英國是如何從控制半個世界變成只剩密歇根州面積那么大的國家的？
How did Britain go from controlling half of the world to controlling a country the size of Michigan?
譯文簡介
他們是那個時代最偉大的帝國之一，但突然就退化到只剩一個小島。
正文翻譯
I mean seriously, they were one of the greatest empires of their time and somehow got reduced to just a single island. It doesn’t make sense to me. I understand losing some territories and colonies because of rebellions and revolutions (America for example) but they had SO MUCH land under their control so... how did they lose all of it within the span of like 300 years? ( I understand that a lot can happen in 300 years but still, their empire was huge, how did they lose ALL of it?)
他們是那個時代最偉大的帝國之一，但突然就退化到只剩一個小島。讓我實在難以理解。我知道因為叛亂和革命(比如美國)導致英國丟失了一些領土和殖民地，但他們還控制著這么龐大的領土，所以……他們是怎么在300年里丟光領土的？(我知道300年里可以發生很多事情，但他們的帝國這么龐大，他們是怎么把這一切都丟光的？)
評論翻譯
post-ironic-irony
Well, a lot of the countries that were granted independence had not existed as unified countries in those borders before independence. In many places they were an assortment of princely states, petty kingdoms and tribes that the British consolidated under a larger regional structure that in most cases has continued to be the current form of these countries. Indians were no more independent under the foreign Mughals than they were under the foreign British.
許多獲得獨立的國家，在獨立前并不是統一的。在很多地區，存在著各種王權國家、小王國和部落，不列顛將一個很大的地區合并起來，很多國家到現在還是這種形式。印度人在莫臥兒王朝的統治下并不比在不列顛的統治下更獨立。
Well, a lot of the countries that were granted independence had not existed as unified countries in those borders before independence. In many places they were an assortment of princely states, petty kingdoms and tribes that the British consolidated under a larger regional structure that in most cases has continued to be the current form of these countries. Indians were no more independent under the foreign Mughals than they were under the foreign British.
許多獲得獨立的國家，在獨立前并不是統一的。在很多地區，存在著各種王權國家、小王國和部落，不列顛將一個很大的地區合并起來，很多國家到現在還是這種形式。印度人在莫臥兒王朝的統治下并不比在不列顛的統治下更獨立。
gizmo-22
Thank you for the perspective on the geographical size. Have never appreciated the size of GB.
As a Michigan resident, this is fantastic.
感謝你在地理規模上的看法。以前從沒意識到大英帝國的規模。
作為密歇根州的居民，感覺很奇妙。
Thank you for the perspective on the geographical size. Have never appreciated the size of GB.
As a Michigan resident, this is fantastic.
感謝你在地理規模上的看法。以前從沒意識到大英帝國的規模。
作為密歇根州的居民，感覺很奇妙。
intrepidcaribou
Technically, the UK is an island and part of a second island (Northern Island) with various small overseas protectorates throughout the globe. GB lost/gave up most of its colonial possessions within a 20 year period. Canada, NZ, Australia and a few others had departed earlier. The reason is cost. The purpose of having a colony is to extract resources and financial gain for the colonizer. When this stops, the colony isn’t sustainable as a colony. For instance, Canada (my country), didn’t make GB rich. It was mostly for strategic advantage. It made sense for Canadians to govern themselves from a practical perspective very early on.
For the vast numbers of British colonies in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, The UK gave them up after WWII. They became morally indefensible and they were an administrative burden. The issue was that because GB had been so focused on exploitation in these countries, and not development, that a lot of them didn’t have the pool of professionals and civil servants required to effectively run a country when GB cut them loose. The situation is obviously much better now and the majority of these countries are, in fact, stable democracies. However, the legacy of colonialism is still very present.
