If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   This is how to be a superpower: Britain invaded 90% of the world   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 43
    More: Interesting, Luxembourg, Britain, United Nations member states, British rule, British Overseas Territories, other nations, Marshall Islands, incursions  
•       •       •

13459 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2012 at 5:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-04 06:01:03 PM
4 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: And what have they got to show for it?


We don't have to learn as many new languages when we go on holiday.
2012-11-04 07:19:45 PM
3 votes:
xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.
I dunno... Australia, Canada, NZ are pretty good testimonies to our ancestor's skills and maybe Sith Efrica might have been but for the Boers and their fkd up ideas. But India was pre existing when they got there, it was just a case of pushing a dilapidated but magnificent old money making machine out of the barn and giving it a quick service. Imperialists loved India.
But much of Africa's messed up borders bears witness to the French and the Brits cack handed cluelessness.

ThatGuyFromTheInternet Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.
i think you're confusing the British Empire with the German attempts at empire.
Who the hell is going to sell you next year's crop or harvest that sweet, sweet sugar tea, coffee and spices you've got customers queuing up for? Zombies?
Murdering people is (usually) bad for business and the British empire was about business.
2012-11-04 06:37:21 PM
3 votes:

rockforever: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

You know, most of those places were doing pretty well on their own before the Brits got there.

Plus most of the places are far worse off due to British or other western intervention.


True, most of mankind was better off as hunter-gatherers/subsistence farming. European-introduced nation-states, representative government, industrial agriculture and economies as created a population explosion in most of the world. With the same naivete we continue this intervention making things worse for many years to come.
2012-11-04 06:32:27 PM
3 votes:
Thats a pretty loose definition of Invasion.

Basically anywhere that someone wearing a British uniform or peripherally paid by the British spent 5 minutes counts as an invasion by that book.
2012-11-04 06:14:30 PM
3 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.


In many places their success was working with the natives. India, for example, was a huge country and the British ruled it with seventy thousand people, soldiers and civil servants. They were always hugely outnumbered but managed to rule it for years, and left a legal system and civil service in place to this day. America poured huge numbers of troops, weapons and equipment into Vietnam but never got anywhere near to control.
2012-11-04 06:13:42 PM
3 votes:
If you look at the map, you'll notice that most of the countries they didn't invade are landlocked, which means, no navy advantage.

Truly a testament of the British naval power through the ages.

i.telegraph.co.uk

Navy : British Empire :: Air Force : United States
2012-11-05 04:05:04 AM
2 votes:

Blairr: And Israel is a very nice place, on par with any Western nation.


Israel is an apartheid shiathole, and comparing it with the western nations is an insult to all western nations.

/hasbarahbots in 3... 2... 1...
2012-11-05 03:20:44 AM
2 votes:

capt.hollister: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

And let's not forget all those other British colonies in Africa. You know, all those wonderful beacons of peace, democracy, freedom of speech and economic success. Places like Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Uganda, Sierra Leone, etc... including the poster child of economic and social progress that is Zimbabwe...

...oh wait


Oh wait you have no farking idea what you are talking about:

Kenya: Kenya's economy is market-based, with a few state-owned infrastructure enterprises, and maintains a liberalized external trade system. The country is generally perceived as Eastern and central Africa's hub for Financial, Communication and Transportation services. As at May 2010, economic prospects are positive with 4-5% GDP growth expected, largely because of expansions in tourism, telecommunications, transport, construction and a recovery in agriculture. These improvements are supported by a large pool of English speaking professional workers

Botswana: Botswana has had the highest average economic growth rate in the world, averaging about 9% per year from 1966 to 1999. Growth in private sector employment has averaged about 10% per annum over the first 30 years of independence. The relatively high quality of the country's statistics means that these figures are likely to be quite accurate. The government has consistently maintained budget surpluses and has extensive foreign exchange reserves.

Tanzania Significant measures have been taken to liberalize the Tanzanian economy along market lines and encourage both foreign and domestic private investment. Beginning in 1986, the Government of Tanzania embarked on an adjustment program to dismantle the socialist (Ujamaa) economic controls and encourage more active participation of the private sector in the economy. The program included a comprehensive package of policies which reduced the budget deficit and improved monetary control, substantially depreciated the overvalued exchange rate, liberalized the trade regime, removed most price controls, eased restrictions on the marketing of food crops, freed interest rates, and initiated a restructuring of the financial sector.

