chimera wrote on Dec 12^th, 2024 at 10:51am:

The terms 'empire' and 'imperial' are impossible to avoid when characterising super-states such as the US and China, as their actions tend to be indistinguishable from those of self-declared empires, such as the British Empire.

All super-states do what they will, while the rest suffer what they must.

The US deflects from accusations of imperialism by claiming it's not an empire because it doesn't stay and administer/rule a foreign state directly.

But, as is historically well-known, super-states can rule just as effectively indirectly.

The US establishes military bases everywhere it can, which, when needed, are equipped to be fully operational as an advanced hub for prosecuting war or foreign state administration.

China establishes economic strangleholds on foreign states that bind them or give them little choice but to submit to its will.

The territorial claims of both these super-states, unlike traditional empires of history, however, are usually strictly limited to their region, using the history of their peoples' habitation there to support their claims - this being the basis of their claim that they are not imperial.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 9:37am:

Sure, if you lived before the 20th century.

States established themselves in outposts around the world before the 20th century because their projection of rule required them to - there being no rapid means of reaching them otherwise.

The US ended the 19th century on a path to becoming a traditional empire when it took the Philippines from Spain.

However, it walked away from traditional imperialism when it struck on a more effective means of imperialism, made possible by the massive advancement of transportation technology after WW2.

By establishing fully functional military bases in every country it ventured into, the US could effectively rule in an imperial sense in the same way as the British did.

To say it's not an empire is like a Mafia Don insisting he's not a criminal mobster, just an import-exporter of goods and personnel.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 9:55am:

Yes, they could, and do... at least when they wanted to up until 5 minutes ago, when the cost ran too high as it always does with empires.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 9:57am:


So tell me, how much tax revenue does the US collect from its 'empire'?

At what rate are Americans settling this 'empire'?

Or do you think the British established an empire for the sole purpose of giving free military aid?

Having lost its grip on America, Argentina and other parts of the world.
The Media Empire now has Australia under its control as a last bastion

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 10:34am:

The cost was fighting Nazism, not the cost of colonial public service.  France, surrendering to Germany pronto, did not lose its empire at the end of the war.

Decolonisation after 1945 was a natural continuation of fight for liberation from Nazi Germany in Europe spreading to the rest of the world, as liberation from various, now-liberated colonial powers like Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany itself.

The decolonisation of British settler countries like Canada, Australia, NZ and the US,  of course,  began much earlier. How ready the coloured chappies of Africa and Asia were for independence is another question, still debatable today.

Frank wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 2:11pm:

The inevitable crushing cost of running its empire dawned on the British establishment by the mid-19th century, which is the primary reason why the colonies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa were granted dominion status.

The US agreed to British demands that its empire be returned to it after WW2 with one unegotiable condition: that it grant independence to every colony and possession that demanded it.

Churchill, himself, was contemplating reneging on the promise of Indian independence, but he was quickly disabused of that notion.