準確的說，英國是一個島，是兩個島(北島)的一部分，在全球擁有很多小保護國。大英帝國在20年的時間里丟失、放棄了大部分殖民地財產，加拿大、新西蘭、澳大利亞和其他一些國家則在更早獨立。原因是成本。殖民者建立殖民地的目的是為了攫取資源和金錢。當無法滿足這種目的時，殖民地就不可持續了。例如，加拿大（我的祖國）并沒有讓英國獲得金錢收益。它作為殖民地主要是為了戰略優勢。加拿大人很早就開始自治了，這是有其道理的。
在二戰后，英國放棄了他們在非洲、亞洲和其他地方的很多殖民地。殖民地讓英國陷入道德的泥潭，并且成了管理上的負擔。問題是，由于大英帝國過于關注剝削而不是發展這些國家，所以當大英帝國放棄這些國家時，很多國家都沒有有效管理一個國家所需的專業人才?，F在的情況就好多了，這些國家大多數都是穩定的民主國家。然而，殖民主義的遺毒仍然廣泛的存在著。
Technically, the UK is an island and part of a second island (Northern Island) with various small overseas protectorates throughout the globe. GB lost/gave up most of its colonial possessions within a 20 year period. Canada, NZ, Australia and a few others had departed earlier. The reason is cost. The purpose of having a colony is to extract resources and financial gain for the colonizer. When this stops, the colony isn’t sustainable as a colony. For instance, Canada (my country), didn’t make GB rich. It was mostly for strategic advantage. It made sense for Canadians to govern themselves from a practical perspective very early on.
For the vast numbers of British colonies in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, The UK gave them up after WWII. They became morally indefensible and they were an administrative burden. The issue was that because GB had been so focused on exploitation in these countries, and not development, that a lot of them didn’t have the pool of professionals and civil servants required to effectively run a country when GB cut them loose. The situation is obviously much better now and the majority of these countries are, in fact, stable democracies. However, the legacy of colonialism is still very present.
準確的說，英國是一個島，是兩個島(北島)的一部分，在全球擁有很多小保護國。大英帝國在20年的時間里丟失、放棄了大部分殖民地財產，加拿大、新西蘭、澳大利亞和其他一些國家則在更早獨立。原因是成本。殖民者建立殖民地的目的是為了攫取資源和金錢。當無法滿足這種目的時，殖民地就不可持續了。例如，加拿大（我的祖國）并沒有讓英國獲得金錢收益。它作為殖民地主要是為了戰略優勢。加拿大人很早就開始自治了，這是有其道理的。
在二戰后，英國放棄了他們在非洲、亞洲和其他地方的很多殖民地。殖民地讓英國陷入道德的泥潭，并且成了管理上的負擔。問題是，由于大英帝國過于關注剝削而不是發展這些國家，所以當大英帝國放棄這些國家時，很多國家都沒有有效管理一個國家所需的專業人才?，F在的情況就好多了，這些國家大多數都是穩定的民主國家。然而，殖民主義的遺毒仍然廣泛的存在著。
DegnarOskold
The US gave the UK $3.3 billion as a gift under the Marshall plan, not subject to repayment, but needing the UK to balance its budget, control tariffs and maintain adequate currency reserves
通過馬歇爾計劃，美國把33億美元當做禮物給了英國，無需償還，但需要英國平衡預算、控制關稅并維持充足的貨幣儲備。
The US gave the UK $3.3 billion as a gift under the Marshall plan, not subject to repayment, but needing the UK to balance its budget, control tariffs and maintain adequate currency reserves
通過馬歇爾計劃，美國把33億美元當做禮物給了英國，無需償還，但需要英國平衡預算、控制關稅并維持充足的貨幣儲備。
PrimalScotsman
Reference please. I can not find anything to verify this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan
You may be mistaken, the states granted us many millions in resources during the war, to keep the fight going. Gave your blue blood oil men the time to sell oil to Hitler and co.
請參考下面鏈接，我并沒有找到資料來證明你的說法。
你可能誤解了，美國在戰爭期間給了我們大量資金，目的是為了讓戰爭繼續下去，讓你們的資本家們有時間賣石油給希特勒及其一伙。
Reference please. I can not find anything to verify this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan
You may be mistaken, the states granted us many millions in resources during the war, to keep the fight going. Gave your blue blood oil men the time to sell oil to Hitler and co.
