End of Empires: who and what was responsible? (post WW2)

[Tukhachevskii]

Given that the archaic closed-loop colonial trading systems effectively closed new rising powers out of trade and were largely responsible for triggering WW2 in the Pacific, this seems a not unreasonable demand.

I'll think you'll find that US foriegn policy was much more fundamental in its effects upon Japanese decision making than any of the Euroepan perial blocs.

It probably seemed unreasonable to the old colonists, who were accustomed to imposing ridiculously one-sided trade terms on their "possessions", but then fair play always seems a drag to those accustomed to the benefits of unfair play.

m, actually, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were largely the benficiaries of massive direct and indirect investment emanting from London. The dominions were quite happy with that relationship to the metropole given that they were able to exert local and domestic (limited) soveriegnty. Had WWII not occured, however, I am sure that the move from Empire to a more rubust Commonwealth would have been inevitable. De-colonisation, however, isa loaded term (it assumes that "subject peoples" had a pre-existing political identity that was being supressed whereas in many cases- take India for instance- what "national identity" they had had been inculcated in them by Britian ("India" was a British creation). As for Africa, Mntgommery himself stated that the African "states" in the empire would need a period of tutelage before they were ready to stand on their own two feet (i.e., attain self-government). WWII cut that educational process off and with the former imperial captials of Europe now deeply indebted to the US and enmeshed in the Marshall Plan (and thus thrall to its demands) there wasn't much Eurpoe could do but let the US enter those markets and their own (De Gaulle and Gaullism is partly a response to that situation as is Willy randts Ostpolotik to a degree).

And exactly how many former colonies did the US establish sovereignty over?

Sir, I've obviously touched a nerve (thought only JMA could accomplish that). There are many different kinds of "imperial" system as you well know. My use of that phrase was polemical (this medium unfortunatly restricts nuance). As an example take the League of Nations. The US didn't sit on it but that didn't matter given its Latin American "fraternal brothers" did (invisible empire is the hallmark of capitalism -but please don't think me a Marxist!)

"Imperial tutelage" my arse. Have a look at, say, the opium trade, the single most profitable commercial enterprise in British imperial history. An interesting form of "tutelage", that. The White Man's Burden was never more than romantic fiction, it was about making money.

We are in agreement here. Check what I wrote and notice the statement regarding "self-interest" as opposed to liberal universalist values (of which the notion "White" Man's Burden was a progenitor). Conversely, the pium Tade is really a good argument given that Britian and the other European powers didn't incorporate China into their political systems (largely through Chinese shrewdness; hat tip to them). Bt Europe didn't invent empire (as carl Schmitt argued once); the people Europe "subjugated" weren't some Rousseaean perfect "savages" either; ritian, after all, stopped the slave trade in Africa (but we're getting away from the issue)

In the wake of WW2 the old empires were dead. The subjects were no longer interested in subjection and the masters no longer had the power to impose it. That was clear to some, if not to all, as early as 1945. It was clear to all soon enough.

That's a pretty blanket statement that I don't think applies as universally as you think. The death of Empire was foretold after WWI too yet reality turned out differently. As for willpower and the power to impose it France didn't seem to notice the conditions you're talking about until after they were defeated (i.e., the idea of Empire wasn't dead until proved at dien ben phu and Algeirs). Had France won in Vietnam who knows what the outcome would have been but certainly US rheoric about "freedom" certainly helpd the moral cause of the Viet Minh for instance as did Soviet propaganda (and lets not forget them!). Australian foriegn policy only became pro-US in orientation once it was clear that the homeland was exhuasted and hegemony had passed to the US. There were plenty of people in various colonies that wanted things to stay much that same; the usage of an Us/Them formula is misleading.