamberlain from the Libs and Churchill from the Cons). It was meant to be that additional Foreign Policy victories (including a limited, naval based war with the US over Santo Domingo) shakes Gladstone’s base of support earlier and helps inspire a generation of Imperialist oriented politicians under him. Disraeli dies at the same time but when Salisbury manages to form a government after a few years under Gladstone’s collapsing coalition, the Lib Unionists are a bit weightier and the Conservatives for their part are more in line with Disraeli’s ideas of the “Tory Democracy” which would manage to give Chamberlain a working margin for reforms. But yes the entire setting hinges on a far more proactive and hegemonic British Empire as it is the only power at the time which could possibly keep a destabilizing America on that track of further chaos. On the matter of German-British Alliance, while a friend of mine suggested that we have dear Wilhelm die during birth as a secondary PoD I felt it a bit cheap. So despite Chamberlain’s want for the alliance Wilhelm’s animosity (increased due to deeper British Colonial Hegemony after chaos in France and Belgium results in further outposts being seized) toward the British would make it untenable. Rather I have the League of 3 Emperors as the constantly collapsing mess it always was.
Spain did that from the beginning. Before the casa de Borbón claimed the throne, the Spanish empire was very similar to the United Arab Emirates, taking on account the federal and monarchical systems both states shared. The Spanish overseas territories were an extension of the kingdom of Castile rather than a mere colony. Was it a good idea? From a moral perspective, it was. Every single person born in Spanish territory was considered a Spanish citizen. Although this reality wasn't confirmed constitutionally, the libro VI del compendio de las leyes de indias (which includes all the important pieces of legislation concerning the American territories) assured that those in America (Españoles Americanos and indios, first divided in republica de Indios and Republica de Españoles) were free vassals of the crown. This particular (and innovative) form of organization had to do with what Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno called an "Imperio generador". A classical empire like those of Alexander the great and Rome, that sought to expand their cultural, ethnic and religious heritage in the provinces they annexed. Of course, there are notable differences between, say, the Roman empire and the Spanish empire (Not everyone born in the Roman empire was Roman, slavery was never outlawed for a specific ethic group, the Romans were far more brutal than the Spaniards, etc...) but the classical concept remains. Although America and the Philippines were extensions of Spain, the cultural and linguistic heritage of those territories was (and is currently) totally castillian. America and the Philippines had little to do with the cultural, linguistic and ethnic particularities of the aragonese, for instance.
"From a moral perspective, it was..... that sought to expand their cultural, ethnic and religious heritage in the provinces they annexed." unfortunately, some would consider that Imperialism.
@@projectilequestion It was. I don't consider imperialism to be inherently wrong. In fact, from a realist perspective, those states that had survived throughout history have (almost) always expanded over others. As the melian dialogue suggested, the powerful do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must. The only way to assure survival is to seek either regional hegemony (Mearsheimer, 2001) or a decent amount of Power (Waltz, 1979). Turns out that forming an empire is usually very helpful to achieve those goals.
@@SantiagoVerbel-j4l Well, India had an impressive culture centuries before we got there. They had their Princes, their philosophers, their rich cultural, architectural and historical heritage for years before England even had more than million people in it. There is no need to change it- learn from it. They can adopt our stuff at whatever rate they want.
@@projectilequestion It did. But the Indian states definitely understood that imperial expansion was a very good political ploy in order to grant survival (I'm taking war as a political activity, since it is "the merely continuation of policy by other means" (Von Clausterwitz, 1982, p. 87). I don't really get your point with India. Would you elaborate further please?
@@SantiagoVerbel-j4l Well in Britain, we were taught that India was a civilization we looked up to. Government buildings were were incorporated with two doors to one room- so Indian Princes of equal rank could enter at the same time, and the Indians for example copied our private school system.
This concept passes through my mind from time to time since childhood. Since there was no explicit and dedicated programme nor any specific diplomatic structure, I'd assumed it was a kind of cultural union, and that there was a multilateral understanding between the various nations and semi nations.
Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies, declared Australia was “British to the bootstraps” in the 1950s. Hugely popular, he served 17 years as PM.
I have to say I absolutely love your channel. Well researched and very well presented. My favourite episode has been either this or the Salisbury episode. My hat is off to you!
@@OldBritanniasorry apart from fear of whites becoming minorities by current people or british nationalist I don't think why india wouldn't be part of the empire? Like before WW1 the indian independence movement just wanted to get same deal as Canada and Australia, if british have just granted that the indolence movement would have ended or decreased. Hell if Queen Victoria appointed one of his son as the emperor of india that ruled from Delhi from direction of UK, the british Dynasty of india would have survived.
Very interesting video!!! Spain too tried to do the same in various ocasions such as with the "Cadiz Constitution of 1812" , excellent work! much love from Mallorca! 💕
This immediately made me think of a book I had read decades ago, "Union Now with Britain" by Clarence K. Streit. It's a proposal for a union between the US and UK. It was written in1941, though, so as a response to WWII. I honestly don't remember much about it, now, other than being intrigued by the idea. The name stuck with me, however.
That had to be written before it became clear what a state the British Empire was in. There's no need for a union when you basically make the other a vassal state, which is what ended up happening.
@@Sir_Gerald_Nosehairs. Britain is not a vassal of America. British just lacks confidence in its own ability due to its culture going into decline. Britain relies too heavily on America for defence but that is not the same as it being a vassal of the other.
@@bighands69 I think it is. Britain often seems an unwilling partner with the USA and the special relationship is one sided. Consider the USA won’t even give the British a trade deal. What kind of special relationship is that?
@@trevormcdonald385 Well, we recently told the USA to sod off in regard to bombing Syria (to which the entire thing was then scrapped) and didn't jump on with them in Vietnam, to which they then went and lost. There certainly isn't any special relationship. They have an economic stranglehold on us, and have done since they basically underwrote us in WW2, but it's not some kind of vassal relationship. A totally outdated term.
@@doug6500 I think it’s a vassal relationship. Obviously sometimes there are times when the the electorate would not swallow the smoke screen but for the most part the British always follow the USA.
1:10: What is the basis of your claim that Alexander III brought ‘resurgence’ to Russia after ‘years of stagnation’ under Alexander II? As a Russian myself, I have never, ever heard such a point of view; it’s usually quite the opposite, actually, considering that Alexander II’s achievements include ending serfdom and reforming key areas of the state. Thanks for a really nice video, though!
Knew that might cause some controversy. I’ll elaborate much more when I get round to my fall of the Russian Empire series. Basically, I have no idea why Alexander II gets such good press. His reforms left Russia in near chaos. Free trade practically killed domestic Russian industry. His foreign policy was contradictory and blundering, leading Russia into an expensive war for almost no gain because his terrible diplomacy. His judicial reforms meant terrorists were repeatedly let off despite indisputable evidence. The way serfdom was abolished meant many ended up worse than before. Under Alexander III, protectionism was introduced and Russian industry was turbo charged. The foreign policy was much more consistent, extremists were a lot more successfully dealt with etc. It wasn’t perfect of course, but honestly Alexander II was a terrible tsar who may well have led his country to disintegration if he hadn’t died when he did.
@@OldBritannia Thanks for a detailed answer - and sorry for taking so much time to reply! Although I think I disagree with some of your points, I’m certainly not knowledgeable enough on the subject to argue. I’ll be looking forward to your video on the Russian Empire. :)
@@art_sarkisian While I agree that he is overrated, Alexander II certainly was not this ineffective, and that period certainly shouldn't be regarded as one of stagnation. As a Russian, you probably know most of what I'm about to say, but I'm mostly saying this to the westerners here in the comments: 1) Free trade hit Russian industry hard, you can't argue against that. But Russian industry before his reign was a tiny fraction of what it was by the Witte period, and his free trade approach was a necessity for Russia to gain access to the foreign capital markets that enabled the Witte boom to begin with. That "supercharge" only happened because of state bond purchases, largely with French capital, that allowed the Russian state to invest in industrialization and infrastructure. Without Alexander II's period of free trade, there would have been no "supercharge" under Alexander III (although I would argue that the Witte boom was not as significant as it's often made out to be). 2) Foreign policy. I generally agree with him here, Alexander II was very inconsistent and probably would not have made as many territorial gains in the east as he did were it not for Napoleon III being even more inconsistent and chaotic. That being said, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 did a lot to improve Russia's standing on the international stage. The war was extremely expensive for the Russian state and Alexander II failed to secure many of his objectives, Russia's military performance in the war showed the West that Russia was not the failing state that France and Britain had kicked over in the Crimean War (it was also evidence of the success of serf emancipation). 3) This is where I have to disagree the most: although we can debate the morality of letting so many terrorists off the hook, there was never a time in the 19th century history when the Russian state was able to effectively deal with terrorism. The problem had less to do with any single Tsar's dictates, and more to do with the justice system more generally. The policy of deportation to Siberia under Nicholas I and Alexander III was effectively the same as letting them go free, as it was very easy to escape from Siberia to the west (although in fairness, similar cases happened in Alexander II's reign, Bakunin probably being the most famous example). More importantly, political extremists and terrorists were basically unable to destabilize the Russian state and society. The Narodniks, for example, we completely unable to mobilize peasants around terrorist actions in failed uprisings of 1874 (this owes mostly to serf emancipation, which I'll get to next). Compare that to the terrorists and extremists that operated under Alexander III and in the early years of Nicholas II, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Martov, Trotsky. Alexander III and Nicholas II's much harder line on terrorism not only did nothing to stop them escaping, but unlike under Alexander II, they were actually able to overthrow the Russian state. *To say that Alexander III dealt with extremists more successfully is completely untrue: those very same terrorists that he supposedly did a better job of managing created the Soviet Union on the ashes of the Russian Empire.* 4) He's right to suggest that serf emancipation was not a uniform success, and the labor repayments of former serfs did create financial woes for many people. However, one has to bear in mind how serfdom and agriculture worked in Russia in the 19th century. The vast majority of the Russian population before emancipation were serfs, and since Russian serfdom operated on a system of fixing people to set plots of land, this meant that the vast majority of the population was legally incapable of relocating to find new economic opportunities, such as in Siberia or in the cities. It also meant that the Russian military was dependent on levying serfs, which meant that Russia basically had to start their military from scratch every time they went to war (the Crimean War is the most notorious example of how this inherent lack of preparation could endanger the Russian state). It also meant that cities could not easily develop and that industrialization was extremely difficult, because you need large population flight from the countryside and into cities to have to labor force for things like factory and railroad construction. This, along with the lack of access to foreign capital, was one of the main reasons why Russia had basically no industry until the time of Alexander II: there was no money to spend to build the factories, and no population of workers to run them. Abolishing serfdom made possible the growth of cities like Kharkiv and Tula and Yekaterinburg into major industrial centers. Lastly, serf emancipation made revolution very difficult in a time when the majority of the population was still agricultural. The Narodniks failed to enlist support for their revolutionary activities in 1874 largely because, with the end of serfdom, your typical Obshchina was actually self-governing (for those reading this and don't know, an Obshchina was a type of agricultural commune to which the vast majority of peasants, and by extension the vast majority of the Russian population, belonged). The SRs, Bolsheviks, and Mensheviks were *much* more successful than the Narodniks ever were at mobilizing mass support after Obshchinas were largely dissolved in the reign of Nicholas II.
I've always felt that had Britain used some sort of federation model with the empire it would have lasted a lot longer by imbuing the colonists' political leaders with some gain by remaining attached. It all comes back to the rallying cry of the Americans: "No taxation without representation". Now in their case this was a bit simplistic and there were a multitude of factors behind American separatism but the basic tenet of linking representation and rulership by consent is valid in all cases. Imagine a parliament elected from all the empire deciding on the things affecting the empire while allowing domestic policy to be legislated locally. This would have made the empire far more internally cohesive and stronger with far better economic links due to unified policies on things like tariffs. It would also have been far stronger than the EU as the links would be social and ideological rather than merely economic. In this form the empire would likely be around today and the two world wars would have been significantly different in nature. Britain's primary aim in the First World War was to maintain balance between the powers in Europe. Would this have been needed if the empire was already by far the most powerful player in the continent through Britain? The empire would have become the worlds first true global superpower, something the USA only managed much later and that even the Soviets struggled with.
Honestly this is why I want a time machine or a looking glass that lets me see into other timelines. Not to change stuff but see how things went differently. It would be cool to see how it could have worked.
Imperial federation and the British empire has an interesting history in Canada. Anglo-Canadians embraced this idea whole heartily, and viewed themselves as "British civilization in the frontier" with a strong steak of anti-Americanism. French-Canadians didn't like the empire and instead where the prominent Canadian nationalists of the period, and argued for Canadian autonomy and independence. The death of the British empire greatly effected Canadian identity in a way that Canada is still dealing with. The empire was at the root of Anglo-Canadian identity, and the English half of the country has kind of been listless ever sense. Post empire, Anglo-Canada frames its identity almost entirely in relation to the USA. Anglo-Canada sees itself as a more "sensible" USA, with most of the country aligning itself with blue America. Yet, Canadian uniqueness is pretty much delusion as Canada largely follows the intellectual and culture trends of blue America, though the implementation of these ideas is more successful in Canada due to a much weaker red America counterpart. There is a hollowness to this dynamic as Canadian identity is about being not being American, which is proved by the implantation American ideas more thoroughly. French Canadian identity has spent this period with at least one foot out the door, with the strongest expression of Franco-Canadian identity manifesting in succession. Perhaps a "subject identity" always craves a master.
It would run up against the WW2 problem at some point - Britain (or the federation) could not fight a war in Europe and a second war elsewhere. Australia ratified Westminster and allied with the US in World War II because the UK could not assist its direct defence, and New Zealand afterwards. In the end the Federation would have become as dependent on the US as the individual nations did historically. If the federation had happened, it would have had to have entered into a ‘special relationship’ alliance with the US.
We don't know how history would change if this federation formed. We take it as a given that WW2 starts but who knows how politics would change globally.
A great alternative history of if this happened (even though it still kind of silly, but still) is the Darkest Hour Kaissereich AAR (After Action Report/Written Narrative Let's Play) called "Crown Atomic". Taking a British Imperial Federation into the Cold War, post 2nd Weltkrieg.