請參考下面鏈接，我并沒有找到資料來證明你的說法。
你可能誤解了，美國在戰爭期間給了我們大量資金，目的是為了讓戰爭繼續下去，讓你們的資本家們有時間賣石油給希特勒及其一伙。
DegnarOskold
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236795990_The_Administration_of_the_Marshall_Plan_and_British_Health_Policy
"Eighteen European countries received about $14 billion in Marshall aid between 1948 and 1951. Britain received the largest share of this support ($3.2 billion); "
only about $400 million of the over $3 billion in Marshall plan aid to the UK was in loans, the rest was a grant. Separately to the Marshal Plan, the US also loaned the UK $4.4 billion.
“1948年至1951年間，有18個歐洲國家接受了大約140億美元的馬歇爾援助。英國收到了最多(32億美元)?！?br /> 在馬歇爾計劃下，給予英國的30多億美元援助中，只有大約4億美元是貸款，其余都是贈款。在馬歇爾計劃之外，美國還向英國提供了44億美元貸款。
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236795990_The_Administration_of_the_Marshall_Plan_and_British_Health_Policy
"Eighteen European countries received about $14 billion in Marshall aid between 1948 and 1951. Britain received the largest share of this support ($3.2 billion); "
only about $400 million of the over $3 billion in Marshall plan aid to the UK was in loans, the rest was a grant. Separately to the Marshal Plan, the US also loaned the UK $4.4 billion.
“1948年至1951年間，有18個歐洲國家接受了大約140億美元的馬歇爾援助。英國收到了最多(32億美元)?！?br /> 在馬歇爾計劃下，給予英國的30多億美元援助中，只有大約4億美元是貸款，其余都是贈款。在馬歇爾計劃之外，美國還向英國提供了44億美元貸款。
PrimalScotsman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
I think you would be better reading this. If it were a gift as you suggest, why have we only just paid that gift off?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt
Even if what you claim is true, it was not done out of nobility. It has been done to ensure that war didn't come to the states. It has allowed for dirty proxy wars to be fought all over the world, mostly at the behest of the US.
【鏈接】我認為你最好看看這個。如果它如你所說是份禮物，為什么我們把禮物償還了？
就算你說的是真的，也不是出于高尚。是為了確保戰爭不會蔓延到美國。它讓骯臟的代理人戰爭燃燒在世界各地，大多數都是在美國的授意下進行的。
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
I think you would be better reading this. If it were a gift as you suggest, why have we only just paid that gift off?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt
Even if what you claim is true, it was not done out of nobility. It has been done to ensure that war didn't come to the states. It has allowed for dirty proxy wars to be fought all over the world, mostly at the behest of the US.
【鏈接】我認為你最好看看這個。如果它如你所說是份禮物，為什么我們把禮物償還了？
就算你說的是真的，也不是出于高尚。是為了確保戰爭不會蔓延到美國。它讓骯臟的代理人戰爭燃燒在世界各地，大多數都是在美國的授意下進行的。
DegnarOskold
The lix to the Marshall Plan Wikipedia entry you gave supports my earlier point, it says that 85% of the Marshall Plan aid to the UK was a grant, vs only 15% as loans that needed repayment.
What the UK recently finished paying was an addition $4.4 billion loan from the US which was in addition to the $3 billions they gave for free as a grant.
你提供的馬歇爾計劃維基百科鏈接支持了我之前的觀點，它說馬歇爾計劃給予英國的援助中有85%是贈款，只有15%是需要償還的貸款。英國最近償清的是來自美國的44億美元貸款，是30億美元贈款之外的。
The lix to the Marshall Plan Wikipedia entry you gave supports my earlier point, it says that 85% of the Marshall Plan aid to the UK was a grant, vs only 15% as loans that needed repayment.
What the UK recently finished paying was an addition $4.4 billion loan from the US which was in addition to the $3 billions they gave for free as a grant.
你提供的馬歇爾計劃維基百科鏈接支持了我之前的觀點，它說馬歇爾計劃給予英國的援助中有85%是贈款，只有15%是需要償還的貸款。英國最近償清的是來自美國的44億美元貸款，是30億美元贈款之外的。
PrimalScotsman
Even if the figures are correct. The Marshal plan money was to secure American interests. Were you to read the whole thing you would find that one of the outcomes was a severe crash on sterling, caused by US interference. How much do you think ot cost to set up the multitude of US bases in Europe? These figures are pretty bogus.
