How did the arrogant British Empire become a second-rate country?

As we all know, the British Empire was the first truly global hegemon in human history. After the era of great navigation came, Britain started the process of global expansion with favorable geographical conditions and established vast colonies all over the world. At the same time, as the birthplace of the industrial revolution, Britain also ate the first soup from agricultural civilization to industrial civilization and became the highland of modern human civilization. With the double advantages of volume and quality, the development of the British Empire reached its peak in the early 19th century. There are about 4 million people in the whole territory, accounting for a quarter of the world's total population at that time. The territory is about 33.67 million square kilometers, which is a quarter of the total land area of the world. ? However, this glory did not last long. From the second half of the 19th century, the British Empire, which had been in power for hundreds of years, gradually declined, was overtaken by a series of emerging powers, and finally collapsed after two world wars. In fact, it is very puzzling to look at the process that the British Empire was gradually overtaken and suppressed by emerging powers. When you say that the United States and the Soviet Union are overtaking, maybe everyone can understand it-after all, people are here. However, the relative decline of the British Empire actually began with the rise of Germany, and the two world wars that directly triggered the collapse of the British Empire also came from Germany. As we all know, Germany was truly reunified in the 197s. Although the size of the country is much larger than that of the British mainland, it is several levels behind the whole British Empire. Although Germany once occupied some colonies abroad after reunification, the scale and quality of these sites were nothing compared with those of British colonies. After the end of World War I, let alone that there were no colonies left in Germany, even the land was cut out a lot. But this is the case. Germany still beat Britain in the two world wars. If it weren't for Germany's poor geographical situation, it had to fight on two fronts, and then Britain's allies were too strong (Germany's allies in the two world wars were not only few, but basically second-and third-rate goods, while Britain's allies were not only more, but also gathered almost all the world-class powers except Germany at that time). If it were for the two countries to fight one-on-one, it would be almost certain that Britain would be destroyed by Germany. Why did Britain, with the largest territory and the richest resources in the world and the first industrial civilization, begin to decline and collapse in the late 19th century? In Yun Shijun's view, there are mainly the following factors: First, local limitations. The British Isles, the native land of Britain, covers an area of just over 3, square kilometers, among which Ireland has long refused to accept British rule (and later became independent as expected). Among them, Scotland and Wales are mainly mountainous areas with limited geographical potential, but only a corner of England has real industrial development potential. This small size may have been nothing in the early and middle stages of the industrial revolution-after all, the industrial scale was still relatively limited at that time. However, with the spread and popularization of industrialization, the disadvantage of the geographical potential of Britain has gradually become prominent. Not to mention those emerging powers, such as the United States and Soviet Russia, Germany, the area of the German Empire is as high as 54, square kilometers. Even if it was deprived of some land after World War I, it still has nearly 47, square kilometers. Moreover, Germany's natural endowment is much better than Britain's, and it has a larger potential area suitable for industrial development. As the center of Europe, Germany has its own advantages compared with Britain adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, there is greater potential for industrialization. Of course, although the local conditions are indeed limited, Britain still has vast overseas colonies. Add these up, not to mention Germany, and the United States and Russia can't compare with Britain. However, although the British colonies are extremely vast, they are faced with many difficulties in the industrialization of their colonies: first, the industry pays attention to cluster development, especially in the later stage, the more it pays attention to the large-scale cluster effect. Of course, Britain's industrial development is dominated by its native land and its core, but most of its colonies are separated from its native land by Wan Li, and their geographical relationship is extremely alienated. There is no good industrial synergy between the colony and the mainland. What's more, Britain also faces great difficulties if it wants to develop its colonies. Although there are many colonies in Britain, quite a few of them have limited natural endowments and are difficult to develop—such as Australia and Canada. Until today in the 21st century, only a small part has been developed. Other places are either too cold or too hot for large-scale industrial development, and countries mainly rely on selling resources to make a living. In the 18th and 19th centuries, such a place, though seemingly large, was actually of limited use value (so Australia was only regarded as a penal colony by the British Empire). Of course, not all sites are not suitable for development. For example, British India, the most important colony in Britain, not only has a large territory, but also served as a breeding ground for human civilization thousands of years ago and has continued to this day. This kind of place, geographically speaking, still has the possibility of large-scale industrial development. ? However, because it is suitable for human survival and development, the civilization of the South Asian subcontinent was highly developed long before Britain entered-not only with a huge population, but also formed its own unique traditional civilization system. This has caused great difficulties to industrialization. After all, industrialization depends not only on geographical conditions, but also on human conditions. If the population of such a good place is not enough, then Britain can still draw a blank sheet of paper and carry out development and construction in accordance with the industrialized social model. However, India has a large indigenous population and has formed a mature farming civilization system. It is too difficult and expensive to completely destroy them and then immigrate to rebuild and build a new Great Britain-almost beyond the endurance of Britain. What's more, after thousands of years of development, India's agricultural civilization system is very mature. Although it is definitely behind the times compared with industrial civilization, it can still operate effectively and create wealth continuously. In this case, instead of trying hard to destroy and rebuild-most of them can't succeed, it is better to inherit it intact, keep a sovereignty, and let the rest play by themselves and collect money by themselves-this is the most cost-effective way of colonial rule. Based on this logic, Britain never thought about large-scale immigration and overall industrialization transformation of India, but only regarded India as its own resource supply and commodity dumping place. In other colonies similar to India, the British also continued this idea. Of course, not all colonies are subject to such restrictions as Australia, Canada or India. Some colonies-such as the later United States, whose geographical conditions are not only suitable for industrial development, but also have no strong