I'm Brazilian, I've never been to Britain, or any of its former colonies, I don't know anyone from there and I don't have any connection to the people whatsoever. Yet, I found this video amusing, thank you, RUclips!
Possibly the choice of 'federal empire' v. 'independent dominions' had existed, but the decision in the British North America Act in the 1860s to create an independent Canada rather than integrate the Canadian colonies into the UK sealed off the federal option irreversibly.
You are dreaming greed again. It will never be allowed to happen. Australia, Canada and NZ. will become Republics some day. Since 1970 over 20 countries have abolished their monarchies.
Your so-called little kingdom is falling apart with Scotland preparing to join the EU, N. Ireland turning its back on the union and becoming a reunified Ireland and the deeply divisive Brexit. Comeuppance time for Britains brutal colonial past will finally happen. YOU WILL REAP WHAT YOUR ANCESTORS HAVE SOWN.
It seems that the Commonwealth of Nations is moving closer together and that dire circumstances could work to unify them more out of economic necessity. CANZUK is becoming more real and it is in the US’s interest to strengthen the UK. Also, a death in the monarchy is sure to stir discussion on the state of the Commonwealth.
The current CANZUK idea is more symbolic than anything else. Trade is pretty low between those nations, political decisions will still differ on what is best for themselves and defensively they are in seperate theaters (UK and Canada in NATO, NZ and Australia in the Pacific/Chinese sphere).
@@MDP1702 The leader would actually be the USA anyway, it's basically just about getting closer together, We are all pretty close in Trade top 30, Military ect. I believe the first nation the UK called when brexit happened was Australia to make new trade deals and have discussions on were the future of Australian and UK will go, however the Australian government said they couldn't discuss anything till after Brexit.
@@brianlong2334 Doesn't really matter that the Australia was one of the first countries the UK wanted to make a trad deal with. Trade between the two countries is pretty much worthless. Moreover the EU also has a trade talks with Australia. The UK-AUS trade deal btw is seen as being mostly beneficial for Australia, but not really the UK, with the UK essentially giving way too much away for what it gets. Why? Because the UK government needed a 'win' after brexit.
@@MDP1702 That's not true, Australia makes 5billion from the UK the UK makes 9billion form Australia that's a 4billion more then Australia. We are also each other 8th biggest two way trading partners.... Or about 14th for Australia And 19th for the UK It also does matter as I was pointing out the UK future plan's, which are heavily involved with Australia more so then everyone else.
@@brianlong2334 Those are pretty low numbers. Australia has 214 billion in trade with China and another 81 billion in trade with Japan, the EU has a trade value with Australia for around 60 billion. The UK has a total trade value if 27 billion. The UK would like to replace its EU bond with Canzuk, but again, that is more symbolic than anything else. A trade deal? Sure, but the EU is also negotiating a trade deal with Australia, so you don't need Canzuk for it (and again the UK gave way too much to Australia in order to get a trade deal as soon as possible). So what will Canzuk offer?
Isn’t it interesting how the largest empire in history was a reactive force. A primarily trade and commercial endeavour rather than a military expansionist one
British, Mongol, Roman empire. Yeah pretty much, some particular exceptions come into mind though, like the Arab caliphates. That sticks out like a sore thumb since it was surely expansionist as hell and also had a long-term ambition in mind in regards to its expansion.
Fascinating video. In some ways it quickly explains the fate of the British Empire and why it eventually had to collapse. If Britain could not unite with Canada politically (where the distance was not too great & there was a common culture), then Canada was going to break away to independence eventually. More distant & more culturally diverse colonies were even more likely to seek independence.
More like an economical block, similar to EEC. That's not bad. Then again, the US wouldn't like it if CANZUK and EU want to have their independent military structure that don't allign with the usual NATO/US foreign policy. The only reason US backs the EU is because EU alligns with NATO which provides them two markets: defense market and the usual import-export. The presence of US troops is seen in Western (except France) and Central Europe. The US was the main reason why the British Empire collapsed. The royal gold is still in the Federal Reserve which was hijacked by the US during the Destroyer for Bases agreement. And the UK was already in debt to US prior to WW2. And I don't think Canada would prefer the UK over the US since the US provides a bigger market to Canada. It's always about the economy.
1. Destroyer for bases agreement had absolutely nothing to do with gold as far as I’m aware of (I would appreciate if you told me where you got this information from). 2. Why do you think Canada would stop trading with the USA if CANZUK happened you mad man, U.K. needs the USA as an export market as well (we’re the 4th or 5th largest exporter) and other than the EU the USA is our largest export market.
@@joshbentley2307 It was Operation Fish, the transfer of wealth (gold that worths around $31 billion today). Destroyer for Bases happened in the same year 3 months later, in exchange for land rights on British possessions. And Britain was already in debt to the US prior to WW2. The US doesn't want a united Europe or stronger EU with its own army that is independent from the usual US/NATO foreign policy. Nothing to do with liberalism-conservatism, left/right. The US is all about "American interests above all", doesn't matter if it's Biden or Trump or any other US President. Canada leans more towards the US than the UK. And US special relationship is with Israel and Saudi Arabia. The only reason US tolerates the EU is beacuse it gives them a bigger market and almost all the EU members are under the NATO umbrella. By the way, has the UK got the trade deal yet? UK joined AUKUS to please the US and yet, no trade deal so far. So much for the special relationship! Only the US will get the money from the Aussies. You think the US would ever let an independent CANZUK happen with its own military structure? Lol!
@@erich2432 1. So you were wrong about the destroyer for bases agreement. 2. Are you okay? All I put is that it’s in the U.K.’s interest to remain a close ally of the USA as well, and then you wrote a hole paragraph of nonsense that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
@@joshbentley2307 Not nonsense. Why do you think the US is against NS? It has nothing to do with Ukraine, everything to do with selling its own LNG to Europe and Germany which is polluted and 5 times more expensive than NS2 pipe gas. By the way, British never got that gold back and neither will they ever get it back. Also, no trade deal if peace in Ireland becomes a casuality. Ask Bill Clinton! He brokered the GFA and it was followed and maintained by Dubya and Obama and now, Biden. The French has its bargaining power and was smart enough to take the credit of its liberation. You don't give outsiders to make the rules in your own country just because they helped you. France played the cards right and that's why it has own independent foreign policy and geopolitical interests, no outsider troops on its soil, unlike Britain and Canadaand rest of NATO members who just allign with the US. Global Britain is a myth, an economical block cannot be considered a powerful entity unless it has its own military structure without depending on outsiders. You can learn from the French.
I'm an anti-imperialist, but if I was a British imperialist in the late 19th century it would have been obvious to me that this would be the only way to save the British empire. There could have been devolved parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada, NZ, Australia, South Africa and other places to deal with local issues. It's interesting that the UK didn't seriously pursue it if simply for their own survival as a hegemon. It works as evidence for that claim quoted in the video that the British empire just stumbled into global hegemony absent-mindedly. But then I imagine that even if this had come to pass, political tensions, class rivalries, tensions with indigenous peoples and conflicting interests between the core and periphery could have eventually led to this formation falling apart anyways.
I doubt it would work in the longer term, but the creation of an imperial parliament would have merit until the dominions split off the home countries. The empire was based on military power, which in terms requires economic power, and the economic benefits of remaining in the empire. Britain would have needed to focus on economic reform in the 1888, similar to that of Germany or to a lesser extent the USA. If it could of continued to keep its core economic strong it would have been able to provide the military power necessary to protect the empire and economic benefits for being in the empire. That did not occur and money flowed out of Britain to the US and the dominions and the industries back home become older and less efficient. What sped up the collapse was WW1 and what finally put the nail in the coffin of the empire was WW2. As the old saying goes, its the economy silly.
US foreign policy also had a hand to play, i for a time now have thought of the US as the least of our enemies rather than the greatest of our allies. I'm unsure however, whether they simply rode the wave of imperial collapse, or seeing it crest the horizon accelerated it. Being as far as i can see, one of - if not the - greatest beneficiary of imperial dissolution.
The British Empire without India is a disaster waiting to happen, plus WW1 would still result in the same resentment as did in our timeline, Australia and New Zealand began to view the British as pompous negligent butchers of the colonies, especially after WW1, that would only be worse under an Imperial Federation.
@@joewoodland8635 from everything ive read and seen it wasn't an active plan to steal the empire just simply that mums not doing so great and while we are helping her out might as well take a few things she doesnt need anymore. probably didnt help the situation any but wasnt actively trying to break it
2:55 Colonial Self-Governance? 3:23 Direct Rule of India. 4:17 Gladstone & Salisbury rejected the Imperial Federation plan. 5:31 Free Trade within The Empire proposed and rejected 6:38 An interesting counterfactual.
Interesting and informative video... well done and thanks. However, it comes from the British angle and does not reference the views of colonised people. With the exception of the countries in which the colonisers effectively exterminated the indigenous inhabitants (Canada, Australia, NZ) the local peoples were never seen as equals and thus there was no foundation on which to build a long term unwieldy and strategically vulnerable federation. Gladstone probably had the most realistic awareness of this and endeavoured to balance imperial repression with elements of progress for colonies. As a citizen of England's first overseas colony I would contend that the only nostalgia for empire or a modern iteration such as CANZUK comes from those who have no idea what goes on in those countries, or how the legacy of empire is still despised in all other countries who gained freedom from its oppression over the past century.
The idea of an Imperial Federation came too late by this time. Canada had already gained independence, and Australia was fast approaching. If offered early, say in 1850, I doubt this would be a problem. The other issue is that places like Australia and New Zealand have strategic issues that England did not want to get into, e.g., Japan's rise. As it was, Britain established Australia to wash its hands of these problems. The other issue is that of non-whites; they would want equality in such a federation. If India is part of this federation, it will dominate by numbers.
@@michaelthomas5433 that I think was one of the big problem in the Imperial Federation. A bigger one is that the non-whites are poorer. Any federation would have wealth sharing
@@fymwp9992 I think that is unfair, the area of the empire was very poor before the empire came. In fact, by then the empire was losing money, and the British taxpayer was paying to keep it going.
@@WagesOfDestruction Lol 🤣 seriously? which area..even if I consider Canada , Africa and Ausrtralia poor before the empire conquered it..what abt India..it was a much richer land before the empire and got stripped of its wealth after it..and by when? much of the brit wealth came from stripping of resources from its former colonies but if you are talking about post-world war british empire than I agree as the empire got bankrupt by then..
Nice video however the beginning would benefit from a historical overview to explain why the Federation idea was coming up around this time. The British intellectuals were quite observant of what happens between 1865-1870s when the Union Forces overcome the confederates southern Stares proofing the viability of a union of states, the Austro-Hungarian compromise having two countries within a single imperial state and the new Empire of Germany With a dominating Prussia but still giving room for other kingdoms and entities.
Fanstastic video, Do you think you can make a video about the orientatist movement in India, The terms Orientalism and Orientalist first took on a markedly political meaning when they were used to refer to those English scholars, bureaucrats, and politicians who, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, opposed changes in British colonial policy in India that had been brought by the “Anglicists,” who argued that India ought to be ruled according to British laws and institutions. The Orientalists, in contrast, insisted on the primacy of local laws and traditions; some of those Orientalists conducted research on ancient or traditional Indian laws and legal structures in an effort to codify them for use by a colonial bureaucracy. Ironically, however, British efforts to understand, codify, and govern according to what they believed to be local tradition often brought about significant changes in social and political life in India., this idea was mainly brought up to stop another uprising like 1857 in India and to integrate further into imperial federation and adopt to both Indian and British culture.
Yes, this is an absolutely fascinating area of British rule in India. I intend to make a large series on the empire at some point, and India will definitely be looked at in depth.
@@athishnirup1815 Most definitely, I think largely because India was often called ‘an empire within an empire’. Its culture and society was so advanced and independent compared to the rest of the empire, there’s simply too much to cover for most basic histories of the empire. Can’t claim I’ll make it perfect, trying to present the views of Liberals like Macaulay, Modern day nationalists like Tharoor and everything in between means I’m bound to upset someone, but I’ll do my best. Thanks for watching.
Leave that , the British were so backward that to acquire materials required to make advanced weapons - they had to get it from India. This is in 1600's but eventually they were able to make weapons much much advanced and mechanised than what were being made in India. India was the manufacturing hub of the world. Job charnock's biography is worth looking at.
Looks like the algorithm (at least for history YT watchers) has blessed you. Very interesting video and going to check out the rest. Hope you get lots of other new subs from this and future videos!
Thank you, that's really nice of you to say. Unfortunately I made it myself. I could maybe try and put a PNG on Imgur or some such site, don't know if that would be any help though?
American war of independence was basically caused because parliament did not view the American colonies as an integral part of the kingdom but as an appendix or something more akin to a colony in Africa not realizing that the colonies were basically a cultural extension of the British isles. It would have been interesting if some kind of imperial federation had been proposed in the 18th century. Of course the United States is more cultural diverse now. I think even to this day most people don’t realize the extant to which eastern North America was an cultural extension of England in the 17th and 18th centuries.
A video analysing this idea possibly forming in post brexit Britain would be a very interesting watch. Seeing the advantages and possible roadblocks preventing it. Great video 👍🏴
Think you'll have a hard time convincing Australian and Canadians to give up their de facto sovereignty (I believe both Canada/Australia are still theoretically not proper nations politically/legally but that's a discussion for another day) to effectively be ruled by England again...in such a federation, though Canada/Australia would have bulk of natural resources, financial and to a lesser degree political power would still be centralised in London. Also despite modern communications, there is still geography factor...UK no longer has the ports and posts between UK and Australia especially to effectively overcome this barrier.
There is nothing that strongly unites them anymore. The sense of British identity is eroding more every year even in Britain itself. With the rise of globalism, mass media monoculture, and mass migration each of the those nations will look more and more like America then anything we would call Britain. In fact Britain will likely not survive as North Ireland and Scotland will probably break away sometime this century. Most of these nations have a negative view of themselves anyway and are currently ashamed of their own history and heritage. On top of that there is currently no material reasons for such a union either as their defense and trade interests are not the same and are currently met by the America-NATO complex.