The cash loans were the things that helped more. We could invest in a health system and spend the cash in the way we chose. The Marshal plan was welcome but it was ultimately to the States benefit, it even states 5% of the money went to the CIA to set up in Europe.
就算數字是正確的，馬歇爾計劃的資金也是為了保障美國的利益。如果你了解整件事情，你就會發現其中一個結果是英鎊大崩盤，是美國干預導致的。你認為在歐洲建立這么多美軍基地要花多少錢？這些數字很假。
現金貸款的幫助很大。我們可以投資于醫療系統，并按照我們選擇的方式來使用現金。馬歇爾計劃是受歡迎的，但它最終讓美國受益，甚至5%的資金流向了CIA，讓它在歐洲建立起來。
Even if the figures are correct. The Marshal plan money was to secure American interests. Were you to read the whole thing you would find that one of the outcomes was a severe crash on sterling, caused by US interference. How much do you think ot cost to set up the multitude of US bases in Europe? These figures are pretty bogus.
The cash loans were the things that helped more. We could invest in a health system and spend the cash in the way we chose. The Marshal plan was welcome but it was ultimately to the States benefit, it even states 5% of the money went to the CIA to set up in Europe.
就算數字是正確的，馬歇爾計劃的資金也是為了保障美國的利益。如果你了解整件事情，你就會發現其中一個結果是英鎊大崩盤，是美國干預導致的。你認為在歐洲建立這么多美軍基地要花多少錢？這些數字很假。
現金貸款的幫助很大。我們可以投資于醫療系統，并按照我們選擇的方式來使用現金。馬歇爾計劃是受歡迎的，但它最終讓美國受益，甚至5%的資金流向了CIA，讓它在歐洲建立起來。
ossiSinc
We gave most of it back to the people who lived there. The British Commonwealth which came into existence in 1931 included most of our former colonies and territories, and was far less centrally directed. Today it's more of a cooperative affair, the only real common denominator being that the Queen remains the Head of State on much of it.
我們把大部分殖民地還給了當地人。1931年成立的英聯邦囊括了我們大部分前殖民地和領土，且非中央集權。如今，這種聯邦形式更多的是事務上的合作，唯一的共同點是女王仍然是國家首腦。
We gave most of it back to the people who lived there. The British Commonwealth which came into existence in 1931 included most of our former colonies and territories, and was far less centrally directed. Today it's more of a cooperative affair, the only real common denominator being that the Queen remains the Head of State on much of it.
我們把大部分殖民地還給了當地人。1931年成立的英聯邦囊括了我們大部分前殖民地和領土，且非中央集權。如今，這種聯邦形式更多的是事務上的合作，唯一的共同點是女王仍然是國家首腦。
Anotherolddog
Hmm. Nothing to do with the inhabitants of the countries wanting to rule themselves, rather than being controlled by a foreign nation whose only interest was extracting revenue for the benefit of Britain....???
【被你說得好像這些國家的獨立】與當地居民想要自治無關，只跟一切為了攫取利益而統治他們的英國有關似的。
Hmm. Nothing to do with the inhabitants of the countries wanting to rule themselves, rather than being controlled by a foreign nation whose only interest was extracting revenue for the benefit of Britain....???
【被你說得好像這些國家的獨立】與當地居民想要自治無關，只跟一切為了攫取利益而統治他們的英國有關似的。
post-ironic-irony
The loss of the empire was driven mostly by economic and geopolitical pressures, not locally-based resistance, despite the romanticised image of the empire somehow falling because of the underdog natives fighting the evil imperialists (this had failed many times in the past). The monumental debts that the UK had accrued due to two World Wars were impossible to pay back while also paying for an increasingly expensive global empire, and with the vast majority of these debts being to the explicitly anti-colonial United States, who would occasionally threaten to call in all the debts at once if the British continued to uphold their colonial system, British politicians were left with no choice but to retreat from their overseas holdings. Post-war Britain feared the United States for their enormous economic might and knew how completely beholden to them they were. Ironically, unlike the defeated and conquered nations of Germany and Japan, Britain was in a less economically advantageous position with the United States, the latter of which would at least build up those defeated countries' industries out of their own pocket; the British got no such support, and were told to pay back their debts no matter the cost, or suffer the consequences. The empire needed to be abandoned because if it wasn't, the British domestic economy would collapse.
