Today's interview on the BBC was great fun. It seemed in the interview that Mr Grasse had a bit of a complex about anti-Americanism in Britain.
I thought Starkey turned the tables adroitly though by actually thanking the USA (I agree with this thanks- America is a great nation and thanks to God for it- and to Britani for creating a nation in its own image, democratic and largely based on freedom).
On the main issue; Of the 4 big areas, 2 would have happened anyway (industrial revolution and 'ban inventions').
Global Misrule- don't think so. British power brought world stability- controlled unruly powers, maintained a balance in Europe and controlled desires of the tsars to rule the world. It was the erosion of our power in early 20th century and failure of America (and France) to play its full role early on in the century which led to both world wars. Britain was no longer capable of imposing its will as our relative power had declined. There is an argument that after we left, we carved the territories up 'inaccurately'- maybe that is true- but it is hard to carve up nations which haven't been nations in their own right for a long time or ever (Africa, Iraq, Pakistan) and where dispute has been covered through British law and order for centuries. If we hadn't been there though (India), Russia would have swallowed up all Asia and India and maybe even China. Does terrorism have its root in British ME misrule- I don't think so. Resentment at Muslim political decline and impotence since the decline of the Ottoman, Persian and Mughal empires is the real source in my view (however they like to redirect it). We never colonised Persia- and yet they are your greatest enemy- similarly we never colonised Afghanistan except for a few years- also a major problem. The most heavily colonised countries are now the most stable (India, Canada, Australia) and yet the least colonised are the most troublesome- so what is the problem- too much colonisation or too little? Surely you can't have it both ways. Maybe the truth is that the world is a playground full of people itching for a fight- and if the headmaster (schoolbully?) can stop some of those fights by imposing their will (and maybe reaping some benefits) then so much the better.
Genocide- again, doesn't fit the facts very well. The British empire was not built on massacres or exceedingly bloody wars (not so bloody wars and battles- there were plenty), genocide or cultural takeover (Britain was fairly culturally inclusive - particularly after the Mutiny- not like France with l'outrmere). Of course, there were deaths during British rule- but more than off-set by British law and order and stability (otherwise how did a small army rule a vast country like India without the population which largely acquiesced in it). Like America, we didn't go out there planning an empire- but to create a stable environment we just had to keep invading their countries (which it has to be said with considerably more success than the USA). Sure, we made mistakes- just like the USA makes mistakes now and made them (slavery, segregation and inequality for black population until 1960s and beyond, Vietnam, 1812 war with Britain!, destruction of American Indians). Also- if we hadn't got there first- then France, Spain or Germany would have- and then where would we be?
What we certainly never did was start a huge and bloody war like WW1 and 2- to which you compare Britain's history. We also have not been so keen to take reparations as you say.
Do we need a world leading power who can actually take action (in the main- to achieve stability)- yes we do. And today it is America. Does that mean you're going to be liked- no; being resented comes with the territory (so to speak). I for one, though am immeasurably happy to have a good-hearted nation like the USA as the world No1- because the alternative is China, India or Russia.
Anyhow- it's all good fun. Good luck with the book- I'll read it. (We do have the best tea).
Dan Taylor