@@andrewmckenzie292 Note that both proposals have a separate ‘transnational’ layer of government above the national level. The EU was partially responsible for opening up a ‘European’ identity (though only partially), so…
@@sillyname6808 Its basically just sentimental fluff....harking back to before WW2 when Britain/Canada/Australia/NZ felt as one nation in a broad sense even if they had separate governments but times have moved on rightly or wrongly and geographically/politically it just doesn't make sense.
@@andrewmckenzie292 both are fully nations in their own right, just under nominal personal unions with Elizabeth as queen. Some decades ago the UK parliament held say but its long since been eliminated
I wouldn’t necessarily say purposeless (though if you asked 10 people in 1900 what its purpose was you’d probably get 10 different answers, from trade to a civilising mission, to spreading Christianity, to winning glory). I’d more describe it as just lacking a clear direction - there was no real end point or a path to get there.
It's quite a surprise to read how little control Britain itself had over the Dominions, it didn't even control their foreign policy really. There were even plans for a Dominion of India and various African nations, although they didn't expect that to happen until well into the latter part of the 20th century. It does make you wonder if not for the war and American financial pressure to decolonise as fast as possible, whether the transfer of power in Africa might have been smoother and led to stable democracies instead of what did result.
American timeline: Fight Germany, become destitute and dissolve the empire. British timeline: Federate Empire and ally with Germany. Inviolable peace and prosperity secured forever more.
While the last statement about the empire being entirely reactionary (in fact it's even largely the reason for its African expansion) with little direction, it's part of why the idea of imperial federation is such an appealing one to look back on. The idea is fundamentally one of consolidation of an empire having tirelessly expanded for little real reason in many ways and giving a path forward for a power to at least stem the decline and turn major possessions into core territory loyal enough to stay with the crown. Long gone was its heyday as the hyper power with a united Germany and Centralized America ascendant as you noted, and a plan to finally try to consolidate and put just a little bit of effort into better integration might have eased the resources Britain expended trying to keep the empire together. It seems no-one had the forward thinking to try to think of what would happen should the home islands drained of resources and betrays the truth of the statement you ended on. And I think the best way to encapsulate this is the Second World War. While in the First World War, Britain was engulfed in Europe with a fairly narrow focus in general with some extra expeditions elsewhere, the Second World War found Britain in a position where it had virtually its entire empire under attack but not necessarily able to draw upon the entirety of said empire of it forcing most of its territories to try to defend themselves. And in that First World War, the colonies learned the hard way that they would be used closer to expendable tools rather than with the care of its home populace (though that wasn't necessarily treated the best either). Perhaps had it integrated better with its colonies and tried to consolidate, it would've been better able to draw upon the immense resources it commanded and fight like the globe spanning empire it was on paper instead of fighting more like the the home islands alone that it did in actuality. On the whole, for controlling 25% of the entire world, the empire fought much more like it was only 5% of that total.
To be honest the British should've implemented the Imperial Federation in the 1700s. Also to point out, what they should've focused on was assimilating the Native cultures into the wider British culture and granted every person living within the Imperial Federation citizenship and rights. For the voting process, they could've adopted a system similar to how the U.S. conducts their voting in which certain regions are worth a certain amount of votes, and each person living within the empire can vote on their respective governors. They could've also took inspiration from the German Empire where the Prussian Chancellor was also the Chancellor of Germany and in this case the British Prime Minister is also the Prime Minister of the Imperial Federation to ensure that the U.K. proper remains as the capital and center of governance. They could've also gave the King more political power as the King naturally should have and followed a constitution similar to the German Empire where the Kaiser had the final say in political decisions. In this case the King would have the final say and it would've allowed the monarch to assume the role in which they are meant to have which is properly leading the country and becoming more involved in the interests of the nation, instead of having a monarch act as a glorified celebrity/figurehead in which they usually are today unfortunately. Lastly, the British government should've also never allowed King Edward VII's prejudice towards Kaiser Wilhelm II to determine British foreign policy, as in reality the British and German Empires should've never went to war with each other as both were more alike and were historic allies with each other since the Napoleonic wars and before. Just to point out the unfortunate events of history of what could've been.
Sure it sounds tricky to govern, however, consider that France manages to includes fully represented overseas regions in their Parliament, likewise with the US and Hawaii, and India manages to govern an entire subcontinent democratically. Communication technology and speedier travel makes such a federation more feasible than it was in the 19th century, and would serve as a more culturally compatible centre of power than being influenced by the US, or currently at an ever greater rate, China.
The difference between the overseas islands of France, the USA, or indeed Britain itself and something like the Imperial Federation, is that the former cases are insignificant in size and population while the latter is comprised of populations and territory large enough to form political, cultural, and economic links between themselves before each other. For how unusually large it is, India also doesn't have any huge physical barriers separating parts of itself.
@@denpadolt9242 it raises the question then, of how something like the USA doesn't fracture into a myriad of nationalities based on regional identity due to the great distances involved? There's no reason why a common defence and foreign policy, along with economic union with an elected governing council and a common citizenship (perhaps with a common currency, perhaps not) isn't feasible
@@robtoe10 The USA doesn't fracture into smaller, regional pieces because many of those pieces aren't separated by great distances, but instead overlap. The American Civil War was the closest the USA came to falling apart, yet it brought those cultures together into a broader identity. The common markets and institutions of Britain, plus a common cultural heritage, were the Commonwealth's greatest binding features, yet they weren't enough to convince the colonies that they and Britain itself were smaller parts of a larger whole. A common foreign policy is actually the Imperial Federation's biggest flaw to me personally. Such a union would have to harmonize the interests and ambitions of regional governments across at least 4 continents. Broad concepts of national/regional identity aside, the Commonwealth countries are all in completely different geopolitical and economic positions, and an overarching Imperial government would have to respect and address all of them lest they risk convincing disgruntled members of the Federation that they would be better off on their own.
Democratically??? Go 1st read About india's looting, plundering, exploiting, racism, torture, massacre by Britisher, rather than propaganda. N bcz this Britisher divide and rule policy, india-paxistan partition, rohingya crisis created by this thugs pirates.
@@radhika00240 The point he was raising is that India is able to function as a democratic country despite its immense size and population, not that British rule over India was in any way democratic.
This has turned up in a few alternate histories like "The Four Courts Attacked" where during a renegotiated anglo-irish treaty it leads to proposals for commonwealth councils and secretariats organising collaboration on military research and development and economic co-operation think something like N.A.T.O and a common market like the E.F.T.A.
As a Canadian, our culture and history comes from the UK and once we abandoned it, we were left with a multicultural empty society with no identity. I wish this federation had been implemented so we could be part of a greater british world and country, united by bonds of blood and language.
I like the idea of having the commonwealth a united federation. At the end of the day, their is only one head of state in most of the nations. Since the UK is out of the EU, this is basically the best opportunity to make it a reality.
@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist once cannada became greater punjab India can claim Canada as an indian territory imagine mapple syrup with rashogolla(indian sweat)
Also Joseph Chamberlain had been a excellent leader for the former Liberal Unionist Party. (A right wing unionist party in Scotland, Ireland, wales and also ran in some of England).
Funny, it still took until the 1980's for Canada (1982), New Zealand (1986) & Australia (1987) to become absolutely independent from The UK. (Barring Queen Elizabeth having seperate titles for each modern country! 🇬🇧 🇨🇦 🇳🇿 🇦🇺)
In practice they had been independent since the 1930s and 40s. The various changes that took place in the 80s were mostly just removing any theoretical powers the UK still had plus some anomalies
@@pedanticradiator1491 No not in theory, in practice. The Privy Council still exerted power over the dominions and the House of Lords was still the highest court of appeal for them also up until the late 1980s.
@@crowbar9566 The Privy Council justice Committee is still the highest appeal court for some Commonwealth realms and the Sultanate of Brunei but not surprisingly enough the UK. This does not give the UK any power over the realms though
id love to see this federation or at least better relations and ties with the commonwealth, especially now that the uk has distanced itself from europe
Commonwealth tariff preference was in place as late as the 1960s. It's the reason why GM sold Vauxhall cars in Canada until the early '70s rather than the Opels the US got. It's also the reason why basically no right-hand-drive export cars were made in the US after WWI, those were all built at the companies' Canadian branch plants.
Perhaps the proposed union of the Angloshere nations in CANZUK=Canada, Australia New Zealand and the United Kingdom, is a modern version of this federation
@@ponraul1221 I was unaware how progressive the former British Cape Colony has always been compared to the two former Boer states. I was also unaware that there is still a Cape independence movement, good luck to them I hope they are successful. South Africa seems to be rapidly going to hell on a hand cart, so independence would surely save the Cape from being dragged down with them and CANZUK could certainly then be a possibility.
I'm sure this'll be a fun button to hit in Victoria 3. IF Pops+ map painted= X, spend Y mana, gain cores and accepted Pops z, change tag to Imperial British Federation
A British presence in Egypt was essential because of the routes to Iraq's oil fields and of course to India and Australia. It was not imperialistically unreasonable since it was not done by force and there was no plan to exclude other states from accessing the same routes (so far as I know). The relationship with Egypt was destroyed by the banks, who extended sums to the Egyptian leaders that went extensively into their own private pockets leaving debts the country could never hope to repay. The eventual unravelling of Suez stemmed directly from that debt burden and the refusal to help Egypt develop a modern industrial economy that might have enabled them to pay it. Truly lions led by donkeys.
A key aspect of the formation of national identities during war that was not mentioned here is that these countries sent their servicemen in a largely segregated manner, especially for the infantry. This meant that an esprit de corp formed with those only of your colonial state, and not with your imperial motherland.
The union of CANZUK makes economic sense. You have 4 nations each with very little competing industry. The only competing industry is Australia and Canada with their natural resources. I can't imagine India moving towards federation, but if it did the resulting nation would encompass all necessary industry for a super state. A strong agricultural production from Aus, Canada and India. A large manufacturing base in India. A high tech industrial base in the UK, supported by Canada, New Zealand and Australia with a high tech financial model. Overpopulation in India would result in mass immigration to the UK, Canada and Australia. In canada and australia mass immigration is less of an issue than in the UK, as land is freely available. The UK would get phenomenally wealthy as a result, however only for the people who own land and businesses in the UK. The average person would not see a massive benefit. There would be an astronomical wealth divide as the cost of living in the UK grows exponentially. Effectively resulting in the same issues the the UK had within the EU, or the issues that San Fran, LA and NYC have in America. The biggest winners from such a union would be India, who would gain access to financial institutions, and high tech services, as well as cheap raw materials from Aus and Canada. Australia would gain from an influx of cheap labour from India to work the mines and farms, resulting in a construction boom and a stronger economy. Canada and New Zealand would benefit less due to their isolation from the rest of the "empire", however would still benefit from the UK financial institutions, services, and easier trade relations. The UK I have already covered. On paper it would seem like all trade flows to London. But the reality would be that all trade flows to the few million who are already wealthy while the poor are priced out of their country.
The idea of adding india to a canzuk federation is so stupid I can't even begin to go into it. Firstly the cultural, religious and linguistic differences are so immense that an eventual breakup is inevitable. Secondly as you said there would be unprecedented mass immigration, hell it could possibly be so bad that in a few years the differences I mentioned would be fixed because we'd all be majority indian. Theres a billion indians vs 63 million people in the UK, 30 million in Canada and 20 million in Australia. 4 million in New Zealand. Thirdly the vast disparity in people would mean india would have basically all the voting power. Lastly, the indian water sources are in China. If they dam that up, it would make the entire federation dependent on China since the water the vast majority of the population drinks would be controlled by them. There's literally no good reason to allow india into a canzuk federation (which the probably wouldn't join anyway because muh evil British raj).
Lol you're wrong. We Indians are economic opportunists. We don't hated the present-day British, only a few left-liberal influential politicians who have an established loyal overseas audience in film festivals, literary festivals, etc. Shashi Tharoor is one of them. We Indians like money. I'm in Canada now. Why? Cuz higher salary than India. In a UK federation with India, there will be so many Indians migrating to the West, that the average salaries will go down, thereby reducing quality of life in the West, not just for the native white people but also us immigrating Indians. So we will immigrate elsewhere after a few decades where salaries haven't yet fallen too low. We don't hate this British federation, it's just that it won't serve our purpose in the long run (higher salaries, better quality of life). By the way, only one river Brahmaputra has its source in China controlled territory.
If the federation had formed would Australian, New Zeelandish, Canadian and so forth be similiar terms to English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern and Catholic Irish as in the sense of regional identities but that they all are still British?
No type of federation would be possible in a territory that does not have a terrestrial geographic continuity. The plan of a transoceanic federation of the same country simply could not work and in the long run did not work. The British discovered in the 20th century what we the Spanish and Portuguese discovered in the early 19th century.
It most certainly could have worked if it was based on culture and form a new type of government similar to what the US did. Where each region would have its own senate and be ruled by a governor. The vast majority of taxes would be used to build local infrastructure but taxes that were generated through trading between each of the regions could pay for common defense. The UK was not formed because England conquered Scotland it was formed because the Scottish wanted it because their economy and failed and they desired to be in a more powerful union. The base of the federation could have been trading between the regions and the common culture that took place.
@@bighands69 What you said is what happened in Latin America immediately after the independance from Spain in the Federation of Central American Republics and in the Great Colombia of Simon Bolivar. Both of them failed and get split.
@@bighands69 At the end you saw the Senate of Venezuela declaring independance from the Great Colombia in which the venezuelan Simon Bolivar was the lifetime President.
Without the improvement in long-distance communications that developed during the 19th Century, I wonder how much of any of this would have been considered possible.
You didn't mention Cecil Rhodes, one of the most ambitious imperialists whi along Alfred Milner created a Secret Society in order to find ways to bring together all the colonies and bring back America into the Empire. Their Secret Society and their ideas lived on and were institutonalized in the form of foreign policy think tank organizations like RIIA and CFR or known as the round table groups that were organized by Lionel Curtis who was a disciple of Milner. RIIA was set up in London in 1919 and CFR was set up in New York in 1921. Both of these organizations are among the most influental in British and American foreign policy.
Ooh, thanks for the info brother. Maybe those two are reasons why our world is going to shiite, nobility needs to learn a lesson in humility one more it seems, a permanent one.
Very interesting. I was thinking that in modern days a closer association with the Commonwealth would be the perfect antidote to Brexit. It's good to see positive views on the British Empire rather than the revisionist ones of anti Empire.