But I understand that none of this appeals to the romantic views of decolonisation and "fighting the power and winning!" that a lot of people like to hold. So be it.
大英帝國的失敗主要是經濟和地緣政治壓力的原因，而不是因為當地的抵抗。盡管關于帝國的浪漫主義形象由于劣勢的當地人與邪惡的帝國主義者的斗爭而崩塌。英國因兩次世界大戰而累積的巨額債務多到無法償還，同時還要維持日益昂貴的全球帝國，而債主又是明確反殖民的美國。美國有時候會威脅英國，說如果英國繼續維持其殖民制度，那美國就要一次性收回所有債務。英國政客們別無選擇，只能從殖民地中退出。
戰后，英國害怕美國強大的經濟實力，又對美國懷有感激之情。諷刺的是，在美國面前，與德國、日本這些戰敗被征服的國家相比，英國的經濟地位反而還不如。美國至少會用自己的錢重建這些戰敗國的工業，英國卻沒有得到這樣的支持，他們被告無論如何都要償還債務，否則后果自負。所以必須拋棄帝國了，如果不拋棄，英國國內的經濟就會崩潰。
但我明白，這種觀點與很多人喜歡的去殖民化和“反抗列強然后勝利” 的浪漫觀點不符，那就這樣吧。
The loss of the empire was driven mostly by economic and geopolitical pressures, not locally-based resistance, despite the romanticised image of the empire somehow falling because of the underdog natives fighting the evil imperialists (this had failed many times in the past). The monumental debts that the UK had accrued due to two World Wars were impossible to pay back while also paying for an increasingly expensive global empire, and with the vast majority of these debts being to the explicitly anti-colonial United States, who would occasionally threaten to call in all the debts at once if the British continued to uphold their colonial system, British politicians were left with no choice but to retreat from their overseas holdings. Post-war Britain feared the United States for their enormous economic might and knew how completely beholden to them they were. Ironically, unlike the defeated and conquered nations of Germany and Japan, Britain was in a less economically advantageous position with the United States, the latter of which would at least build up those defeated countries' industries out of their own pocket; the British got no such support, and were told to pay back their debts no matter the cost, or suffer the consequences. The empire needed to be abandoned because if it wasn't, the British domestic economy would collapse.
But I understand that none of this appeals to the romantic views of decolonisation and "fighting the power and winning!" that a lot of people like to hold. So be it.
大英帝國的失敗主要是經濟和地緣政治壓力的原因，而不是因為當地的抵抗。盡管關于帝國的浪漫主義形象由于劣勢的當地人與邪惡的帝國主義者的斗爭而崩塌。英國因兩次世界大戰而累積的巨額債務多到無法償還，同時還要維持日益昂貴的全球帝國，而債主又是明確反殖民的美國。美國有時候會威脅英國，說如果英國繼續維持其殖民制度，那美國就要一次性收回所有債務。英國政客們別無選擇，只能從殖民地中退出。
戰后，英國害怕美國強大的經濟實力，又對美國懷有感激之情。諷刺的是，在美國面前，與德國、日本這些戰敗被征服的國家相比，英國的經濟地位反而還不如。美國至少會用自己的錢重建這些戰敗國的工業，英國卻沒有得到這樣的支持，他們被告無論如何都要償還債務，否則后果自負。所以必須拋棄帝國了，如果不拋棄，英國國內的經濟就會崩潰。
但我明白，這種觀點與很多人喜歡的去殖民化和“反抗列強然后勝利” 的浪漫觀點不符，那就這樣吧。
Buffalo-Castle
This is the way of all empires. Think of Babylon, Rome, Mongols, Spain, the Austria-Hungarian empire ... The same will also happen to Russia, USA, China, etc. in the future.
