Final answer:
England initially led in industrialization thanks to its resources and social structure promoting commerce. However, the U.S. and Germany eventually overtook England due to larger markets, innovative adaptation, and economic policies restricting market flexibility. The question of England 'falling behind' remains debated and is contingent on specific criteria and timeframes (D).
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks why England may have fallen behind America, Germany, and Japan. It suggests options, such as a lack of natural resources, inability to innovate technologically, heavy war losses, or a stance that England did not fall behind these countries. Analyzing historical context, England's industrial leadership was secured due to an abundance of natural resources like coal and iron, significant technological innovation, and a social structure where commerce was respected. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, countries like the United States and Germany began to overtake Britain because they had larger domestic markets, more abundant natural resources, and rapidly adopted newer technologies and business methods.
In terms of innovation, the United States and Germany in particular were quick to adopt and improve upon British technologies, exemplified by Germany's advancement in chemical and electrical engineering and the United States' rise in mass production and management techniques. By contrast, England's rate of innovation began to slow, and the economic policies of protectionism and empire preference restricted its market flexibility, impacting its global competitiveness.
However, the assertion that England definitively 'fell behind' is a matter of historical debate and depends on specific timeframes and economic indicators. It is certain, though, that intense international competition in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led to shifts in global economic standings.