I didn't mean to pick on England, but it was still in control of India and most of its African and Asian colonies at the time the UN was formed. "A quarter of the world" was actually what it controlled at its height, but it wasn't too far off that as late as the 1940s.
A lot of the empire was given up without a fight, with exceptions like Malaya and the middle east. But you also have to take into consideration the violence that was involved in colonizing these places in the first place.
It seems to me that the
British (not
English) Empire was created mostly by commerce, coercion and subterfuge (eg playing one local leader against another) not violence. Vast armies initially never went to places like America, Australia and India. Traders and settlers did. India was actually 'conquered' by a British tea company. I can't think of many places that were actually invaded by an army. Afghanistan was though, and the British got thrashed.
Later of course, some violent uprisings were put down equally violently (the Indian Mutiny being the 'best' example.) And some violent uprisings succeeded (eg the USA! Mind you, they couldn't have done it without the French. Many Americans seem to have forgotton that as they munch their Freedom Fries
)
When the time came for it to end, Britain withdrew
mostly with honour, and many British traditions and values persisted. That's why the Commonwealth still exists.
(Compare that to the French disasters in Vietnam and Algeria.)
Of course, building empires is a
Bad Thing. But 200 years ago, many European countries were trying to build empires. It wasn't completely against the morals of the day. I just think Britain was the most competent empire builder, and the least malign.
It's taboo in Britian to say anything non-critical about the Empire, so I expect flame!