這是所有帝國的宿命。想想巴比倫、羅馬、蒙古、西班牙、奧匈帝國……同樣的宿命也會降臨到俄羅斯、美國、中國之上。
This is the way of all empires. Think of Babylon, Rome, Mongols, Spain, the Austria-Hungarian empire ... The same will also happen to Russia, USA, China, etc. in the future.
這是所有帝國的宿命。想想巴比倫、羅馬、蒙古、西班牙、奧匈帝國……同樣的宿命也會降臨到俄羅斯、美國、中國之上。
Veidtindustries
Those first four lasted at least 400+ years tho. (Probably because they promoted religious tolerance) OP was referring to the British empire which like many of the time peaked way too early and we can definitely say they won’t be at that level again. GB to say the least
Edit: Spain probably wasn’t as tolerant.
但前四個帝國都至少持續了400多年，可能是因為他們提倡宗教寬容的原因吧（西班牙可能沒有那么寬容）。樓主指的是大英帝國，它的巔峰過得太快了，不過我們可以肯定地說他們無法再回到那個水平了。
Those first four lasted at least 400+ years tho. (Probably because they promoted religious tolerance) OP was referring to the British empire which like many of the time peaked way too early and we can definitely say they won’t be at that level again. GB to say the least
Edit: Spain probably wasn’t as tolerant.
但前四個帝國都至少持續了400多年，可能是因為他們提倡宗教寬容的原因吧（西班牙可能沒有那么寬容）。樓主指的是大英帝國，它的巔峰過得太快了，不過我們可以肯定地說他們無法再回到那個水平了。
BrandonFlowersTache_
Very simply, fighting two extremely expensive World Wars within 25 years of each other. It emerged on the winning side both times but the cost was vast. Debts to the United States were only paid off a few years ago.
答案很簡單，在25年里打了兩場極其昂貴的世界大戰。兩次都贏了，但是代價及其高昂。幾年前才還清欠美國的債務。
Very simply, fighting two extremely expensive World Wars within 25 years of each other. It emerged on the winning side both times but the cost was vast. Debts to the United States were only paid off a few years ago.
答案很簡單，在25年里打了兩場極其昂貴的世界大戰。兩次都贏了，但是代價及其高昂。幾年前才還清欠美國的債務。
SD92z
Because they decided to give them up as didn't think it was right anymore. WWII and Nazi Germany's attempt at colonising Europe changed the way people though about the empire.
因為他們決定放棄殖民地，他們認為繼續維持殖民地不再適宜。二戰和納粹德國殖民歐洲的企圖改變了人們對帝國的看法。
Because they decided to give them up as didn't think it was right anymore. WWII and Nazi Germany's attempt at colonising Europe changed the way people though about the empire.
因為他們決定放棄殖民地，他們認為繼續維持殖民地不再適宜。二戰和納粹德國殖民歐洲的企圖改變了人們對帝國的看法。
post-ironic-irony
Ehh... not quite. The loss of the empire was driven by economic and geopolitical pressures, not moral ones. Even the most far-left British prime minister to date - Clement Attlee - was more than willing to violently suppress anti-colonial movements in Malaya, and had no intentions of giving independence to any African territories.
帝國的失敗是經濟和地緣政治壓力造成的，不是由于道德壓力。就連最左傾的英國首相克萊門特·艾德禮，他不僅愿意暴力鎮壓馬來亞的反殖民運動，也無意讓非洲領土獨立。
Ehh... not quite. The loss of the empire was driven by economic and geopolitical pressures, not moral ones. Even the most far-left British prime minister to date - Clement Attlee - was more than willing to violently suppress anti-colonial movements in Malaya, and had no intentions of giving independence to any African territories.
帝國的失敗是經濟和地緣政治壓力造成的，不是由于道德壓力。就連最左傾的英國首相克萊門特·艾德禮，他不僅愿意暴力鎮壓馬來亞的反殖民運動，也無意讓非洲領土獨立。
pheisenberg
To some extent, the empire transformed into the Commonwealth. And, the United States empire that came up after 1945 wasn’t based on direct territorial control either, rather influence via military and economic incentives plus a lot of prestige. Maybe that’s just how you run a naval-based empire these days.