With the geopolitical tectonic plates rapidly shifting under our feet, don't be surprised if we see an establishment shift in tone more favorable toward colonial thinking. The nations of Europe are going to need new sources of raw materials now that Russia is being closed off to the West. They are going to start looking to their colonies and formal imperial territories for those resources. This will require shifting public attitudes in a direction more favorable toward Europe's colonial past. Basicall they will say "Yeah, we did some bad stuff, but it wasn't ALL bad! We are going to do it again and we will be much nicer this time!"
@@randyjones3050 Yeah, no. You're racist if you think these countries will be under "European" control. You realise it's more likely rich Western European countries like France and Germany will simply subdue poor Eastern European countries like Poland and Romania to take their resources as the USA and China won't care since it happens within the EU, but the USA and China won't accept Europe expanding outwards. Don't forget, the USA was the one to force the UK and other countries to give up their colonies. Furthermore, you realise Spain and Portugal are poor as shit compared to their former colonies? The Netherlands and Belgium are tiny and weak compared to their former colonies. The UK has lot its European allies and is now subservient to the USA. You're dumb
Thank you, very glad you enjoyed it. I'm afraid not - though I understand the confusion, a nasally voice seems to afflict many Brits, and we all end up sounding the same.
@@OldBritannia Oops, my apologies, my bad! I liked your video, it's super interesting. Perhaps you could do a follow-up video on the British Commonwealth? I don't know much Britain, but I imagine that would be somewhat of a toned down continuation of the British Emprie or the Imperial Federation? Also, you might consider adding more of an ending to it, I felt it ended somewhat abruptly. Maybe you could either add some kind of ending screen, maybe say something like "Thanks for watching" or whatever. Just my opinion, perhaps you intentionally ended the video like this, not wanting to stray off topic. I will be going through your older videos today, this video definitely has me hooked on your channel and I look forward to your future content :D
That last part, about the empire not having a direction and being reactive is interesting. Very true of the West as a whole today. I think when life is good, we are not in war, then made up problems dominate the agenda. All the political correctness, endless philosophising about wether genders are constructs etc is what happens when there’s nothing else to worry about. Ukraine is fighting for its survival and it’s people will sacrifice their lives for their country. If someone in the west says they will die for their country they feel embarrassed. It’s thought of as an embarrassing idea. We’d rather compromise and learn to accept other peoples views and preferences as being equally legitimate even if they aren’t. It was clear that China wasn’t moving in the direction of western values but still western companies gave the Chinese their technology in exchange for short term profits. Why? be cause no one is in control. Laws should have prevented the corporations from doing that. But who will make the law? Politicians only think of the short term and focus on short term issues. Democracy is the only way, I support it 100% but we need longer term vision in society. After maths and English in school, history should be taught more. Not about far away lands, but about the history of western civilisation. It is essential. An understanding of western history will mean no more pulling down statues of captain James Cook, bashing Winston Churchill, feeling guilty as if we were more ghastly than other peoples would have been if they had been in our position etc. Right now, country’s like China have learned lessons from the rise of the west while we have tried our best to poo poo or misrepresent it’s ideals and strengths.
I remember reading a book on ancient Greek imperialism by one “Ferguson” which mentioned Seelys prolific history and its digestible quote; what stuck with me the most was the accompanying observation made by the author as to how that quote can also be construed as the great hypocrisy and failure of Britain and her empire. It went something to the effect of; “It would seem that Britain, the great mother of liberal constitutionalism for millions; has found herself the oppressive mistress to millions more”
This is something of a place holder video, apologies about the length and the fact it doesn't go massively in depth on the topic of Imperial Federation. My main focus at the minute is a biography of Lord Castlereagh which will hopefully be up in a few weeks time. Thank you for watching, I hope you enjoy the video.
Good video, and well edited. Deserves to do well. Also good choice of sources, if a little light. Can I ask what your qualifications are? Asked sincerely and out of interest.
Take your time, Old Britannia. These short videos are interesting anyway. And we don't want you to feel pressured and anxious, and this could make focus less on making the video as well as they are. Don't worry!
Why did you fade India at 0:21 while highlighting the other UK colonies?
@@coolfreefullmovies8192 because he's highlighting the white dominions, which India is not one of. It's good that India is in red to begin with, as it was a major imperial space, especially after the loss of the US.
@@OldBritannia keep making videos, RUclips never has enough good history essays, your argument is decent and as I say you edit your videos well.
Feel free to ignore this question but where did you study for your BA? Again asked sincerely and out of interest
The First time I’ve heard about Imperial Federation was from Hearts of Iron IV where if you play as Britain you have the option of forming the Imperial Federation.
Probably one of the strongest countries in the game considering if you go insane enough you can also get cores on the US, Italy, the Benelux, France, and Germany in addition to the dominions
@@novaexplorer2397 strongest nation is communist china. not even the best quality british tank division can break through a line of 10 50w infantry with unlimited chinese manpower to back it up
@@novaexplorer2397 well, by that point you probably don't really have any enemies to defeat lol
@@novaexplorer2397 how do you get them cores? That sounds mental
@@ojdavies7699 if you go facist you can annex the USA and unlock a decision to core all of it to Canada and then the focus will give you cores on it. As for Europe you can get a decision to unite most of Western Europe after finishing the imperial federation focus
The ‘absent mindedness’ was due to the Empire being built mostly for the expansion of markets rather than anything else.
What else is there?
Living space
@@Daniel-ih4zh that was a very British response.
Imperial integration and stability I guess. Something done by Rome, the early caliphate, Spain and so many other hegemonic states.
The problem with the British and American empires is that they happen by accident and circumstance, they never actively pursued empire and never had a clear ideology behind it
I think the mantra back in those day's as Margery Perham once said Empire was about the Four C's "Commerce , Conquest, Christianity and Colonialism." and in that order.
True, all the marketing of slavery and things like spices and other goods was all they looked for, and Colonialism came as a byproduct.
Even then, Britain just kept expanding and didn't do as the Romans did and accept other ethnic groups as proper citizens of their Empire. But that argument of racism is for another time
Several years ago I watched a video about the British countryside. They explained that, because of free trade, agriculture languished and by 1914 much of the rural UK had reverted to wilderness. Because of this, the British almost suffered a famine during World War One because of the U-boats sinking so many ships, many of them importing food from North America. So during the war the British frantically planted crops everywhere they could (the so-called Victory Gardens), and after the war adopted a protectionist policy to encourage British agriculture. This lead to a return of farming to much of the British countryside. During the 1930's much of the world had become much ore protectionist than before the War, so the British Empire became a trading block with the policy of Imperial Preference.
It's interesting delving into the Corn Laws. Basically meaning that British farmers get priced out and the workers moved into the cities which helped the Industrial Revolution begin.
The first party of Australia when federated was The Protectionist party, though all initial parties reformed or split into others except the Labor party.
This has had some disastrous environmental consequences. The entomologist Dave Goulson for example notes that many rare bumblebee species all went extinct in the immediate aftermath of WWII as a result of the clearing of wildflower meadows and old growth forests. He also notes that many insect species began to flourish more in the cities than the countryside as a result of the countryside being full of monocrop fields but the cities being full of a wide variety of flowers, planted as a result of the British working man's curious fondness for gardening!
It also caused a flight of capital out of Britian to investments in other nations. British industry started falling behind by the late 1800's because of it.
America and Germany became Protectionist Powers during these years didn't help the UK
@@ScareWestthe corn laws were a protectionist law designed to keep wheat prices stable and protect landowners
I definitely think the path of this period of the British empire wasn’t a set track down a single path. You really get the impression learning especially about Canadian Confederation that it was a very experimental period, with dominion politicians and the the British government never sure or in agreement on an exact path forward.
I think one of the more forgotten but interesting proposals during this period was that a couple (primarily Thomas Darcy Mcgee) of the Canadian fathers of confederation wanted Canada to go down the Brazil route in terms of its relationship to Britain. AKA having a cadet branch of the British royal family establish a seperate Canadian monarchy.
Quoting Monarchism, an Emerging Canadian Identity, and the 1866 British North American Trade Mission to the West Indies and Brazil: “In 1863, he proposed a permanent viceroy for Canada on the Brazilian model, suggesting that one of Queen Victoria’s younger sons should become Canada’s king. Upon his death, the heir of this viceroy would inherit the throne of Canada. Canada and Britain would therefore have separate but related resident royal families. McGee’s reference to Brazil was an allusion to the origins of the Brazilian royal family, which had begun as a cadet branch of the Portuguese royal house.”
Canada’s main father of confederation John A MacDonald didn’t support that, but did support the official name of Canada being “The Kingdom of Canada” to assert equality with Britain, that was shot down by the British.
Wouldn't that basically be a dynasty?
@@aaroncastilleja162 It would certainly mean that, for Canada, a brand new Royal Family and monarchical hereditary line would be starting up in and for Canada. As an Australian, I can't think of a worse fait for the Country, than to have a "newly minted" extension of the British Royal Family establishing itself in the Country!! To me, it would be a signal to take up arms, either that or shoot myself!! I just couldn't live with/under it.
A global confederation would have looked different because the distances involved.
Because having related royal families was really handy during WWI.
I think if the Federation DID form, It would survive to the present day but it would lose a great deal of colonies like Egypt and India, but this new UK or Federation would remain powerful enough to maintain colonies like Hong Kong and Malta, It would act as a superpower in Europe and a great power in the world as a whole.
I think a New UK would've forcefully maintained the Empire they would've had the numbers to keep places like India for 50 more years after ww2.
@@herewegoo2677 Yeah, but would most likely lose India, there is no way Britain would maintain India forever, especially when a revolt occurs that could be costly knowing how big India's population is
1. Why or how would Egypt become independent?
Before they got independence from the Brits they have been a colony of a greater power for around 2000 years.
2. How would the British hold on to Hong Kong 😂.
China would just steamroll strait through it if the Brits didn’t give it back and there’s nothing they could do about it.
Imagine China trying to colonies Northern Ireland, that’s how ridiculous it is.
@@joshbentley2307 If the British united into the Imperial Federation, imagine the economic weight of the super-state. Got it? Okay, so when the Chinese want for this superpower to give back Hong Kong, why would they? They aren’t required to.
Parts of India probably would have stuck around. Some of the princely states were of a respectable size and importance, and a federation would have given those in power a better deal than an independent India. More than likely India would have ended up some ort of piecemeal of a dozen or so political bodies.
Woah I never knew Britain was directionless, or to a lesser extend purposeless. Or the fact that it was internationally shunned for Egypt. I always assumed they had clear goals of global economic hegemony and rough framework to work off of. Now I really do believe people that say that WW1 did not end the empires, it simply sped up the process
Many see this time as "the second British Empire", the first ending with the loss of the American colonies. And yes, it was an accident of sorts.
Britain was fighting its rivals on pretty much every ocean and every continent (for instance, going to India to stop the French taking it). Such an effort required the building of infrastructure in all these areas, factories, ports, barracks, all linked by roads and railways.
So when Britain prevailed, if found itself with these powerful colonies with a stranglehold of trade worldwide. It could either leave or violently and aggressively maintain them and the power over international trade that came with it. Unfortunately for many nations whose land was fought over, we all know which way Britain went
Britain had clear goals at one point but after WW1 it destroyed the British backbone. There also bad decisions made that caused rebellion in the colonies and vasel states.
They was shunned in Egypt because annexing the country gave them hegemony over the Suez Canal.
@@davidcoshall8590 Egypt changed course to Nationalist Arabism ideas and Communisim as well. Egypt, Syria, Libya all become close to the USSR and rampant Nationalist Arabism took over, the British had to choose a full scale civil war to keep control and they had no chance to win multiple countries uprising at the same time. The British had to leave. The British Empire was not only totally removed culturally but as individuals people in these countries totally and fully broke from the British Empire. Within a few years, the influence of the British empire in these countries was totally 100% gone. Even the first underground movements in Israel were communist and that lead to Israel having a short but serious struggle between east and west, Capitalist vs Communist ideas and organizations but they eventually shared power under Israel's founder Ben Gorion but it was a close call with communisim there too. Asia was fully swept up by communisim, China, Vietnam, Thailand, and also India and Pakistan fell under the spell of communisim but eventually found a middle ground. If American ended the first British Empire, the Soviet Union and communisim ended the second British Empire.
Anything built by globalist free trade is necessarily directionless, interspersed with romantic ideas about what to do with it. At least the British didn't go full-on bonkers like the United States now is.
France being the second largest empire, they also had a similar idea of creating a world spaning empire called the French Union after ww2 and this was the whole purpose of the IVth republic
However since France have a big tradition of centralisation and indivisibility, the idea of forming a federal state was widely rejected
France did end up uniting with some of its colonial possessions though; Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guiana, Réunion and Mayotte are fully integrated into France and in the EU.
Second largest empire was the Mongol Empire in the year 1279.
@@CR7GOATofFootball I was speaking about the empires that existed at the same period than the british empire, but you are right
@@nanoboso3656 2nd largest empire was the Russian Empire
I red that France during the Napoleonics era, had the idea of federalise all the conquered territories and creating a Pan-european empire.
The idea was aborted by france military/nationalists, because it would had paradoxically weakened the power of France in this federation, so they preferred a centralised France with puppets governments.
This was much more informative than I expected - given the video's short length. I'd love to see more from you. Subbed!
Thank you, should have another short video looking at Lord Lansdowne's peace letter in a few days, then a biography of Lord Castlereagh.
Thank you -- I have created my own videos in the classroom, but this is made far more professionally. I particularly like the intertwining of attittudes to Empire and socio-economics.
Thank you, very glad you enjoyed it.
The entire history of Britain can be summarized as a lack of long-term planning.
Term-limits tend to do that for better and for worse :)
but also the advantage of being less crystalized is a pragmatic flexibility that helps with constant adaptation and perdurance
I always found it ironic that this idea came to prominence just as the unity of the UK proper was showing severe cracks in Ireland with the ascendancy of Charles Stewart Parnell.
I could watch and listen to this Empire footage all day! This was about 7 hours & 23 minutes too short!
I love the idea that Britain merely 'woopsie'd' their way through being the biggest empire and power just because.