Ok, so none of those are world superpowers but they are hardly worst in the world. Now for the 3 countries where you may have some sort of a point:

Uganda Endowed with significant natural resources, including ample fertile land, regular rainfall, and mineral deposits, it is thought that Uganda could feed all of Africa if it was commercially farmed.[1] The economy of Uganda has great potential, and it appeared poised for rapid economic growth and development. However, chronic political instability and erratic economic management produced a record of persistent economic decline that has left Uganda among the world's poorest and least-developed countries.

Sierra Leone Sierra Leone is slowly emerging from a protracted civil war and is showing signs of a successful transition. Investor and consumer confidence continue to rise, adding impetus to the country's economic recovery. There is greater freedom of movement and the successful re-habitation and resettlement of residential areas.

and as for Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe

Guess what, thats from NOT following the way the British run things.  The ones that are successful are the ones that kept running things the way the Brits did after they got independence.
2012-11-04 08:10:22 PM
2 votes:

way south: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building.

[dl.dropbox.com image 400x353]

If Britain was good at nation building then she would still have a few more nations under her belt.
What they were good at was spreading influence with the power of their Navy. But even with that they left a trail of chaos around the globe.

/Israel alone should be proof that the Queen knew fark all bout making nations.
/Africa never did recover from colonization, and probably won't within our lifetimes.


...The Commonwealth? And Israel is a very nice place, on par with any Western nation.
2012-11-04 06:42:15 PM
2 votes:

cloud_van_dame: When did the Brits invade Mexico? To take Belize?


France, Britain and Spain signed a treaty against Mexico because the Mexicans owed them money. In the 1860s, they were blockaded and invaded to attempt to secure that debt.
2012-11-04 06:13:15 PM
2 votes:

xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.


There are lots of places in Africa I'd rather go than South Africa. If you look at where the countries where at independence versus now, many of them have gotten past the initial power vacuum and are growing economically quickly. Botswana already as a per capita GDP equal to some parts of the US. Yes, crappy parts of the US but still impressive for what use to be one of the poorest nations on earth. In another ten years, they could get considered a developed nation. Not every country is filled with armed thugs roaming the countryside looking for people to rape and kill. It's a really big place and quite diverse. Much of it still is troubled but not all of it.

South Africa on the other hand is an economic power (relative to Africa) but has so much baggage left over from the days of white rule that it's going to be a long time before it's all sorted out. Many of the other nations have a relatively clean slate and are socially cohesive. That's what will get them ahead of the nations like South Africa that are made up of a random assortment of tribal groups chosen for the geographic convenience of colonial powers.
2012-11-04 06:10:17 PM
2 votes:
In your face Brittain. North Africa and Asia have now invaded you.
2012-11-04 06:10:05 PM
2 votes:

xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful.


There are advantages to speaking English when it is the global lingua franca.

Also, Brits put in railroads, schools and hospitals. Not all colonial powers did this.
2012-11-04 02:04:03 PM
2 votes:
The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.
2012-11-04 01:30:04 PM
2 votes:
They searched the world for herbs and spices because their own food was so horrible. After finding what they needed they withdrew to their home islands never to be heard from again. Pray that their food never becomes bland again or they will surely return!
2012-11-05 02:57:53 PM
1 votes:
lohphat: Has anyone considered that England's plan for the state of Israel was an intentional plan born out of anti-semitism to make their new homeland a nightmare?

Why be accused of anti-semitism when someone else can do it for you without lifting a finger?

Have you considered that it wasn't "England's" plan at all? Maybe Britain had qualms about the the fact that the Holy Land already had inhabitants but being next to bankrupt after fighting two enormous wars against the Germans inside of fifty years they had to defer to the next super power. You want to lay blame for the way Israel turned out, look to them because it was never part of British plans for, what was at the end of the day, a protectorate.
2012-11-05 08:26:14 AM
1 votes:
And now their guilt is preventing them from stopping the colonization from within by islam... sad.
2012-11-05 08:13:58 AM
1 votes:
kg2095: The British attempted to wipe out every single native in Tasmania (Australian state).

And they have in a way wiped them out from mainland Australia as well - their culture and identity has been almost completely destroyed with the possible exception of some who live their traditional lives in the hot, dusty desert known as the outback.