Besides that, I think the world outside Europe leveled up a lot in the 1900s, just like the world outside Rome in 1-400 AD. It’s one thing to hold an empire when you’ve got the Maxim gun and they have not, quite another when they’ve got the AK-47, modern nationalism, and world moral opinion, plus a former colony, now rival empire, working to supplant you. Empires destroying themselves in this way seems almost normal in history. And nationalism in particular creates reasons to give people their own state and seek to influence them instead of ruling.
I think the economics were big too. Colonies were less profitable and Britain was low on funding to defend them with. The US was perfectly happy to step in for that. I’m not sure exactly what changed there, but I’d guess that nationalism and modern morals made it harder to exploit colonies for gain.
大英帝國變成了英聯邦。就像1945年后美帝的做法也不是直接控制領土的，而是通過軍事和經濟以及很高的聲望來影響的。這就是美帝經營海軍帝國的方式。
除此之外，我認為歐洲以外的國家在1900年代發展程度提高了很多，就像公元1-400年羅馬以外的國家一樣。當你有馬克沁機槍而對方沒有時，維持帝國是一回事；而當對方獲得了AK-47、現代民族主義和世界道德觀，再加上一個前殖民地、現在則是努力想取代你的美帝時，維持帝國就是另一回事了。在歷史上，帝國以這種方式自我毀滅似乎是很正常的。而民族主義讓人們有了建立自己國家的理由，因此只能對殖民地施加影響而不是直接統治。
我認為經濟也是重要的原因。殖民地的獲利變少，英國也沒有足夠的資金來繼續維持。美國又非常樂意介入其中。我不是十分確定是什么讓殖民地產生了變化，但我猜，由于民族主義和現代道德，讓剝削殖民地以獲得利益變得更加困難了。
To some extent, the empire transformed into the Commonwealth. And, the United States empire that came up after 1945 wasn’t based on direct territorial control either, rather influence via military and economic incentives plus a lot of prestige. Maybe that’s just how you run a naval-based empire these days.
Besides that, I think the world outside Europe leveled up a lot in the 1900s, just like the world outside Rome in 1-400 AD. It’s one thing to hold an empire when you’ve got the Maxim gun and they have not, quite another when they’ve got the AK-47, modern nationalism, and world moral opinion, plus a former colony, now rival empire, working to supplant you. Empires destroying themselves in this way seems almost normal in history. And nationalism in particular creates reasons to give people their own state and seek to influence them instead of ruling.
I think the economics were big too. Colonies were less profitable and Britain was low on funding to defend them with. The US was perfectly happy to step in for that. I’m not sure exactly what changed there, but I’d guess that nationalism and modern morals made it harder to exploit colonies for gain.
大英帝國變成了英聯邦。就像1945年后美帝的做法也不是直接控制領土的，而是通過軍事和經濟以及很高的聲望來影響的。這就是美帝經營海軍帝國的方式。
除此之外，我認為歐洲以外的國家在1900年代發展程度提高了很多，就像公元1-400年羅馬以外的國家一樣。當你有馬克沁機槍而對方沒有時，維持帝國是一回事；而當對方獲得了AK-47、現代民族主義和世界道德觀，再加上一個前殖民地、現在則是努力想取代你的美帝時，維持帝國就是另一回事了。在歷史上，帝國以這種方式自我毀滅似乎是很正常的。而民族主義讓人們有了建立自己國家的理由，因此只能對殖民地施加影響而不是直接統治。
我認為經濟也是重要的原因。殖民地的獲利變少，英國也沒有足夠的資金來繼續維持。美國又非常樂意介入其中。我不是十分確定是什么讓殖民地產生了變化，但我猜，由于民族主義和現代道德，讓剝削殖民地以獲得利益變得更加困難了。
grambell789
My theory is the world economy shifted from shipping good via water to railroad and trucking as the most important economic basis. In the 1700s to mid 1800 the only cost effective way to move heavy freight was on water. Once railroads and truck were invented economies became more localized and britians monoply on sea lanes became less profitable.
