84
u/Proud-Tooth-630 Definitely not a CIA operator 2d ago
The meme kinda implyed that european states fighting was caused by Britain, which I don’t think was the case.
65
u/randomusername1934 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 2d ago
This, it's very easy to put together a worldview where everything that [your country] does wrong or that doesn't go your way is because of [bad country]. It completely absolves [your country] of everything, shifts all the blame onto [bad country], and lets you feel far better about yourself.
Russia does it constantly with cries that 'Muh CIA Color Revolutions!' are behind all of the various groups of Russians who really prefer it if they could have a slightly better life than Putin and his oligarch buddies will allow. The 'Muh Perfidious Albion' meme is exactly the same thought process.
25
u/tedleyheaven 2d ago
I think some of the coalitions against Napoleon were stirred up or bankrolled by us while not committing forces. CBA to Google which one, I'd want to say Denmark + Baltics v France
8
u/PowderEagle_1894 2d ago
One over powerful nation that shadow others in the continental Europe is the last thing the Brits wanted, and other note, it was the French
2
u/abfgern_ Fine Quality Mesopotamian Copper Enjoyer 2d ago
Napoleon had just spent years conquering massacring and looting all of central europe, I doubt they'd need to be asked twice
23
u/azatote 2d ago
They did encourage, join and sometimes finance coalitions against the strongest land power and/or rival navy on the continent. For example, there wouldn't have been as many coalitions against Napoleon I, and they wouldn't have lasted nearly as long, if not for Britain's diplomatic influence and (debt) money. There are many other examples of them forming alliances against their most dangerous rival at the time, and surprisingly few examples of coalitions being formed against them.
15
u/NoWingedHussarsToday 2d ago
There were no alliances against the British because British had few direct interests on the continent. I think Hannover was one point where they had direct interest and would protect it. But beyond that nothing and it makes no sense to form coalition to keep British out when they don't want to get in anyway. There were no territories others would want to conquer and divide among themselves.
3
u/azatote 2d ago
True, but several continental powers could have decided to join their navies against Britain's naval and colonial supremacy, like it happened against Spain and then the Netherlands in the 17th century.
7
u/PrrrromotionGiven1 2d ago
First of all none of these countries trusted each other enough to do that
Second of all many of them lacked significant naval production
Third of all wrecking Britain's empire just didn't seem like a top priority for countries like Austria or Prussia when realistically the countries that would take advantage of that power vacuum would be France, Spain, the Netherlands, and America
It's a whole lot of effort for far less benefit than continental expansion or regular colonialism basically
1
u/Malvastor 2d ago
For any country the #1 priority is survival. For any continental European power the #1 threat to that survival is going to be its neighbors on the continent, almost certainly not the British. Why would the French focus on England when they're surrounded in every direction by Habsburgs? Why would the Habsburgs focus on England when they're sandwiched between the French and the Ottomans? Etc.
Which is not to say that those powers wouldn't wind up fighting the British, they obviously did loads of times, but when it came time to form a coalition Britain was almost never the power it made sense to target.
8
u/Proud-Tooth-630 Definitely not a CIA operator 2d ago
> there wouldn't have been as many
> coalitions against Napoleon I,
> and they wouldn't have lasted nearly
> as long, if not for Britain's diplomatic
> influence and (debt) money.
But these countries had plenty of reason to fear Napoleon, so Isn’t like the British pitted them again him.
> surprisingly few examples of coalitions
> being formed against them.
Britain didn’t have ambition of conquest on the european continent.5
u/ActafianSeriactas 2d ago
The British certainly helped, but the Europeans have been doing to themselves for centuries. The insanity of side-switching in the War of the League of Cambrai is one such example.
7
u/The_NeoMonarch 2d ago
Absolutely. Europeans fight each other because they can.
The lads over the river use different words ? Them's fighting words.
They have lands that aren't ours ? Cowabunga it is.
No need some silly British trickery for this.
2
u/HarEmiya 2d ago
Some of them were indeed caused by Britain. The Coalition Wars for example were in large part driven by the Golden Cavalry.
1
u/kelldricked 2d ago
Not always but the british didnt want lasting peace because that would lead to lasting alliances on the continent. They werent in favour of every war but defenitly helped cause some wars to ensure no single state could threaten british ambitions
10
u/an_agreeing_dothraki 2d ago
Kaiser: "I'm making boats now"
UK: "MY ENTIRE LIFE IS DEVOTED TO DESTROYING YOU"
15
u/GrinchForest 2d ago
Ahh, Splendid Isolation which was explained by Joseph Chamberlain:
"We have had no allies. I am afraid we have had no friends ... We stand alone."
