Changes

no edit summary
Line 107: Line 107:     
:I didn't live that era but maybe someone else could comment Mr. Hat. England lost it's Empire in the 20th century. It's reserve currency financial status reduced by 90%. Post-war era was rebuilding time and loans. The Korean conflict was short, the Malasia conflict had British mainly as envisors. With exception of the Falklands and Iraq, the English public was not in war mode for 40 of 50 years. The country turned more national than international. Focus became social service handouts and socialism in my humble opinion.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
 
:I didn't live that era but maybe someone else could comment Mr. Hat. England lost it's Empire in the 20th century. It's reserve currency financial status reduced by 90%. Post-war era was rebuilding time and loans. The Korean conflict was short, the Malasia conflict had British mainly as envisors. With exception of the Falklands and Iraq, the English public was not in war mode for 40 of 50 years. The country turned more national than international. Focus became social service handouts and socialism in my humble opinion.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: Economic strife and the loss of the empire should, if anything, make people less complacent as their livelyhood comes under risk. Since 1945, the UK was involved in more than 13 major conflicts. The number goes up to about 21-23 when smaller conflicts are included (such as the Malaysian Emergency), and no year within that 60 year period lacked UK military action. In fact most of the major US post-45 conflicts featured British troops. See [http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html link] for details. As for socialism, the UK already had a fairly extensive welfare system in place before WWII, and I think that is an entirely different argument. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 12:51, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
    
==Causes vs effects==
 
==Causes vs effects==
84

edits