Oddly in character.
That is because the British Empire was largely built on ever-expanding commerce and wealth creation rather than strictly military conquest and resource exploitation. Military conquest only served to expand commerce and wealth building. It was those values that were fused into the DNA of the United States that helped make it powerful as well. The manner in which the British Empire expanded and the cultural values it planted around the world is largely why all the English speaking nations rank among the wealthiest in the world to this day.
Doesn't it just. I mean, you also had it as a result of conflict. Britain was essentially caught up in what was almost a world war, fighting against all the world's other powers and the American states. We lost against the latter obviously, but won the former. After that victory, Britain suddenly found it had troops, families, barracks, ports, factories and railway tracks on all these different continents.
I wonder if at some point after the fighting had ended, if British politicians and military leaders had the chance to sit down and look at a map and suddenly thought - hang on, wtf is all this?
They could do a Monty Python movie about it lol
Britain: “Oops, did I just accidentally an empire?”
The anglo cares only about money and will wage war with those who threaten it. the people though? Historically always put last.
@@randyjones3050 Also inventing racism as we know it in the Anglosphere. France allowed interracial marriages in its colonies while the UK banned it
Loved this video, thanks for your hard work (it means a lot!). Do you think such plan could have been possible and what would be the benefits? I think conservatives in post-Napoleonic Britain never had a common view between themselves, and it's why such plan was never possible. Carlyle is very different from Chesterton, who also is very different and loathes Disraeli. They usually followed somewhat of a plain philosophy of Burke, and not even all of them followed it. Chesterton even calls Burke not a conservative, and said he was almost punched during a conservative event for saying this.
I think that’s certainly true regarding conservatives. I hadn’t heard of that anecdote with Chesterton and Burke, quite funny.
Most at least were generally consistent in their patriotism and belief in defending British interests. The difference between a Canning and Disraeli was much less than the difference between Palmerston and Gladstone.
As regards to the federation I honestly don’t know. On the one hand I think there would be so many contradictions in trying to bind so many colonies together in such a way, it could never have really lasted.
On the other hand, something had to be done eventually if the empire was to become a permanent entity.
The new federation if it formed could have been based on trade and common culture. And for governance to be at the local level.
It'd have awesomely brilliant to have an Imperial Federation of the British Empire. The Great British Imperial Federation -what a name of a country👏🏻
The fact they didn't give a damn about South Africa having like 95% of natives doesn't make you cry? It was like ignoring they were even humans
@Schooey yeah, because they took the wealth away from all white people and kicked them out of the country... oh wait no, all those white people kept being the richest people in the country and basically still control South Africa but now there's a black president.
Yeah, the good old days when black people couldn't travel and needed to report to the police each time they received visits, South Africa was a paradise indeed... for white people.
@@victorfergn Black people had voting rights in South Africa under the British. It was the Afrikaaners that removed it in the late 50s when they formed a republic and away from British rule.
@@PitchBlackTales You realize the British Parliament could do anything they wanted to South Africa, right? So voting in that country was basically useless :V
@@victorfergn South Africa is was principally a resource Colony, not a settler colony. The fact that the country is 95% native supports the idea they wouldn't really want to join anyway. They weren't British, they were African, at least they largely didn't see themselves as British.
Secondly, the 5% non-natives were mostly made of Dutch hangers-on after the Boer War, traders who had previously made a living selling slaves from the continental interior. So even among the white population of the colony, most of them didn't see themselves as British. That Dutch demographic would take government positions after the country achieved independence and begin apartheid rule. Democracy still isn't really a thing in South Africa right now, by the way.
The settler colonies were by definition, largely composed of British settlers who still largely identified with the ethnically British Diaspora. Those are the ones included because those are the ones who actually came from Britain and so they could reasonably accept divesting Federal Authority onto Britain because for all intents and purposes they still were British. India did initially lobby for Dominion status, I am inclined to believe it should have been given to them, considering their size and contribution to the Empire.
But I suspect the Indians only really wanted Dominion status to further political interest of eventually arguing for independence anyway.
Joseph Chamberlain is a highly underrated figure that should be remembered by more people.
Huh this is pretty damn interesting timing (though I suppose my recent google searches probably tipped off the algorithm) for the Alt History Scenario I’m writing. Specifically involves Joesph Chamberlain succeeding Salisbury when he retires as part of an imperial upswing as part of the lore.
Broader setting is about the US devolving into Warlord Cliques/Internal Disunity after the Civil War is prolonged (PoD is Antietam and Union still wins) and the historical fall out of that, mainly looking at France, GB and Japan.
Didn’t know what Imperial Federation was beyond spotting the term in the wiki page, so Chamberlain’s dedication to it and the context of a more robust British Empire with “purpose” is helpful for the setting. Great Video!
Very interesting idea. Always unlikely Chamberlain would succeed because he led the Liberal Unionists rather than the actual Conservatives. Yet not impossible, as Balfour had little ambition as to the premiership.
A Chamberlain ministry would have huge implications on British foreign policy: Another attempt at the Anglo-German alliance perhaps?
Would love to read it once you begin.
@@OldBritannia I can send you the Google Docs as it goes (I’m roughly 77 pages in on the basic lore and I have the British Content earmarked) and frankly I am thrilled by your response. I am aware of the precarious position that Chamberlain as leader of the Lib Unionists rather than the Tories places him in and yes I have Balfour’s deference being a factor here. More significantly however I tie it to the successes and character of the Disraeli years and his intentional moves to harness “radical” support from both parties (in the form of Chamberlain from the Libs and Churchill from the Cons).
It was meant to be that additional Foreign Policy victories (including a limited, naval based war with the US over Santo Domingo) shakes Gladstone’s base of support earlier and helps inspire a generation of Imperialist oriented politicians under him. Disraeli dies at the same time but when Salisbury manages to form a government after a few years under Gladstone’s collapsing coalition, the Lib Unionists are a bit weightier and the Conservatives for their part are more in line with Disraeli’s ideas of the “Tory Democracy” which would manage to give Chamberlain a working margin for reforms.
But yes the entire setting hinges on a far more proactive and hegemonic British Empire as it is the only power at the time which could possibly keep a destabilizing America on that track of further chaos. On the matter of German-British Alliance, while a friend of mine suggested that we have dear Wilhelm die during birth as a secondary PoD I felt it a bit cheap. So despite Chamberlain’s want for the alliance Wilhelm’s animosity (increased due to deeper British Colonial Hegemony after chaos in France and Belgium results in further outposts being seized) toward the British would make it untenable. Rather I have the League of 3 Emperors as the constantly collapsing mess it always was.
@@constantinethe27th33 this sounds fascinating. I'd love to read more
Spain did that from the beginning. Before the casa de Borbón claimed the throne, the Spanish empire was very similar to the United Arab Emirates, taking on account the federal and monarchical systems both states shared.
The Spanish overseas territories were an extension of the kingdom of Castile rather than a mere colony. Was it a good idea? From a moral perspective, it was. Every single person born in Spanish territory was considered a Spanish citizen. Although this reality wasn't confirmed constitutionally, the libro VI del compendio de las leyes de indias (which includes all the important pieces of legislation concerning the American territories) assured that those in America (Españoles Americanos and indios, first divided in republica de Indios and Republica de Españoles) were free vassals of the crown.
This particular (and innovative) form of organization had to do with what Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno called an "Imperio generador". A classical empire like those of Alexander the great and Rome, that sought to expand their cultural, ethnic and religious heritage in the provinces they annexed. Of course, there are notable differences between, say, the Roman empire and the Spanish empire (Not everyone born in the Roman empire was Roman, slavery was never outlawed for a specific ethic group, the Romans were far more brutal than the Spaniards, etc...) but the classical concept remains.
Although America and the Philippines were extensions of Spain, the cultural and linguistic heritage of those territories was (and is currently) totally castillian. America and the Philippines had little to do with the cultural, linguistic and ethnic particularities of the aragonese, for instance.
"From a moral perspective, it was..... that sought to expand their cultural, ethnic and religious heritage in the provinces they annexed." unfortunately, some would consider that Imperialism.
@@projectilequestion It was. I don't consider imperialism to be inherently wrong. In fact, from a realist perspective, those states that had survived throughout history have (almost) always expanded over others. As the melian dialogue suggested, the powerful do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must.
The only way to assure survival is to seek either regional hegemony (Mearsheimer, 2001) or a decent amount of Power (Waltz, 1979). Turns out that forming an empire is usually very helpful to achieve those goals.
@@SantiagoVerbel-j4l Well, India had an impressive culture centuries before we got there. They had their Princes, their philosophers, their rich cultural, architectural and historical heritage for years before England even had more than million people in it. There is no need to change it- learn from it. They can adopt our stuff at whatever rate they want.
@@projectilequestion It did. But the Indian states definitely understood that imperial expansion was a very good political ploy in order to grant survival (I'm taking war as a political activity, since it is "the merely continuation of policy by other means" (Von Clausterwitz, 1982, p. 87).
I don't really get your point with India. Would you elaborate further please?
@@SantiagoVerbel-j4l Well in Britain, we were taught that India was a civilization we looked up to. Government buildings were were incorporated with two doors to one room- so Indian Princes of equal rank could enter at the same time, and the Indians for example copied our private school system.
This concept passes through my mind from time to time since childhood. Since there was no explicit and dedicated programme nor any specific diplomatic structure, I'd assumed it was a kind of cultural union, and that there was a multilateral understanding between the various nations and semi nations.
Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies, declared Australia was “British to the bootstraps” in the 1950s. Hugely popular, he served 17 years as PM.
I have to say I absolutely love your channel. Well researched and very well presented. My favourite episode has been either this or the Salisbury episode. My hat is off to you!
Thank you, really glad you are enjoying the content. Your support is much appreciated.
@@OldBritanniasorry apart from fear of whites becoming minorities by current people or british nationalist I don't think why india wouldn't be part of the empire? Like before WW1 the indian independence movement just wanted to get same deal as Canada and Australia, if british have just granted that the indolence movement would have ended or decreased. Hell if Queen Victoria appointed one of his son as the emperor of india that ruled from Delhi from direction of UK, the british Dynasty of india would have survived.
Very interesting video!!! Spain too tried to do the same in various ocasions such as with the "Cadiz Constitution of 1812" , excellent work! much love from Mallorca! 💕
This channel will blow up, I can already tell
This immediately made me think of a book I had read decades ago, "Union Now with Britain" by Clarence K. Streit.
It's a proposal for a union between the US and UK.
It was written in1941, though, so as a response to WWII.
I honestly don't remember much about it, now, other than being intrigued by the idea.
The name stuck with me, however.
That had to be written before it became clear what a state the British Empire was in. There's no need for a union when you basically make the other a vassal state, which is what ended up happening.
@@Sir_Gerald_Nosehairs.
Britain is not a vassal of America. British just lacks confidence in its own ability due to its culture going into decline.
Britain relies too heavily on America for defence but that is not the same as it being a vassal of the other.
@@bighands69 I think it is. Britain often seems an unwilling partner with the USA and the special relationship is one sided. Consider the USA won’t even give the British a trade deal. What kind of special relationship is that?
@@trevormcdonald385 Well, we recently told the USA to sod off in regard to bombing Syria (to which the entire thing was then scrapped) and didn't jump on with them in Vietnam, to which they then went and lost.
There certainly isn't any special relationship. They have an economic stranglehold on us, and have done since they basically underwrote us in WW2, but it's not some kind of vassal relationship. A totally outdated term.
@@doug6500 I think it’s a vassal relationship. Obviously sometimes there are times when the the electorate would not swallow the smoke screen but for the most part the British always follow the USA.
1:10: What is the basis of your claim that Alexander III brought ‘resurgence’ to Russia after ‘years of stagnation’ under Alexander II? As a Russian myself, I have never, ever heard such a point of view; it’s usually quite the opposite, actually, considering that Alexander II’s achievements include ending serfdom and reforming key areas of the state.
Thanks for a really nice video, though!
Knew that might cause some controversy. I’ll elaborate much more when I get round to my fall of the Russian Empire series.
Basically, I have no idea why Alexander II gets such good press. His reforms left Russia in near chaos. Free trade practically killed domestic Russian industry. His foreign policy was contradictory and blundering, leading Russia into an expensive war for almost no gain because his terrible diplomacy. His judicial reforms meant terrorists were repeatedly let off despite indisputable evidence. The way serfdom was abolished meant many ended up worse than before.
Under Alexander III, protectionism was introduced and Russian industry was turbo charged. The foreign policy was much more consistent, extremists were a lot more successfully dealt with etc.
It wasn’t perfect of course, but honestly Alexander II was a terrible tsar who may well have led his country to disintegration if he hadn’t died when he did.
@@OldBritannia Thanks for a detailed answer - and sorry for taking so much time to reply!
Although I think I disagree with some of your points, I’m certainly not knowledgeable enough on the subject to argue. I’ll be looking forward to your video on the Russian Empire. :)
@@art_sarkisian While I agree that he is overrated, Alexander II certainly was not this ineffective, and that period certainly shouldn't be regarded as one of stagnation. As a Russian, you probably know most of what I'm about to say, but I'm mostly saying this to the westerners here in the comments:
1) Free trade hit Russian industry hard, you can't argue against that. But Russian industry before his reign was a tiny fraction of what it was by the Witte period, and his free trade approach was a necessity for Russia to gain access to the foreign capital markets that enabled the Witte boom to begin with. That "supercharge" only happened because of state bond purchases, largely with French capital, that allowed the Russian state to invest in industrialization and infrastructure. Without Alexander II's period of free trade, there would have been no "supercharge" under Alexander III (although I would argue that the Witte boom was not as significant as it's often made out to be).
2) Foreign policy. I generally agree with him here, Alexander II was very inconsistent and probably would not have made as many territorial gains in the east as he did were it not for Napoleon III being even more inconsistent and chaotic. That being said, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 did a lot to improve Russia's standing on the international stage. The war was extremely expensive for the Russian state and Alexander II failed to secure many of his objectives, Russia's military performance in the war showed the West that Russia was not the failing state that France and Britain had kicked over in the Crimean War (it was also evidence of the success of serf emancipation).