Yes true, that happened. But it wasn't on the orders of London, it's what happens when you export everyone you don't like the look of to the other side of the world without thinking about the consequences.
Destroying their culture bit London probably wouldn't have minded too not the rest.
This was in the days of wooden sailing ships carrying letters written on paper, men in Whitehall had very little idea of what was happening in Tasmania and even less interest.
2012-11-05 07:04:38 AM
1 votes:

cloud_van_dame: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful.

There are advantages to speaking English when it is the global lingua franca.

Also, Brits put in railroads, schools and hospitals. Not all colonial powers did this.


And some, like the Portguese, frequently demolished any infrastructure before they left (particularly in Africa), if I remember correctly.
2012-11-05 01:04:32 AM
1 votes:

Flint Ironstag: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.

In many places their success was working with the natives. India, for example, was a huge country and the British ruled it with seventy thousand people, soldiers and civil servants. They were always hugely outnumbered but managed to rule it for years, and left a legal system and civil service in place to this day. America poured huge numbers of troops, weapons and equipment into Vietnam but never got anywhere near to control.


Probably not a valid comparison

India was basically conquered by the para military wing of the London Stock Exchange (aka the East India Co) and was able to do so because the country was a patchwork of minor potentates living semi-peacefully, and the transition from trade to aggression happened over time.

In contrast the US walked into the middle of a civil war which had already been under way for a generation or more, and in which the opposition were ideologically opposed to them as well as economically.

There's a clue in the numbers to tell you that the situations fundamentally different.

British hugely outnumbered, but were able to rule by getting enough people on their side.

Americans had huge logistical advantages, but never had the support of enough of the people
2012-11-04 09:26:49 PM
1 votes:

urban.derelict: it was the federal reserve act of 1913, feel free to google the sh*t out of that; meetings in secret on 'Jekyll Island down south -- alternate staff -- no name usage -- faked the reporters out by giving them bogus train station schedule for departure -- evil knows no bounds. These are the people that meet at builderburg groups every year, international bankers cuz how many currencies do we have, really: USD, Euro (toilet), Yen, ... stock markets would collapse overnight if illegal drugs were legalized because it all fuels inflation -- hello we just dumped an additional 887 BILLION (taht you know of) into the economy -- that certainly shouldn't have been needed but all the CEOs threw in their ties and shut down their companies because they wanted bonuses from their pal Dubya who stole not one but two elections under the guise of SCOTUS because -- well, the US needed Iraq's oil, goddamnit -- 2003 invasion, 2008 oil contracts signed. 5 years.


I think I discovered meow said the dog's alt.
2012-11-04 07:56:42 PM
1 votes:

Proteios1: Thereal problem is...how do we blame England's imperialism, colonization, and basically, war on religion. This is a dilly of a pickle because it really is nationalism and commerce and not religion. Hmmm. Where's an atheist. We need some revisionist history here.


You sound upset.

Considering the book covers everything from the year 197 onwards, trying to attribute one or even 10 reasons to all of the "invasions" listed over 1,815 years of history would be the kind of idiotic reductionism one would expect from a religious loony.
2012-11-04 07:25:55 PM
1 votes:
Thereal problem is...how do we blame England's imperialism, colonization, and basically, war on religion. This is a dilly of a pickle because it really is nationalism and commerce and not religion. Hmmm. Where's an atheist. We need some revisionist history here.
2012-11-04 07:25:30 PM
1 votes:
How to Avoid Being Invaded by the British

1. Be land locked. (They don't like to have to walk very far.)
2. Be not worth the trouble (lousy climate, no resources).
3. Be neutral but heavily armed. You mind your business, they'll mind your guns. Hell, they'll even sell them to you.
4. Be too small to find on a map.

My theory about Sweden is that it was just a matter of luck. Sweden was a considerable power for a while but with the constant shifting alliances in Europe, the UK and Sweden simply never ended up on opposite sides long enough to fight each other seriously. Both countries have played a similar game of constitutional monarchy, partial socialism, liberal-conservatism and avoidance of entangling alliances that didn't have something it for them.

It's like those house fires which burn everything except one small corner or pocket where the fire didn't reach. Sweden was in an air pocket at any time when the UK was flaming European powers in order to maintain the famous "Balance of Power".