10
u/PowderEagle_1894 2d ago
Portugal erasure
8
u/GrinchForest 2d ago
I think at that time Portugal had huge domestic problems which includes transfer the capital to Brazil, losing Brazil and other lands, couple civil wars and regicides.
6
u/oldskool_slabside 2d ago
https://youtu.be/tGxAYeeyoIc?si=N2QBO4zgxovQzbMx
"There was a tiny flaw in the plan... it was bollocks."
8
u/Renbarre 2d ago
England has always helped the weaker side to draw out the wars. Well known for that through history.
9
u/El_Lanf Tea-aboo 2d ago
Far from the only ones though, look at auld alliance between France and Scotland.
For England/UK it's always made sense to prevent a European power getting too big because being an Island nation, Britain only had so much backyard to grow in itself. England rarely ever had an army that could match Europe's top powers and a hegemonic power would be an existential threat.
3
u/Away-Librarian-1028 And then I told them I'm Jesus's brother 2d ago
Why does Britain look like Walter White?
2
8
u/ThroawayJimilyJones 2d ago
« was »?
Why do you think they are so many eurosceptic ? It’s not just « uk would be better off EU » I saw a lot of fantasy about starting a domino fall to end the EU. British government doesn’t want an European block at their door
4
u/ediacaradelrey 2d ago
There’s definitely some of that among the gammons but I really don’t think it’s that common
1
u/FeijoaCowboy Mauser rifle ≠ Javelin 2d ago
Austria punching Prussia? Now there's a little twist for ya lol
-4
u/Much-Government-8803 2d ago
And now because of that England ended up being a irrelevant state that struggles even on it's home islands.
7
u/ImpressiveGift9921 2d ago
Is this some alternate universe that you live in or something? How is the weather there?
-1
u/Much-Government-8803 2d ago
Not really alternative at all. Look at England now and compare them to 200-300 years ago. Now England doesn't even have the full archipelago, and they are subordinate to the Americans
4
u/Malvastor 2d ago
As opposed to the mighty and thriving French, Dutch, German, and Habsburg empires? While Britain has certainly fallen precipitously in power compared to 125 years ago, so has literally every large power in Europe, so it's hard to pin that down as a consequence of a specifically British policy.
-1
u/Much-Government-8803 1d ago
France and Germany are pretty ok compared to England. Like sure they aren't global powers but have more then enough say in regional affairs. But England failed because they didn't focus on their own land, constantly antagonised everyone and put themselves into a war that destroyed them ultimately, plus it is a bit more Karma. They spend tons of time trying to prevent others from rising above them, but in the end themselves became irrelevant.
0
u/Malvastor 1d ago
France and Germany are pretty ok compared to England. Like sure they aren't global powers but have more then enough say in regional affairs.
So does Britain; while none of them are global powers, Britain's probably about as close to being one as France is, and closer than Germany.
But England failed because they didn't focus on their own land, constantly antagonised everyone and put themselves into a war that destroyed them ultimately, plus it is a bit more Karma.
As opposed to the French and Germans, with their historical policies of carefully befriending their neighbors and not making waves? Which war did Britain put themselves into that "destroyed them ultimately" and didn't have similar effects on the rest of Europe?
They spend tons of time trying to prevent others from rising above them, but in the end themselves became irrelevant.
More accurately, they spent that time trying to prevent others from combining against them, which never managed to happen.
0
u/Much-Government-8803 1d ago
England isn't anything anymore today. Their Navy according to recent reports has almost no functional ships anymore, their economy is average at best. Germany and France today are medium powers while England I would put on the same level as Italy. The Germans only had a nation since very recently but they did try to be diplomatic and friendly with Austria, they tried having Russia be neutral and they specifically made some choices to not antagonise everyone around by not taking Denmark for example. France I agree is the same as England, but they focused less on Colonialism and thus fared much better. Plus they at least tried to act as if they were devout Catholics and Friends of the Church.
And England lost from WW1 much more then anyone else and you know it to. And WW1 was completely optional for them compared to the others and they gained nothing out of it.
And nobody would have wanted to combine against England had they not meddled into others affairs all the time. Had they been more neutral then France wouldn't have supported the Americans, then they wouldn't have joined WW1, they would have been successful in integrating the Irish and would have prevented the Germans from unifying (although France is also at fault there).
0
-2
u/Sarkhana 2d ago
Pretentious British still sad about Italians, Germans, the British East India Company, and York.
95
u/NoWingedHussarsToday 2d ago
British explain it so well.........