我的理論是，世界經濟的基礎從最重要的水路運輸轉變為鐵路和卡車運輸。在1700年代到1800年代中期，運輸重型貨物的唯一經濟的方法是水路運輸。當鐵路和卡車被發明后，經濟就變得更加地方化，英國人的海上壟斷利潤就變少了。
My theory is the world economy shifted from shipping good via water to railroad and trucking as the most important economic basis. In the 1700s to mid 1800 the only cost effective way to move heavy freight was on water. Once railroads and truck were invented economies became more localized and britians monoply on sea lanes became less profitable.
我的理論是，世界經濟的基礎從最重要的水路運輸轉變為鐵路和卡車運輸。在1700年代到1800年代中期，運輸重型貨物的唯一經濟的方法是水路運輸。當鐵路和卡車被發明后，經濟就變得更加地方化，英國人的海上壟斷利潤就變少了。
ArkyBeagle
Given the lifespan of the other major colonial powers ( including Spain, Holland and to an extent, France ) it should be surprising that it lasted as long as it did.
The ugly secret of colonialism is that it creates financial hardship for the mother country's treasury. It provides a mechanism for enriching individuals at the expense of the cost of defense of the Empire.
考慮到其他殖民列強（包括西班牙、荷蘭和法國）的壽命，大英帝國能持續這么長時間已經令人驚訝了。
殖民主義的丑惡秘密是，它讓母國的財政變得困難，給個人提供了以犧牲帝國國防的代價來大發其財的途徑。
Given the lifespan of the other major colonial powers ( including Spain, Holland and to an extent, France ) it should be surprising that it lasted as long as it did.
The ugly secret of colonialism is that it creates financial hardship for the mother country's treasury. It provides a mechanism for enriching individuals at the expense of the cost of defense of the Empire.
考慮到其他殖民列強（包括西班牙、荷蘭和法國）的壽命，大英帝國能持續這么長時間已經令人驚訝了。
殖民主義的丑惡秘密是，它讓母國的財政變得困難，給個人提供了以犧牲帝國國防的代價來大發其財的途徑。
post-ironic-irony
This is the key point. As early as the 18th century prominent British economists like Adam Smith were criticising the idea of colonial empires with this argument. Morality aside - which was never and will never be the deciding factor in the fall of empires - economics is what determines the fate of empires.
說到關鍵點了。早在18世紀，著名的英國經濟學家如亞當·斯密就用這種觀點批評殖民帝國的思想。道德從來不是，也永遠不會是帝國崩潰的決定性因素——經濟才是決定帝國命運的關鍵。
This is the key point. As early as the 18th century prominent British economists like Adam Smith were criticising the idea of colonial empires with this argument. Morality aside - which was never and will never be the deciding factor in the fall of empires - economics is what determines the fate of empires.
說到關鍵點了。早在18世紀，著名的英國經濟學家如亞當·斯密就用這種觀點批評殖民帝國的思想。道德從來不是，也永遠不會是帝國崩潰的決定性因素——經濟才是決定帝國命運的關鍵。
相關鏈接
-
- 聯合國兒童基金會有史以來第一次為英國兒童提供食物 2020/12/21 12032 41 1
-
- 港口混亂蔓延，英國食品被困歐洲 2020/12/18 18986 43 1
-
- S-400 凱旋 –世界上最先進的防空系統的能力 2020/12/17 10766 22 1
-
- 世界最霸氣小護照排名(2020)——199個國家和地區 2020/12/15 28328 90 1
-
- 網友討論：日本咖喱由英國人引入日本，咖喱在日本被歸為西方菜肴 2020/12/11 14728 69 1
-
- “我們不當搖錢樹”：英國學生計劃40年來最大規模的房租抗議 2020/12/11 15414 27 1
-
- BBC記者惡搞：“美國，不上法庭你們連個總統都選不出來……現在是你們 2020/12/10 25005 33 1
-
- QA:你認為在未來2050年后，誰將成為世界主要強國? 2020/12/09 33818 98 1
閩公網安備 35020302001346號
該譯文暫不支持評論哦