Ok let's have a little look at some of those opinions. Sovereign countries the British " invaded " ? The British didn't invade India most of the British rule of India came about due to cooperation with existing ruling classes. The British army in India was mostly made of sepoys Sikhs and other Indians the conquering of parts of India were due to men such as Clive and Lord Wellington, until the Indian mutiny the country was run by the EIC not the crown. As for the war of independence that the leading opposition parliamentarian wore a continental army styled uniform in to the House of Commons would show the level of support that war had. The British were more concerned about the activities of the French in the Caribbean than the Americans. The British empire was a trading empire founded and built on trade. The east india company the Hudson Bay company these built the empire not the crown.
Sources or bull. If you're not capable of backing opinions up with facts or atleast theories, you probably shouldn't post. An Imperial Empire whose ex dependencies then went on to want a connection to the previous empire, that some countries that were involved STILL have the monarch of as their head of state. Yep, maybe they all developed Stockholm syndrome?
Oh god another brain dead has joined the discussion. The sun never set on the British Empire and you're implying they didn't invade. MY GOD YOU'RE DUMB That's the point of empires, invading countries with brute force and stealing all their riches to line the pockets of those back home. Responsible for 150m deaths and still you can't accept that they invaded.My word. Yeah they were a bunch of hippies who went around hugging trees. Smh Between 12-29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were exported to Britain as famine raged in India. In 1943, up to four million bengalis starved to death when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers while a deadly famine swept through bengal. Talking about the bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits."
For Rio. Here's some of the atrocities carried out by the British "trading" empire as listed by a English newspaper the independent. You're nativity is astounding all empires were evil and had the sole goal of f one group over for wealth. Educate yourself, I understand it's difficult when it's your country who were evil but drop the bs http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 21756.html
5 terrible acts mean that the empire was a terrible thing? Maybe you should pull your head out of your rear. Without the British empire, the world wouldn't be anywhere near what it is now. Without Churchill, it is reasonably arguable Europe would speak German, all of it. I heard Guantanamo bay is a nice place btw, walks in the park, saunas etc. You say the point of an empire is to prioritise one type of person, or social tier over another? Name ONE government that doesn't do that? Just one. Facts are.. Yes, the British empire did some terrible things, unfortunately ALL governments, sovereign countries and states at some point have done some terrible things. Churchill was a racist yeah, he was also an alcoholic. Do I condone racism? No. Have I said ANYWHERE that the British empire was full of roses and nothing bad ever happened in it? Hmmm... No.
There were more than 5 atrocities you imbecile. You said it was a trading empire and said to provide sources to back up my claims it was a murderous evil empire which I did, then you dismiss it and say oh well every country has done wrong LOL. No empire killed as many as the British. And then you have the audacity to say the world is better of for it well tell that to those who died under its murderous imperial regime. You're an ignorant little fool with a fat mouth and you're embarrassing yourself. You're empire was brutal and evil just deal with it
Lol I'm not embarrassing myself. I didn't dismiss it, I said quite plainly that the empire did some terrible things. You're the one embarrassing yourself, you seem to be of the opinion that nothing good can come through bad deeds. You're writing insults as if you're foaming at the mouth, do you need some help? Facts are facts. Yes the British empire have done terrible things (I've already said that) however they also did great things, left many places far more stable than they were after they peacefully regained their independence. (A thing the Americans have yet to master, or even rookie)
>Be barcode >Be 12 >Find thread on internet >Argues off topically >Makes up facts like "no empire killed as many as the british empire" >Has greentext story written about him Edit: >Be sour >Hit someone for creativeness
You said a trading empire when they were a murderous one who invaded and took the loot home. That's not a trading empire "left places far more stable" lol. On the collapse of their empires they made up new borders which cause contention to this day. The break up of India in to Pakistan India and Bangladesh. Iraq need we say more and creation of Israel after ww2. Sudan Lesotho Kenya Somalia Zambia to name a few all doing great. And you mention the US. Well you joined them in Iraq an illegal war. You interfered in Libya which is now a warzone with IS taking over so you're modern day history isn't much better and can't criticise Modern US policy because you've joined them in every venture
The break up of India and Pakistan was wanted by the residents of them, it's not the British empires fault that they failed to uphold to their own boundaries and descended into murder and massacre. Israel.. What do you want them to do? Set a date to withdraw, then keep holding off until they think they can handle it? Britain wasn't the only player at that table. You cannot blame the British for other people's actions.
It's almost like you genuinely believe that because the British were there at some point, they're responsible for all actions from that point onwards. Out of curiosity, of the other 4 European empires, which would you have preferred? Because if the British hadn't got there. It would of been one of the others. Spain, France, Dutch, German? Building schools, courts, irrigation, railways, horrible acts of the British empire, how dare they!
Haha touched a nerve. Once again you tried to make a point and I pointed out you were wrong. You said they left places far more stable I listed some examples of when their empire crumbled they drew up new borders which has lead to wars and contention over these very borders. They set up Israel in 1948 which as we know has seen violence since. Murdering, stealing, starving, imprisoning, concentration camps how dare they indeed. Oh but they built a few roads and railways and that makes it ok. They built them to improve the money they could make to further line their own pockets not to help the people they invaded. You're so naive And which empire hmmm? Let's ask those who died which nationality they'd prefer to have killed them. The British empire killed more than the others combined. It was also nice that you ignored my point about modern day Britain when your dig at the US backfired as youve done the same lol
You listed SOME examples. Well done mate. So 5-10 out of 50 or so? That's not too bad really. You keep claiming I'm being naive, I'm starting to wonder if you're trying to convince yourself of what you're saying. At NO POINT have I condoned the atrocities they committed. I never said the reasons they built those things, calling me naive because I stated that they built them is stupid, if I had of said "they built these things for the betterment of the world" then that would have been naive. Of course they built them to line their own pockets, they were human fgs. Money=power, that's not changed over hundreds and hundreds of years. You claim I'm being naive, I'm the one that's acknowledging the terrible things they did, just because I'm capable of stepping back from morality and thinking of the good things they also did, doesn't mean that I'm naive, it means I can formulate a discussion based on facts, history and impartiality. Ofcourse the British killed more, they were hugely more populated. That's like saying guns kill more people in America than in Fiji.
No thanks. Most of them are ok, but I'd rather the ones missing some brain cells didn't pollute our British gene pool.