What on earth brings the sunset of British Empire?

[AUSTERLITZ]

The problem with Britain was being spread too thinly, they could only maintain control through "divide and conquer" to a certain extent, and required Britons to be able to manage and keep the populations suppressed. Remember, all officers in the Raj's Army were Britons, not South Asians - the revolts only showed an underlining weakness behind all the propaganda: the empire was dependent on the exploitation of local people, tensions and the use of economic improvement to earn the debt of the locals.

Britain's foreign policy was always to use empires to offset its strategic disadvantage in Europe and through Empires, maintain peace in Europe. The other nations of the continent did the same, preferring to flex their military might far and wide rather than closer to home. In the lead up to WW1, increased tensions in the expanding empires and local tensions brought about the conflict, the assassination of the Archduke was only a formality, as military build up had been occurring for some time.

The Germans only surrendered because of diminishing aspects of breaking the stale mate but most importantly, the British naval blockade on Germany which rendered their population starving, their industries weak and their work force striking constantly. Germany was always the problem in Europe, due to German-Frank historic tensions. (Britain could not aggrevate France as its strength was more so over the globe, whereas France naturally had a much stronger military and naval might across the Channel isn't much.)

After WW1, the British Military was exhausted - the Empire served the interests of the mainland and as a result, the best officers and soldiers were "spent" (to put it nicely).

In the build up to WW2, there were increased tensions in foreign holdings and not just in India, the economy was diminishing and a lack of manpower was evident. It would've happened sooner or later; Britain was struggling to overcome the military and economic setback of WW1 and WW2 destroyed any possibility of an recovery.

After the Russian revolution there was, however, a bigger enemy in Europe - Russia. It posed a threat not only just to Britain, but the entire world west from it (it should be noted that Russia and Japan weren't the best of pals either, having had at least one skirmish to my knowledge), even Germany was worried of Russia.

What allowed WW2 to occur was the fact that Versailles was "half way", it didn't break the Germans like it did the Austro-Hungarians and left discontent simmering under a very thin surface.

In the end, Britain had a choice: Abandon ship but try to do so on amicable terms so trade and some influence could be salvaged or waste resources it didn't have trying to keep together the Empire and in the process, descend into chaos which would only strengthen the Russian position. (Britain was the main ally of the US, and the US was the main ally of a very weak and fragile Europe against a much tougher, robust and forever-hungry Soviet Union.)

Knowlegable post mate.

In one word: The Hitler!

First of all that is 2 words and what is 'the' hitler?Its only hitler.And no hitler isn't the sole cause.WW2 is only the nail in the coffin.

 

[KS]

Its, something called the Exceptionalism. Exactly the same reason that brought down the Ottoman Empire, the longest standing empire in human history.

HowStuffWorks "10 Most Long-lived Empires in History"

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

The Ottoman Empire is an interesting one, and the age of Empires is a long-contested subject. On the one hand, from a legal perspective, the Ottomans were the successor State to earlier Arab-Islamic Kingdoms/Empires (Empires are sovereign states of their time, which we would now call "super-powers", in my opinion) and would thus be one of the longest reigning Empires in history. But this is disputed since Osman I wasn't an Arab -- but his State was the Caliphate -- so it's argueable either way.

But what we must not do is see imperialist feudalism of the past in a positive light: the crushing of people's aspirations, freedoms and liberties is a struggle against which we carry into the modern day. What we must however do is cherish the scientific, legal and philosophical contributions of all states and empires, which has formed the fabric(s) of the world in which we live in today.

 

[mehmeTcc]

The Ottoman Empire is an interesting one, and the age of Empires is a long-contested subject. On the one hand, from a legal perspective, the Ottomans were the successor State to earlier Arab-Islamic Kingdoms/Empires (Empires are sovereign states of their time, which we would now call "super-powers", in my opinion) and would thus be one of the longest reigning Empires in history. But this is disputed since Osman I wasn't an Arab -- but his State was the Caliphate -- so it's argueable either way.

But what we must not do is see imperialist feudalism of the past in a positive light: the crushing of people's aspirations, freedoms and liberties is a struggle against which we carry into the modern day. What we must however do is cherish the scientific, legal and philosophical contributions of all states and empires, which has formed the fabric(s) of the world in which we live in today.

Ottos were everything but caliphate. Religion was never mixed with state affairs in Classical Age, some of the Şeyhülislams even burned because of their actions against Sultans.
What you must know about Ottomans is, they did try everything to establish a central authority. They even claimed the title of the Roman Empire:

 

[p4kistan]

Losing India.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the India you're referring to didn't exist then.

 

[curioususer]

Sorry to burst your bubble but the India you're referring to didn't exist then.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that India existed and continues to exist in more than 3 fragments.