Switzerland has the advance of being d) all of the above. It is rich because it's population is industrious and educated, not because it has resources. In fact, it has to import almost everything but food (only 50% imports) and water. If anybody decided to kick Swiss butt they could either put up one Hell of a fight or simply leave. Either way, you're stuck with a bunch of mountains and valleys worth little or nothing without the Swiss themselves. But then who will hold your coat while you fight? You can't count on Canadians doing it every time.
2012-11-04 07:21:56 PM
1 votes:

xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building.


dl.dropbox.com

If Britain was good at nation building then she would still have a few more nations under her belt.
What they were good at was spreading influence with the power of their Navy. But even with that they left a trail of chaos around the globe.

/Israel alone should be proof that the Queen knew fark all bout making nations.
/Africa never did recover from colonization, and probably won't within our lifetimes.
2012-11-04 07:15:43 PM
1 votes:
This makes me wanna play Civ5, yeah!
2012-11-04 06:59:37 PM
1 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.


When it is stone age vs. high tech, high tech wins 9 times out of 10. Just the way things are.
2012-11-04 06:55:55 PM
1 votes:
And they accomplished 55% of that by using Fawlty Towers.
2012-11-04 06:27:33 PM
1 votes:
FTA:Twenty one years later, Havana and a large part of the island fell to the British after a bloody siege, only to be handed back to the Spanish in 1763, along with another unlikely British possession, the Philippines, in exchange for Florida and Minorca.

The Brits got screwed.
2012-11-04 06:16:06 PM
1 votes:

xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.


COMMON LAW. IT WORKS, biatchES!!
2012-11-04 06:16:04 PM
1 votes:
2012-11-04 06:04:57 PM
1 votes:
British Invasion

wjltevansville.com
2012-11-04 06:03:30 PM
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: And what have they got to show for it?


Peace, order, and good government*?


* USA may be the red-headed stepchild of the British Empire in that regard...
2012-11-04 06:01:03 PM
1 votes:

JasonOfOrillia: How the hell did Sweden avoid invasion? They were a major European power at one point, the Brits should have wanted to give them a spanking at some point.



Who the hell would want to invade a place with lutefisk? When waging war with Sweden the spoils of war smell spoiled.
2012-11-04 05:59:03 PM
1 votes:

Lsherm: GAT_00: Lsherm: Pales in comparison to Rome. The British are the sweat on the balls of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire invaded a much smaller percent of the world. Contrary to popular opinion, there is more to the world than North America and Europe.

Difference of degrees. The Roman Empire invaded almost the whole of the known world at the time. Britain just branched out into new territories, and they only had the means because of leftovers from the RE.



Known by whom? Pretty sure the rest of the world was known by the people who lived there. Asia, South America, North America, Australia...
2012-11-04 05:47:59 PM
1 votes:

Lsherm: GAT_00: Lsherm: Pales in comparison to Rome. The British are the sweat on the balls of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire invaded a much smaller percent of the world. Contrary to popular opinion, there is more to the world than North America and Europe.

Difference of degrees. The Roman Empire invaded almost the whole of the known world at the time. Britain just branched out into new territories, and they only had the means because of leftovers from the RE.


I'm pretty sure China, as well as Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia and the Americas existed during Roman times. Your bias is showing. Let me guess, you don't think anything was invented in China either.
2012-11-04 05:46:16 PM
1 votes:
Some invaders left more of a lasting impression:
i1079.photobucket.com

...then the Moops... did so much f*ckin'...
2012-11-04 05:45:31 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Lsherm: Pales in comparison to Rome. The British are the sweat on the balls of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire invaded a much smaller percent of the world. Contrary to popular opinion, there is more to the world than North America and Europe.


Difference of degrees. The Roman Empire invaded almost the whole of the known world at the time. Britain just branched out into new territories, and they only had the means because of leftovers from the RE.
2012-11-04 05:35:08 PM
1 votes:

Lsherm: Pales in comparison to Rome. The British are the sweat on the balls of the Roman Empire.


The Roman Empire invaded a much smaller percent of the world. Contrary to popular opinion, there is more to the world than North America and Europe.
2012-11-04 05:04:27 PM
1 votes:
Pales in comparison to Rome. The British are the sweat on the balls of the Roman Empire.
2012-11-04 04:25:53 PM
1 votes:
I think a lot depends on your definition of invasion. I mean there's invasion and then there's invasion invasion.
2012-11-04 02:52:08 PM
1 votes:
Well, of course, the other countries didn't have flags.


With added Lego goodness
2012-11-04 02:47:59 PM
1 votes:

xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.


Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report