3) This is where I have to disagree the most: although we can debate the morality of letting so many terrorists off the hook, there was never a time in the 19th century history when the Russian state was able to effectively deal with terrorism. The problem had less to do with any single Tsar's dictates, and more to do with the justice system more generally. The policy of deportation to Siberia under Nicholas I and Alexander III was effectively the same as letting them go free, as it was very easy to escape from Siberia to the west (although in fairness, similar cases happened in Alexander II's reign, Bakunin probably being the most famous example). More importantly, political extremists and terrorists were basically unable to destabilize the Russian state and society. The Narodniks, for example, we completely unable to mobilize peasants around terrorist actions in failed uprisings of 1874 (this owes mostly to serf emancipation, which I'll get to next). Compare that to the terrorists and extremists that operated under Alexander III and in the early years of Nicholas II, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Martov, Trotsky. Alexander III and Nicholas II's much harder line on terrorism not only did nothing to stop them escaping, but unlike under Alexander II, they were actually able to overthrow the Russian state. *To say that Alexander III dealt with extremists more successfully is completely untrue: those very same terrorists that he supposedly did a better job of managing created the Soviet Union on the ashes of the Russian Empire.*
4) He's right to suggest that serf emancipation was not a uniform success, and the labor repayments of former serfs did create financial woes for many people. However, one has to bear in mind how serfdom and agriculture worked in Russia in the 19th century. The vast majority of the Russian population before emancipation were serfs, and since Russian serfdom operated on a system of fixing people to set plots of land, this meant that the vast majority of the population was legally incapable of relocating to find new economic opportunities, such as in Siberia or in the cities. It also meant that the Russian military was dependent on levying serfs, which meant that Russia basically had to start their military from scratch every time they went to war (the Crimean War is the most notorious example of how this inherent lack of preparation could endanger the Russian state). It also meant that cities could not easily develop and that industrialization was extremely difficult, because you need large population flight from the countryside and into cities to have to labor force for things like factory and railroad construction. This, along with the lack of access to foreign capital, was one of the main reasons why Russia had basically no industry until the time of Alexander II: there was no money to spend to build the factories, and no population of workers to run them. Abolishing serfdom made possible the growth of cities like Kharkiv and Tula and Yekaterinburg into major industrial centers. Lastly, serf emancipation made revolution very difficult in a time when the majority of the population was still agricultural. The Narodniks failed to enlist support for their revolutionary activities in 1874 largely because, with the end of serfdom, your typical Obshchina was actually self-governing (for those reading this and don't know, an Obshchina was a type of agricultural commune to which the vast majority of peasants, and by extension the vast majority of the Russian population, belonged). The SRs, Bolsheviks, and Mensheviks were *much* more successful than the Narodniks ever were at mobilizing mass support after Obshchinas were largely dissolved in the reign of Nicholas II.
@@OldBritannia Protectionism succs, free trade is good
I've always felt that had Britain used some sort of federation model with the empire it would have lasted a lot longer by imbuing the colonists' political leaders with some gain by remaining attached. It all comes back to the rallying cry of the Americans: "No taxation without representation". Now in their case this was a bit simplistic and there were a multitude of factors behind American separatism but the basic tenet of linking representation and rulership by consent is valid in all cases. Imagine a parliament elected from all the empire deciding on the things affecting the empire while allowing domestic policy to be legislated locally. This would have made the empire far more internally cohesive and stronger with far better economic links due to unified policies on things like tariffs. It would also have been far stronger than the EU as the links would be social and ideological rather than merely economic. In this form the empire would likely be around today and the two world wars would have been significantly different in nature. Britain's primary aim in the First World War was to maintain balance between the powers in Europe. Would this have been needed if the empire was already by far the most powerful player in the continent through Britain? The empire would have become the worlds first true global superpower, something the USA only managed much later and that even the Soviets struggled with.
Honestly this is why I want a time machine or a looking glass that lets me see into other timelines. Not to change stuff but see how things went differently. It would be cool to see how it could have worked.
Imperial federation and the British empire has an interesting history in Canada. Anglo-Canadians embraced this idea whole heartily, and viewed themselves as "British civilization in the frontier" with a strong steak of anti-Americanism. French-Canadians didn't like the empire and instead where the prominent Canadian nationalists of the period, and argued for Canadian autonomy and independence. The death of the British empire greatly effected Canadian identity in a way that Canada is still dealing with. The empire was at the root of Anglo-Canadian identity, and the English half of the country has kind of been listless ever sense.
Post empire, Anglo-Canada frames its identity almost entirely in relation to the USA. Anglo-Canada sees itself as a more "sensible" USA, with most of the country aligning itself with blue America. Yet, Canadian uniqueness is pretty much delusion as Canada largely follows the intellectual and culture trends of blue America, though the implementation of these ideas is more successful in Canada due to a much weaker red America counterpart. There is a hollowness to this dynamic as Canadian identity is about being not being American, which is proved by the implantation American ideas more thoroughly. French Canadian identity has spent this period with at least one foot out the door, with the strongest expression of Franco-Canadian identity manifesting in succession.
Perhaps a "subject identity" always craves a master.
It would run up against the WW2 problem at some point - Britain (or the federation) could not fight a war in Europe and a second war elsewhere. Australia ratified Westminster and allied with the US in World War II because the UK could not assist its direct defence, and New Zealand afterwards. In the end the Federation would have become as dependent on the US as the individual nations did historically.
If the federation had happened, it would have had to have entered into a ‘special relationship’ alliance with the US.
We don't know how history would change if this federation formed. We take it as a given that WW2 starts but who knows how politics would change globally.
So Britain accidentally became a world superpower by sorting one problem at a time 😂
'problem'
A great alternative history of if this happened (even though it still kind of silly, but still) is the Darkest Hour Kaissereich AAR (After Action Report/Written Narrative Let's Play) called "Crown Atomic". Taking a British Imperial Federation into the Cold War, post 2nd Weltkrieg.
This is really well made and well written. You need more subs!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it.
Can i just say: those ancient cartoons ... are Bloody amazing... why don't we have it now?
I'm Brazilian, I've never been to Britain, or any of its former colonies, I don't know anyone from there and I don't have any connection to the people whatsoever. Yet, I found this video amusing, thank you, RUclips!
Possibly the choice of 'federal empire' v. 'independent dominions' had existed, but the decision in the British North America Act in the 1860s to create an independent Canada rather than integrate the Canadian colonies into the UK sealed off the federal option irreversibly.
Let’s hope this federation can be realised in the future in the form of the c.a.n.z.u.k proposal 🇬🇧🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿
Let’s do it 🇦🇺 🇬🇧
You are dreaming greed again.
It will never be allowed to happen.
Australia, Canada and NZ. will become Republics some day.
Since 1970 over 20 countries have abolished their monarchies.
No thanks.
Your so-called little kingdom is falling apart with Scotland preparing to join the EU, N. Ireland turning its back on the union and becoming a reunified Ireland and the deeply divisive Brexit. Comeuppance time for Britains brutal colonial past will finally happen.
YOU WILL REAP WHAT YOUR ANCESTORS HAVE SOWN.
CANZUK is ten times better then Imperial Federation. Don’t confuse them.
It seems that the Commonwealth of Nations is moving closer together and that dire circumstances could work to unify them more out of economic necessity. CANZUK is becoming more real and it is in the US’s interest to strengthen the UK. Also, a death in the monarchy is sure to stir discussion on the state of the Commonwealth.
The current CANZUK idea is more symbolic than anything else. Trade is pretty low between those nations, political decisions will still differ on what is best for themselves and defensively they are in seperate theaters (UK and Canada in NATO, NZ and Australia in the Pacific/Chinese sphere).
@@MDP1702 The leader would actually be the USA anyway, it's basically just about getting closer together, We are all pretty close in Trade top 30, Military ect.
I believe the first nation the UK called when brexit happened was Australia to make new trade deals and have discussions on were the future of Australian and UK will go, however the Australian government said they couldn't discuss anything till after Brexit.
@@brianlong2334 Doesn't really matter that the Australia was one of the first countries the UK wanted to make a trad deal with. Trade between the two countries is pretty much worthless. Moreover the EU also has a trade talks with Australia. The UK-AUS trade deal btw is seen as being mostly beneficial for Australia, but not really the UK, with the UK essentially giving way too much away for what it gets. Why? Because the UK government needed a 'win' after brexit.
@@MDP1702 That's not true, Australia makes 5billion from the UK the UK makes 9billion form Australia that's a 4billion more then Australia.
We are also each other 8th biggest two way trading partners....
Or about 14th for Australia
And 19th for the UK
It also does matter as I was pointing out the UK future plan's, which are heavily involved with Australia more so then everyone else.
@@brianlong2334 Those are pretty low numbers. Australia has 214 billion in trade with China and another 81 billion in trade with Japan, the EU has a trade value with Australia for around 60 billion. The UK has a total trade value if 27 billion.
The UK would like to replace its EU bond with Canzuk, but again, that is more symbolic than anything else. A trade deal? Sure, but the EU is also negotiating a trade deal with Australia, so you don't need Canzuk for it (and again the UK gave way too much to Australia in order to get a trade deal as soon as possible). So what will Canzuk offer?
Great video! Focus on getting a better microphone so the audio is better in the future!🎉
Isn’t it interesting how the largest empire in history was a reactive force. A primarily trade and commercial endeavour rather than a military expansionist one
British, Mongol, Roman empire. Yeah pretty much, some particular exceptions come into mind though, like the Arab caliphates. That sticks out like a sore thumb since it was surely expansionist as hell and also had a long-term ambition in mind in regards to its expansion.
Fascinating video. In some ways it quickly explains the fate of the British Empire and why it eventually had to collapse.
If Britain could not unite with Canada politically (where the distance was not too great & there was a common culture), then Canada was going to break away to independence eventually. More distant & more culturally diverse colonies were even more likely to seek independence.
Great video and amazing channel so glad I found it!!!
Thank you, I'm glad you found it too.
More like an economical block, similar to EEC. That's not bad. Then again, the US wouldn't like it if CANZUK and EU want to have their independent military structure that don't allign with the usual NATO/US foreign policy. The only reason US backs the EU is because EU alligns with NATO which provides them two markets: defense market and the usual import-export. The presence of US troops is seen in Western (except France) and Central Europe. The US was the main reason why the British Empire collapsed. The royal gold is still in the Federal Reserve which was hijacked by the US during the Destroyer for Bases agreement. And the UK was already in debt to US prior to WW2. And I don't think Canada would prefer the UK over the US since the US provides a bigger market to Canada. It's always about the economy.
1. Destroyer for bases agreement had absolutely nothing to do with gold as far as I’m aware of (I would appreciate if you told me where you got this information from).
2. Why do you think Canada would stop trading with the USA if CANZUK happened you mad man, U.K. needs the USA as an export market as well (we’re the 4th or 5th largest exporter) and other than the EU the USA is our largest export market.
@@joshbentley2307 It was Operation Fish, the transfer of wealth (gold that worths around $31 billion today). Destroyer for Bases happened in the same year 3 months later, in exchange for land rights on British possessions. And Britain was already in debt to the US prior to WW2. The US doesn't want a united Europe or stronger EU with its own army that is independent from the usual US/NATO foreign policy. Nothing to do with liberalism-conservatism, left/right. The US is all about "American interests above all", doesn't matter if it's Biden or Trump or any other US President. Canada leans more towards the US than the UK. And US special relationship is with Israel and Saudi Arabia. The only reason US tolerates the EU is beacuse it gives them a bigger market and almost all the EU members are under the NATO umbrella. By the way, has the UK got the trade deal yet? UK joined AUKUS to please the US and yet, no trade deal so far. So much for the special relationship! Only the US will get the money from the Aussies. You think the US would ever let an independent CANZUK happen with its own military structure? Lol!
@@erich2432 1. So you were wrong about the destroyer for bases agreement.
2. Are you okay? All I put is that it’s in the U.K.’s interest to remain a close ally of the USA as well, and then you wrote a hole paragraph of nonsense that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
@@joshbentley2307 Not nonsense. Why do you think the US is against NS? It has nothing to do with Ukraine, everything to do with selling its own LNG to Europe and Germany which is polluted and 5 times more expensive than NS2 pipe gas.
By the way, British never got that gold back and neither will they ever get it back. Also, no trade deal if peace in Ireland becomes a casuality. Ask Bill Clinton! He brokered the GFA and it was followed and maintained by Dubya and Obama and now, Biden. The French has its bargaining power and was smart enough to take the credit of its liberation. You don't give outsiders to make the rules in your own country just because they helped you. France played the cards right and that's why it has own independent foreign policy and geopolitical interests, no outsider troops on its soil, unlike Britain and Canadaand rest of NATO members who just allign with the US. Global Britain is a myth, an economical block cannot be considered a powerful entity unless it has its own military structure without depending on outsiders. You can learn from the French.
fVck NATO!! Let Canada and Europe go about it in their own way !!
As a Canadian I wish they had done this, it would have given the country a stronger identity than just "not USA".
Notusadian lmao
🙄 wow
@@snurfli5605 Care to elaborate more than just wow. Midwit.
@@snurfli5605 Please elaborate.
lol true
I'm an anti-imperialist, but if I was a British imperialist in the late 19th century it would have been obvious to me that this would be the only way to save the British empire. There could have been devolved parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada, NZ, Australia, South Africa and other places to deal with local issues. It's interesting that the UK didn't seriously pursue it if simply for their own survival as a hegemon. It works as evidence for that claim quoted in the video that the British empire just stumbled into global hegemony absent-mindedly. But then I imagine that even if this had come to pass, political tensions, class rivalries, tensions with indigenous peoples and conflicting interests between the core and periphery could have eventually led to this formation falling apart anyways.
I doubt it would work in the longer term, but the creation of an imperial parliament would have merit until the dominions split off the home countries.
The empire was based on military power, which in terms requires economic power, and the economic benefits of remaining in the empire. Britain would have needed to focus on economic reform in the 1888, similar to that of Germany or to a lesser extent the USA. If it could of continued to keep its core economic strong it would have been able to provide the military power necessary to protect the empire and economic benefits for being in the empire. That did not occur and money flowed out of Britain to the US and the dominions and the industries back home become older and less efficient. What sped up the collapse was WW1 and what finally put the nail in the coffin of the empire was WW2.
As the old saying goes, its the economy silly.