local civilization forces-not only are the total number of North American Indians relatively small, but the most important thing is that their civilization forms are still super backward. Such places can be completely torn down and rebuilt for industrialization-as Americans did later. Such a fine colony, why didn't Britain use it as the second industrialization base outside the mainland? In fact, this question can be answered by independence from the United States. A colony like North America is really suitable for industrial development and has great potential. But that's the problem. Both the British colony and the mainland are separated from Wan Li, and the geographical relationship is alienated-this means that the influence and control of the British mainland on the colony is actually relatively weak. If the development level of the colonies is backward, Britain can attract or suppress the colonies by using its own advantages of civilization, powerful force and economic strength, and let them stay in its own system. But once there is such a large piece of land with good development qualifications, with the improvement of its industrialization and the rise of local forces, it will no longer be willing to be subjected to British political rule and economic exploitation, so it will have a separatist tendency. The North American colony is suitable for industrial development. With the development of a century, the degree of local development is getting higher and higher. When this promotion reaches a certain level, coupled with the geographical barrier between the North American colony and the British mainland, it finally gets rid of the strength base of British rule, so when the opportunity comes (Britain and France are pinching each other, France is beautiful and carrying Britain), the United States will naturally leave. This is actually the natural limitation of British overseas colonies. Due to its special geographical location, Britain cannot directly expand its territory step by step like Russia, and then gradually digest and absorb it. Britain can only take the sea as the road to establish overseas colonies thousands of miles away. The existence of distance and the blocking of the ocean determine that the British mainland and the colony are doomed to form only a weak connection, but not a strong integration. Therefore, it is better for Britain to lag behind overseas colonies-it can maintain its rule and then collect protection fees. If the overseas colony is really high-quality, when it develops, Britain will not be able to hold it. Once it becomes independent, its previous investment will be ruined. This is why Britain can't make full use of overseas colonies. The geographical pattern determines that Britain's overseas colonies are destined to serve only as dumping grounds for its resources. However, due to the limited volume and qualification in China, the ceiling of industrial scale is low. Once it touches the ceiling, Britain's industrialization scale expansion will reach its peak. Then, capital will either invest abroad or continue to grab colonies, and will not contribute to Britain's industrialization. Of course, although there is an upper limit to the scale expansion of British industry, after all, the size of the empire will never set. If we continue the traditional development routine, with the blood transfusion of colonial resources, the British Empire will not decline quickly-at least it will not be cornered by a country like Germany-after all, Germany is not the United States and the Soviet Union. Although it has greater territory and potential than Britain, it is just an order of magnitude advantage, and there is no qualitative gap. The British empire can fully use the bulk advantage of colonial resources to pull back the weakness of industrial volume. But the second industrial revolution changed all this. The second industrial revolution and the popularization of mechanized manufacturing, on the one hand, made the scale advantage of the British Empire diluted-with the upgrading of the industrial civilization model, the importance of colonial rich resource supply in the contribution of national strength decreased relatively. On the other hand, compared with the transformation and upgrading of the industrial system, direct investment and lending, or expansion of colonies, are much less risky, and the benefits are also short-term-like the Germans, there is no way, no colonies, and no capital accumulation, so they can only die on the road of industrial upgrading. The British Empire has a wide road, and capital is not only expensive to invest in capital, but also limited in the ceiling. In the face of the upgrading and upgrading of the industrial system with strong external competition, it is better to engage in those relative insurances The result of this development in Britain can be predicted-of course, its investment has increased its income by an order of magnitude, but its industrial development has gradually stagnated. However, Germany, a late-developing country, has honestly developed its industry. Although the process is really hard, it has gained a strong industrial foundation and its national strength has jumped qualitatively. Therefore, in just a few decades of the second industrial revolution, the United States and Germany (including the later Soviet Union), which engaged in industry, quickly surpassed Britain and France, which had accumulated for hundreds of years and had colonies all over the world, and grew into real powers. Of course, a lean camel is bigger than a horse. Rome was not built in a day, nor can it be destroyed in a day. At that time, China had fallen behind the West since the middle of Ming Dynasty, but with the strong foundation and accumulation of the past farming era, it maintained its status as a powerful country and its territory until the middle of 19th century, and it didn't begin to fall apart until after the Opium War. Britain (including France) has dominated the world for hundreds of years, and it is not so easy to be completely replaced. In fact, although the British Empire was out of date at the end of the 19th century, it still maintained its position as the world's number one in half the world, and even won two world wars in the middle. It was not until later that it could not stand it any longer that it moved towards disintegration. ? However, although it was disintegration, the collapse of the British Empire was actually quite decent. The downfall of other large empires in history was very tragic. The rulers and rebels had to play games repeatedly, playing in darkness until they were in ruins. But this is not the case with the British Empire. Looking at the process of the disintegration of the British Empire after World War II, although there were wars and confrontations in this process, the British side also had reluctance and struggle, but on the whole, the disintegration of the British Empire can be said to be quite mild. In the face of the surging wave of independence in the colonies, Britain did not resist and suppress it too much. Many times, it was clear that Britain still had spare capacity and was not at the end of its tether-even it had an advantage in the scene, but it chose to let go and agreed to leave the colonies. Why is Britain so open-minded in the face of the collapse of the empire? This is actually directly related to the special colonial model and concept of the British Empire. In this regard, pay attention to WeChat WeChat official account: Yunshi, Yunshijun will continue to interpret it for you in the next section. This article is chapter 192 of marble geopolitics series-section 7 of Britain. To understand the inside story of the big country game and analyze the logic of political depth, please use WeChat to search for WeChat official account: Yunshi and watch all the articles of Yunshijun's international current affairs analysis series.