/b/ - Random

>>7396 (OP) 
Colonies in the 20th were SNCA only propped up by pride. I don’t know why chuds are obsessed with le big boarder on maps.

>>7409
There would've at least been the potential to start utilising them again if they were still around. There's no reason for Starmer to give away the Chagos Islands just because nobody gives a shit about them except Mauritania or whoever it "belonged to" is. Why the fuck don't you apply this pettiness logic to them for once? Preventing Germany from having an empire to compete with Britain's was one of the implicit justifications for both of the world wars and is still being used as a cope to try and justify British involvement in them.

>>7410
>no reason 
Spite. His voters grin so hard their turbans fall off whenever he gives the Yanks a thumb in the eye.

>>7410
Ruling is expensive. Anything you actually want can be bought from these places for cheaper AND you don’t have to worry about how morally they got it. It would be financial ruin if Europe had to actually rule those shitholes to a modern standard.

>>7396 (OP) 
To be entirely fair, the British Empire was being dismantled before Churchill took office.  During the First World War the British promised their colonies independence Real Soon Now in exchange for letting the Brits draft hundreds of thousands of Indians and Kenyans and Rhodesians then stuff them into the meatgrinder at Ypres and the Somme. The decisions and the promises had already been made, just like the Balfour Declaration ("thank u for helping us make boolits, we gibs u Palestine nao"). Churchill's every action made everything worse at every turn and I believe he reduced Britain's stock in the world, but he did not start the process and I am not sure how much he could have done to change the eventual outcome significantly.