US foreign policy also had a hand to play, i for a time now have thought of the US as the least of our enemies rather than the greatest of our allies. I'm unsure however, whether they simply rode the wave of imperial collapse, or seeing it crest the horizon accelerated it. Being as far as i can see, one of - if not the - greatest beneficiary of imperial dissolution.
The British Empire without India is a disaster waiting to happen, plus WW1 would still result in the same resentment as did in our timeline, Australia and New Zealand began to view the British as pompous negligent butchers of the colonies, especially after WW1, that would only be worse under an Imperial Federation.
@@joewoodland8635 from everything ive read and seen it wasn't an active plan to steal the empire just simply that mums not doing so great and while we are helping her out might as well take a few things she doesnt need anymore. probably didnt help the situation any but wasnt actively trying to break it
I assume you meant 1888 or the 1880's?
@@MDP1702 opps, you are correct - missed by 100 years.
2:55 Colonial Self-Governance?
3:23 Direct Rule of India.
4:17 Gladstone & Salisbury rejected the Imperial Federation plan.
5:31 Free Trade within The Empire proposed and rejected
6:38 An interesting counterfactual.
Interesting and informative video... well done and thanks. However, it comes from the British angle and does not reference the views of colonised people. With the exception of the countries in which the colonisers effectively exterminated the indigenous inhabitants (Canada, Australia, NZ) the local peoples were never seen as equals and thus there was no foundation on which to build a long term unwieldy and strategically vulnerable federation. Gladstone probably had the most realistic awareness of this and endeavoured to balance imperial repression with elements of progress for colonies. As a citizen of England's first overseas colony I would contend that the only nostalgia for empire or a modern iteration such as CANZUK comes from those who have no idea what goes on in those countries, or how the legacy of empire is still despised in all other countries who gained freedom from its oppression over the past century.
CANZUK is a pipe dream with almost no support in Canada, Australia or New Zealand
With awareness of CANZUK rising, a modern Imperial Federation in the form of an Anglosphere Federation has become a possibility once more.
The idea of an Imperial Federation came too late by this time. Canada had already gained independence, and Australia was fast approaching. If offered early, say in 1850, I doubt this would be a problem.
The other issue is that places like Australia and New Zealand have strategic issues that England did not want to get into, e.g., Japan's rise. As it was, Britain established Australia to wash its hands of these problems.
The other issue is that of non-whites; they would want equality in such a federation. If India is part of this federation, it will dominate by numbers.
Non-whites being given equal standing? Oh you sweet summer child.
@@michaelthomas5433 that I think was one of the big problem in the Imperial Federation. A bigger one is that the non-whites are poorer. Any federation would have wealth sharing
@@WagesOfDestruction "poorer" so basically the federation will have problem in "sharing" the very wealth they stole from these poorer non-whites
@@fymwp9992 I think that is unfair, the area of the empire was very poor before the empire came. In fact, by then the empire was losing money, and the British taxpayer was paying to keep it going.
@@WagesOfDestruction Lol 🤣 seriously? which area..even if I consider Canada , Africa and Ausrtralia poor before the empire conquered it..what abt India..it was a much richer land before the empire and got stripped of its wealth after it..and by when? much of the brit wealth came from stripping of resources from its former colonies but if you are talking about post-world war british empire than I agree as the empire got bankrupt by then..
Nice video however the beginning would benefit from a historical overview to explain why the Federation idea was coming up around this time. The British intellectuals were quite observant of what happens between 1865-1870s when the Union Forces overcome the confederates southern Stares proofing the viability of a union of states, the Austro-Hungarian compromise having two countries within a single imperial state and the new Empire of Germany With a dominating Prussia but still giving room for other kingdoms and entities.
Fanstastic video, Do you think you can make a video about the orientatist movement in India, The terms Orientalism and Orientalist first took on a markedly political meaning when they were used to refer to those English scholars, bureaucrats, and politicians who, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, opposed changes in British colonial policy in India that had been brought by the “Anglicists,” who argued that India ought to be ruled according to British laws and institutions. The Orientalists, in contrast, insisted on the primacy of local laws and traditions; some of those Orientalists conducted research on ancient or traditional Indian laws and legal structures in an effort to codify them for use by a colonial bureaucracy. Ironically, however, British efforts to understand, codify, and govern according to what they believed to be local tradition often brought about significant changes in social and political life in India., this idea was mainly brought up to stop another uprising like 1857 in India and to integrate further into imperial federation and adopt to both Indian and British culture.
Yes, this is an absolutely fascinating area of British rule in India.
I intend to make a large series on the empire at some point, and India will definitely be looked at in depth.
@@OldBritannia thanks, I really appreciate it, this is one of the most underrated topics when it comes to Victorian era.
@@athishnirup1815 Most definitely, I think largely because India was often called ‘an empire within an empire’. Its culture and society was so advanced and independent compared to the rest of the empire, there’s simply too much to cover for most basic histories of the empire.
Can’t claim I’ll make it perfect, trying to present the views of Liberals like Macaulay, Modern day nationalists like Tharoor and everything in between means I’m bound to upset someone, but I’ll do my best.
Thanks for watching.
Leave that , the British were so backward that to acquire materials required to make advanced weapons - they had to get it from India. This is in 1600's but eventually they were able to make weapons much much advanced and mechanised than what were being made in India.
India was the manufacturing hub of the world.
Job charnock's biography is worth looking at.
The orientalists were certainly not thinking quite right
Looks like the algorithm (at least for history YT watchers) has blessed you. Very interesting video and going to check out the rest.
Hope you get lots of other new subs from this and future videos!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed the video.
This is the perfect timeline. I'm so sad that British politicians didn't heed idea of federation.
I love this. Subscribed instantly.
Your map is really nice. How could I get access to it? Or do you do it all manually?
Thank you, that's really nice of you to say. Unfortunately I made it myself. I could maybe try and put a PNG on Imgur or some such site, don't know if that would be any help though?
@@OldBritannia
Wow, you do it all by hand? I know first hand that that work takes a lot of time, patience and precision.
Good on you.
American war of independence was basically caused because parliament did not view the American colonies as an integral part of the kingdom but as an appendix or something more akin to a colony in Africa not realizing that the colonies were basically a cultural extension of the British isles. It would have been interesting if some kind of imperial federation had been proposed in the 18th century. Of course the United States is more cultural diverse now. I think even to this day most people don’t realize the extant to which eastern North America was an cultural extension of England in the 17th and 18th centuries.
A video analysing this idea possibly forming in post brexit Britain would be a very interesting watch. Seeing the advantages and possible roadblocks preventing it.
Great video 👍🏴
If there is a time to make such a federation a reality it is certainly now.
Think you'll have a hard time convincing Australian and Canadians to give up their de facto sovereignty (I believe both Canada/Australia are still theoretically not proper nations politically/legally but that's a discussion for another day) to effectively be ruled by England again...in such a federation, though Canada/Australia would have bulk of natural resources, financial and to a lesser degree political power would still be centralised in London. Also despite modern communications, there is still geography factor...UK no longer has the ports and posts between UK and Australia especially to effectively overcome this barrier.
There is nothing that strongly unites them anymore. The sense of British identity is eroding more every year even in Britain itself. With the rise of globalism, mass media monoculture, and mass migration each of the those nations will look more and more like America then anything we would call Britain. In fact Britain will likely not survive as North Ireland and Scotland will probably break away sometime this century. Most of these nations have a negative view of themselves anyway and are currently ashamed of their own history and heritage. On top of that there is currently no material reasons for such a union either as their defense and trade interests are not the same and are currently met by the America-NATO complex.
@@andrewmckenzie292 Note that both proposals have a separate ‘transnational’ layer of government above the national level.
The EU was partially responsible for opening up a ‘European’ identity (though only partially), so…
@@sillyname6808 Its basically just sentimental fluff....harking back to before WW2 when Britain/Canada/Australia/NZ felt as one nation in a broad sense even if they had separate governments but times have moved on rightly or wrongly and geographically/politically it just doesn't make sense.
@@andrewmckenzie292 both are fully nations in their own right, just under nominal personal unions with Elizabeth as queen. Some decades ago the UK parliament held say but its long since been eliminated
Imagine how powerful the Imperial Federation would be.
Like France?
Interesting take on the empire, that it was purposeless in comparison to Germany and America, which i'd never considered but does make sense.
I wouldn’t necessarily say purposeless (though if you asked 10 people in 1900 what its purpose was you’d probably get 10 different answers, from trade to a civilising mission, to spreading Christianity, to winning glory).
I’d more describe it as just lacking a clear direction - there was no real end point or a path to get there.
It's quite a surprise to read how little control Britain itself had over the Dominions, it didn't even control their foreign policy really. There were even plans for a Dominion of India and various African nations, although they didn't expect that to happen until well into the latter part of the 20th century. It does make you wonder if not for the war and American financial pressure to decolonise as fast as possible, whether the transfer of power in Africa might have been smoother and led to stable democracies instead of what did result.
American timeline: Fight Germany, become destitute and dissolve the empire.
British timeline: Federate Empire and ally with Germany. Inviolable peace and prosperity secured forever more.
2:32 describes me a Canadian very well
While the last statement about the empire being entirely reactionary (in fact it's even largely the reason for its African expansion) with little direction, it's part of why the idea of imperial federation is such an appealing one to look back on. The idea is fundamentally one of consolidation of an empire having tirelessly expanded for little real reason in many ways and giving a path forward for a power to at least stem the decline and turn major possessions into core territory loyal enough to stay with the crown.
Long gone was its heyday as the hyper power with a united Germany and Centralized America ascendant as you noted, and a plan to finally try to consolidate and put just a little bit of effort into better integration might have eased the resources Britain expended trying to keep the empire together. It seems no-one had the forward thinking to try to think of what would happen should the home islands drained of resources and betrays the truth of the statement you ended on.
And I think the best way to encapsulate this is the Second World War. While in the First World War, Britain was engulfed in Europe with a fairly narrow focus in general with some extra expeditions elsewhere, the Second World War found Britain in a position where it had virtually its entire empire under attack but not necessarily able to draw upon the entirety of said empire of it forcing most of its territories to try to defend themselves. And in that First World War, the colonies learned the hard way that they would be used closer to expendable tools rather than with the care of its home populace (though that wasn't necessarily treated the best either). Perhaps had it integrated better with its colonies and tried to consolidate, it would've been better able to draw upon the immense resources it commanded and fight like the globe spanning empire it was on paper instead of fighting more like the the home islands alone that it did in actuality. On the whole, for controlling 25% of the entire world, the empire fought much more like it was only 5% of that total.
It could’ve been like the Roman Empire which successfully turned its initially circumstantial expansion and imperialism into a civilizational project
@xeixi3789 If it wanted to and tried to treat them more like coequal partners, I think it could've.
One of the great opportunities of history missed...
To be honest the British should've implemented the Imperial Federation in the 1700s. Also to point out, what they should've focused on was assimilating the Native cultures into the wider British culture and granted every person living within the Imperial Federation citizenship and rights. For the voting process, they could've adopted a system similar to how the U.S. conducts their voting in which certain regions are worth a certain amount of votes, and each person living within the empire can vote on their respective governors. They could've also took inspiration from the German Empire where the Prussian Chancellor was also the Chancellor of Germany and in this case the British Prime Minister is also the Prime Minister of the Imperial Federation to ensure that the U.K. proper remains as the capital and center of governance. They could've also gave the King more political power as the King naturally should have and followed a constitution similar to the German Empire where the Kaiser had the final say in political decisions. In this case the King would have the final say and it would've allowed the monarch to assume the role in which they are meant to have which is properly leading the country and becoming more involved in the interests of the nation, instead of having a monarch act as a glorified celebrity/figurehead in which they usually are today unfortunately. Lastly, the British government should've also never allowed King Edward VII's prejudice towards Kaiser Wilhelm II to determine British foreign policy, as in reality the British and German Empires should've never went to war with each other as both were more alike and were historic allies with each other since the Napoleonic wars and before. Just to point out the unfortunate events of history of what could've been.
This is essentially what CANZUK is trying to achieve now
yes some of the more extremists feel thar it should happen however its mostly us building an economy free of Chinese influence
@@forlegalreasonsthatwasajok7608 yes and that is needed
@@forlegalreasonsthatwasajok7608 or free of American influence, that's the most pernicious one
It would be a pleasure if thou shouldst make a film on a possible reunification of the British Empire in the 21st century.
That's kinda impossible.
@Pete Testube xD yeah I'm quite bad at this
Sure it sounds tricky to govern, however, consider that France manages to includes fully represented overseas regions in their Parliament, likewise with the US and Hawaii, and India manages to govern an entire subcontinent democratically.
Communication technology and speedier travel makes such a federation more feasible than it was in the 19th century, and would serve as a more culturally compatible centre of power than being influenced by the US, or currently at an ever greater rate, China.
The difference between the overseas islands of France, the USA, or indeed Britain itself and something like the Imperial Federation, is that the former cases are insignificant in size and population while the latter is comprised of populations and territory large enough to form political, cultural, and economic links between themselves before each other. For how unusually large it is, India also doesn't have any huge physical barriers separating parts of itself.
@@denpadolt9242 it raises the question then, of how something like the USA doesn't fracture into a myriad of nationalities based on regional identity due to the great distances involved?
There's no reason why a common defence and foreign policy, along with economic union with an elected governing council and a common citizenship (perhaps with a common currency, perhaps not) isn't feasible
@@robtoe10 The USA doesn't fracture into smaller, regional pieces because many of those pieces aren't separated by great distances, but instead overlap. The American Civil War was the closest the USA came to falling apart, yet it brought those cultures together into a broader identity. The common markets and institutions of Britain, plus a common cultural heritage, were the Commonwealth's greatest binding features, yet they weren't enough to convince the colonies that they and Britain itself were smaller parts of a larger whole.
A common foreign policy is actually the Imperial Federation's biggest flaw to me personally. Such a union would have to harmonize the interests and ambitions of regional governments across at least 4 continents. Broad concepts of national/regional identity aside, the Commonwealth countries are all in completely different geopolitical and economic positions, and an overarching Imperial government would have to respect and address all of them lest they risk convincing disgruntled members of the Federation that they would be better off on their own.
Democratically??? Go 1st read About india's looting, plundering, exploiting, racism, torture, massacre by Britisher, rather than propaganda. N bcz this Britisher divide and rule policy, india-paxistan partition, rohingya crisis created by this thugs pirates.
@@radhika00240 The point he was raising is that India is able to function as a democratic country despite its immense size and population, not that British rule over India was in any way democratic.
This has turned up in a few alternate histories like "The Four Courts Attacked" where during a renegotiated anglo-irish treaty it leads to proposals for commonwealth councils and secretariats organising collaboration on military research and development and economic co-operation think something like N.A.T.O and a common market like the E.F.T.A.
As a Canadian, our culture and history comes from the UK and once we abandoned it, we were left with a multicultural empty society with no identity. I wish this federation had been implemented so we could be part of a greater british world and country, united by bonds of blood and language.
I have a better idea
Why don't you go back to England where you came from and leave it for people who were there thousands of years before you?
Rejoice! You will eventually be Greater Punjab. I hear they have lots of culture as well.
I like the idea of having the commonwealth a united federation. At the end of the day, their is only one head of state in most of the nations. Since the UK is out of the EU, this is basically the best opportunity to make it a reality.
@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist once cannada became greater punjab India can claim Canada as an indian territory
imagine mapple syrup with rashogolla(indian sweat)
Yes, but as you say this, I know Canadians who would look at historic interactions with the United Kingdom and be fairly upset.
really interesting explanation of a little known piece of history
Keep up the good work
Also Joseph Chamberlain had been a excellent leader for the former Liberal Unionist Party. (A right wing unionist party in Scotland, Ireland, wales and also ran in some of England).
Funny, it still took until the 1980's for Canada (1982), New Zealand (1986) & Australia (1987) to become absolutely independent from The UK.
(Barring Queen Elizabeth having seperate titles for each modern country! 🇬🇧 🇨🇦 🇳🇿 🇦🇺)
In practice they had been independent since the 1930s and 40s. The various changes that took place in the 80s were mostly just removing any theoretical powers the UK still had plus some anomalies
NZ's highest court was the privy council in London until 2003 when nz labour ended it
@@pedanticradiator1491 No not in theory, in practice. The Privy Council still exerted power over the dominions and the House of Lords was still the highest court of appeal for them also up until the late 1980s.
@@crowbar9566 The Privy Council justice Committee is still the highest appeal court for some Commonwealth realms and the Sultanate of Brunei but not surprisingly enough the UK. This does not give the UK any power over the realms though
Keep up the good work dude!
id love to see this federation or at least better relations and ties with the commonwealth, especially now that the uk has distanced itself from europe
a natural evolution really
Commonwealth tariff preference was in place as late as the 1960s. It's the reason why GM sold Vauxhall cars in Canada until the early '70s rather than the Opels the US got. It's also the reason why basically no right-hand-drive export cars were made in the US after WWI, those were all built at the companies' Canadian branch plants.
Perhaps the proposed union of the Angloshere nations in CANZUK=Canada, Australia New Zealand and the United Kingdom, is a modern version of this federation
Yes. South Africa and India are very different to those other countries.
If it's a union of Anglosphere nations why shouldn't the USA join? 🤔
If the South African Cape becomes independent, it would be well aligned with a CANZUK.
@@ponraul1221
I was unaware how progressive the former British Cape Colony has always been compared to the two former Boer states. I was also unaware that there is still a Cape independence movement, good luck to them I hope they are successful. South Africa seems to be rapidly going to hell on a hand cart, so independence would surely save the Cape from being dragged down with them and CANZUK could certainly then be a possibility.
I'm sure this'll be a fun button to hit in Victoria 3. IF Pops+ map painted= X, spend Y mana, gain cores and accepted Pops z, change tag to Imperial British Federation
I hope not - too many hours of my existence have already been spent forming it in HOI4.
CANZUK anybody?
A British presence in Egypt was essential because of the routes to Iraq's oil fields and of course to India and Australia. It was not imperialistically unreasonable since it was not done by force and there was no plan to exclude other states from accessing the same routes (so far as I know). The relationship with Egypt was destroyed by the banks, who extended sums to the Egyptian leaders that went extensively into their own private pockets leaving debts the country could never hope to repay. The eventual unravelling of Suez stemmed directly from that debt burden and the refusal to help Egypt develop a modern industrial economy that might have enabled them to pay it. Truly lions led by donkeys.
Well done, again. I like your vids.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it again.
A key aspect of the formation of national identities during war that was not mentioned here is that these countries sent their servicemen in a largely segregated manner, especially for the infantry. This meant that an esprit de corp formed with those only of your colonial state, and not with your imperial motherland.
The union of CANZUK makes economic sense. You have 4 nations each with very little competing industry. The only competing industry is Australia and Canada with their natural resources. I can't imagine India moving towards federation, but if it did the resulting nation would encompass all necessary industry for a super state. A strong agricultural production from Aus, Canada and India. A large manufacturing base in India. A high tech industrial base in the UK, supported by Canada, New Zealand and Australia with a high tech financial model. Overpopulation in India would result in mass immigration to the UK, Canada and Australia. In canada and australia mass immigration is less of an issue than in the UK, as land is freely available. The UK would get phenomenally wealthy as a result, however only for the people who own land and businesses in the UK. The average person would not see a massive benefit. There would be an astronomical wealth divide as the cost of living in the UK grows exponentially. Effectively resulting in the same issues the the UK had within the EU, or the issues that San Fran, LA and NYC have in America.
The biggest winners from such a union would be India, who would gain access to financial institutions, and high tech services, as well as cheap raw materials from Aus and Canada. Australia would gain from an influx of cheap labour from India to work the mines and farms, resulting in a construction boom and a stronger economy. Canada and New Zealand would benefit less due to their isolation from the rest of the "empire", however would still benefit from the UK financial institutions, services, and easier trade relations. The UK I have already covered. On paper it would seem like all trade flows to London. But the reality would be that all trade flows to the few million who are already wealthy while the poor are priced out of their country.
The idea of adding india to a canzuk federation is so stupid I can't even begin to go into it. Firstly the cultural, religious and linguistic differences are so immense that an eventual breakup is inevitable.
Secondly as you said there would be unprecedented mass immigration, hell it could possibly be so bad that in a few years the differences I mentioned would be fixed because we'd all be majority indian. Theres a billion indians vs 63 million people in the UK, 30 million in Canada and 20 million in Australia. 4 million in New Zealand.
Thirdly the vast disparity in people would mean india would have basically all the voting power.
Lastly, the indian water sources are in China. If they dam that up, it would make the entire federation dependent on China since the water the vast majority of the population drinks would be controlled by them.
There's literally no good reason to allow india into a canzuk federation (which the probably wouldn't join anyway because muh evil British raj).
Lol you're wrong. We Indians are economic opportunists. We don't hated the present-day British, only a few left-liberal influential politicians who have an established loyal overseas audience in film festivals, literary festivals, etc. Shashi Tharoor is one of them. We Indians like money. I'm in Canada now. Why? Cuz higher salary than India. In a UK federation with India, there will be so many Indians migrating to the West, that the average salaries will go down, thereby reducing quality of life in the West, not just for the native white people but also us immigrating Indians. So we will immigrate elsewhere after a few decades where salaries haven't yet fallen too low. We don't hate this British federation, it's just that it won't serve our purpose in the long run (higher salaries, better quality of life). By the way, only one river Brahmaputra has its source in China controlled territory.
CANZUK isn’t a union and India isn’t anything to do with CANZUK.
Do you have to put this everywhere?
@@coolfreefullmovies8192 glad to know migrating Indians apparently treat their host countries like airport lounges...
If the federation had formed would Australian, New Zeelandish, Canadian and so forth be similiar terms to English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern and Catholic Irish as in the sense of regional identities but that they all are still British?
No type of federation would be possible in a territory that does not have a terrestrial geographic continuity. The plan of a transoceanic federation of the same country simply could not work and in the long run did not work. The British discovered in the 20th century what we the Spanish and Portuguese discovered in the early 19th century.
It most certainly could have worked if it was based on culture and form a new type of government similar to what the US did.
Where each region would have its own senate and be ruled by a governor. The vast majority of taxes would be used to build local infrastructure but taxes that were generated through trading between each of the regions could pay for common defense.
The UK was not formed because England conquered Scotland it was formed because the Scottish wanted it because their economy and failed and they desired to be in a more powerful union.
The base of the federation could have been trading between the regions and the common culture that took place.
@@bighands69 What you said is what happened in Latin America immediately after the independance from Spain in the Federation of Central American Republics and in the Great Colombia of Simon Bolivar. Both of them failed and get split.
@@bighands69 At the end you saw the Senate of Venezuela declaring independance from the Great Colombia in which the venezuelan Simon Bolivar was the lifetime President.
@@alejandrosotomartin9720
Spanish culture is not the same as anglo culture and it cannot be directly compared.
@@bighands69 There is more differences between Texan culture with the British one rather than Mexican or Argentinian compared with the Spanish.
Without the improvement in long-distance communications that developed during the 19th Century, I wonder how much of any of this would have been considered possible.
It would be interesting to make a video about the imminent breakup of the UK.
Hi, really liked the video. What program / software did you use to make it? Cheers
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it. Just photoshop to make the graphics etc. and premier pro for the editing.
You didn't mention Cecil Rhodes, one of the most ambitious imperialists whi along Alfred Milner created a Secret Society in order to find ways to bring together all the colonies and bring back America into the Empire. Their Secret Society and their ideas lived on and were institutonalized in the form of foreign policy think tank organizations like RIIA and CFR or known as the round table groups that were organized by Lionel Curtis who was a disciple of Milner. RIIA was set up in London in 1919 and CFR was set up in New York in 1921. Both of these organizations are among the most influental in British and American foreign policy.
Ooh, thanks for the info brother. Maybe those two are reasons why our world is going to shiite, nobility needs to learn a lesson in humility one more it seems, a permanent one.
Love the lions 🦁 cartoon, dad Britain looks so cool and south Africa so happy 😊
Very interesting. I was thinking that in modern days a closer association with the Commonwealth would be the perfect antidote to Brexit. It's good to see positive views on the British Empire rather than the revisionist ones of anti Empire.
It's a little hard for one to see any good in the empire that oppressed, killed, maimed, starved and raped people for 200 years.
With the geopolitical tectonic plates rapidly shifting under our feet, don't be surprised if we see an establishment shift in tone more favorable toward colonial thinking. The nations of Europe are going to need new sources of raw materials now that Russia is being closed off to the West. They are going to start looking to their colonies and formal imperial territories for those resources. This will require shifting public attitudes in a direction more favorable toward Europe's colonial past. Basicall they will say "Yeah, we did some bad stuff, but it wasn't ALL bad! We are going to do it again and we will be much nicer this time!"
@@randyjones3050 While you (Europe) was not watching China has already usurped those links.
@@randyjones3050 Yeah, no. You're racist if you think these countries will be under "European" control. You realise it's more likely rich Western European countries like France and Germany will simply subdue poor Eastern European countries like Poland and Romania to take their resources as the USA and China won't care since it happens within the EU, but the USA and China won't accept Europe expanding outwards. Don't forget, the USA was the one to force the UK and other countries to give up their colonies. Furthermore, you realise Spain and Portugal are poor as shit compared to their former colonies? The Netherlands and Belgium are tiny and weak compared to their former colonies. The UK has lot its European allies and is now subservient to the USA.
You're dumb
Love your video!
Is it possible that I recognise your voice from diplomacy videos on TikTok?
Thank you, very glad you enjoyed it. I'm afraid not - though I understand the confusion, a nasally voice seems to afflict many Brits, and we all end up sounding the same.
@@OldBritannia Oops, my apologies, my bad!
I liked your video, it's super interesting. Perhaps you could do a follow-up video on the British Commonwealth? I don't know much Britain, but I imagine that would be somewhat of a toned down continuation of the British Emprie or the Imperial Federation?
Also, you might consider adding more of an ending to it, I felt it ended somewhat abruptly. Maybe you could either add some kind of ending screen, maybe say something like "Thanks for watching" or whatever. Just my opinion, perhaps you intentionally ended the video like this, not wanting to stray off topic.
I will be going through your older videos today, this video definitely has me hooked on your channel and I look forward to your future content :D
That last part, about the empire not having a direction and being reactive is interesting. Very true of the West as a whole today. I think when life is good, we are not in war, then made up problems dominate the agenda. All the political correctness, endless philosophising about wether genders are constructs etc is what happens when there’s nothing else to worry about.
Ukraine is fighting for its survival and it’s people will sacrifice their lives for their country.
If someone in the west says they will die for their country they feel embarrassed. It’s thought of as an embarrassing idea. We’d rather compromise and learn to accept other peoples views and preferences as being equally legitimate even if they aren’t. It was clear that China wasn’t moving in the direction of western values but still western companies gave the Chinese their technology in exchange for short term profits. Why? be cause no one is in control. Laws should have prevented the corporations from doing that. But who will make the law? Politicians only think of the short term and focus on short term issues.
Democracy is the only way, I support it 100% but we need longer term vision in society.
After maths and English in school, history should be taught more. Not about far away lands, but about the history of western civilisation. It is essential.
An understanding of western history will mean no more pulling down statues of captain James Cook, bashing Winston Churchill, feeling guilty as if we were more ghastly than other peoples would have been if they had been in our position etc.
Right now, country’s like China have learned lessons from the rise of the west while we have tried our best to poo poo or misrepresent it’s ideals and strengths.
I remember reading a book on ancient Greek imperialism by one “Ferguson” which mentioned Seelys prolific history and its digestible quote; what stuck with me the most was the accompanying observation made by the author as to how that quote can also be construed as the great hypocrisy and failure of Britain and her empire.
It went something to the effect of;
“It would seem that Britain, the great mother of liberal constitutionalism for millions; has found herself the oppressive mistress to millions more”
This so called ''Federation'' does make sense in the post Brexit Era
What's your central geopolitical direction?
America; Destiny Manifestation!
Germany; Nationalism!
Italy; Unity!
Ottoman Empire; Territorial integrity.
Britain; money
The eternal anglo
We can still hope for the canzuk
Thanks. Good essay. And you speak distinctly. Good diction rare today.