02-04-2004 20:36									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In the early to mid 1850's, England controlled 3/4 of the land mass, and 1/2 the population in the world.


Just a little reminder.

	02-04-2004 20:37									#92
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: And how could the colonial keep in close touch with the concerns and the sentiments of their constituency?

This is much less of a concern than some believe in this thread. The fact is that for a century, because of the distances involved, congressmen went home only once or twice a year. Therefore, parliamentarians going home only once a year wouldn't have made much difference in any event.

Admittedly, I don't know the travel times for Australians to London. That might be a different story.

	02-04-2004 20:55									#93
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand In the early to mid 1850's, England controlled 3/4 of the land mass, and 1/2 the population in the world. Just a little reminder.

no we didn't. at its height, britain controled 1/4 of the world with around 1/4 of its population.

	02-04-2004 20:59									#94
	Inflate your Upload Space

Sorry, Cockney. You need to re-read your information.


Learn about your roots.

	02-04-2004 21:02									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

ummm, unless you are talking about 'informal empire' (the british zones of influence in china and persia etc.) then i'm pretty sure about those figures

	03-04-2004 08:18									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sikander The U.S. surpassed Britain in GDP in the 19th century, and by the turn of the century produced about twice what Britain did. Certainly Britain was more influential, but in raw economic power it wasn't even close.

It really depends how you cut the numbers. Britain funded much of America's and global expansion. Some historians mark the shift of economic power to when Britain became a debtor nation, which brings the shift back more to WWI. But Britain still ruled the seas after WWI, it's merchant fleet dominated the world and global trade. London was still the financial capital of the world.

You also need to add to British economic power all of its colonies - Americans tend not to do that. But these were seen as indivisible from British economic power - that means Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and all the coloured colonies. Until after WWII about a third of the world was either a British colony or under British domination, including China. British naval flotillas patrolled China's great rivers. Same in Latin America, this was British not American dominated.

One interesting example here is the Middle East. Britain did not colonise all of the Middle East but British companies controlled the oil trade until after WWII. Britain was a powerhouse but fatally flawed because it's wealth depended upon race and empire.

Interestingly you could argue Roosevelt did Britain in more than Hitler by insisting on decolonisation after WWII.

Another thing you Americans have no sense of is what it was like to be part of the British empire if you were a British citizen, and Australians were British citizens. There were extraordinary opportunities. You could move around the empire without a passport, trade and invest anywhere, always protected by British rule of law and the British colonial forces. It was quite an extraordinary thing, like Roman times but on a global scale. There were a lot of benefits for the British of all classes.

	03-04-2004 08:35									#97
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Travel time: in the late 18th early 19th century crossing the Atlantic is no mean feat.

MPs would be totally disconnected from their ridings.

On second thought...how is this different from today?

	03-04-2004 10:55									#98
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I don't think the hypothetical superstate would have ever materialized.

A large chunk of the 13 colonies' population was NOT British. Their were Dutch, German, and others. Remember that the United States chose English as its language by just one vote over German.

There would have always been friction between New England (current US) and Britain. Canada was not as densely populated as the 13 colonies and would not have had the booming economy as early on. There was also an independent and self reliance mentality in the citizens of the 13 colonies.

The rift was that the colonies viewed themselves as fully functional states and the Crown viewed them as wilderness territories making it unlikely that Britain would have granted them the representation being discussed.

	03-04-2004 10:58									#99
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb Remember that the United States chose English as its language by just one vote over German.

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.htm

	03-04-2004 11:04									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.htm

You need to read my post before you ASSUME I said something I didn't.

I did NOT say "official language" as TO THIS DAY the United States does NOT have an official language. I said they chose English over German by one vote which they did and the laws and proceeding were in English as opposed to German which set the precident for the language American government would use in the future.


Your link simply confirms and backs up by post.

	03-04-2004 11:10									#101
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

How could there have been a one vote majority if no vote ever took place on the subject?

	03-04-2004 16:30									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb I said they chose English over German by one vote which they did and the laws and proceeding were in English as opposed to German which set the precident for the language American government would use in the future.

"A proposal before Congress in 1795 merely recommended the printing of federal laws in German as well as English."

English was not in danger of being supplanted by this debate.

	05-04-2004 04:39									#103
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb I don't think the hypothetical superstate would have ever materialized. A large chunk of the 13 colonies' population was NOT British. Their were Dutch, German, and others. Remember that the United States chose English as its language by just one vote over German. There would have always been friction between New England (current US) and Britain. Canada was not as densely populated as the 13 colonies and would not have had the booming economy as early on. There was also an independent and self reliance mentality in the citizens of the 13 colonies. The rift was that the colonies viewed themselves as fully functional states and the Crown viewed them as wilderness territories making it unlikely that Britain would have granted them the representation being discussed.

Over Dutch, not German! You revisionist!

Otherwise, good post.

	05-04-2004 04:51									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb I don't think the hypothetical superstate would have ever materialized. A large chunk of the 13 colonies' population was NOT British. Their were Dutch, German, and others.

More importantly about one quarter of the population was Scottish, who had much more reason to hate the English than the Dutch or Germans. A large portion of the Scots who crossed the Atlantic had been dispossesed of their lands by the English in the early 18th century.

	05-04-2004 04:55									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.htm

Hey what's up with that stuff, my history books, or wherever else I read it said Dutch.

	05-04-2004 05:08									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney no we didn't. at its height, britain controled 1/4 of the world with around 1/4 of its population.

At its height the total landmass of the British Empire was 300% of England herself.

The issue in pre-revolutionary America was direct versus virtual representation. When the colonials clamored for representation, they had in mind being represented directly. However the Parliment argued that they were already represented by the virtue of virtual representation. A MP from location A didn't represent location A only, he represented the entire interests of the Empire.

In a sense, the War of the Independence was the anvil upon which the British Empire was forged. The British took lessons learned in America and applied it everywhere else. The result was the new Imperial period for the Empire.

One of many factors for the British success was their tendency to rule indirectly. Basically that means they would pick someone from a local populace to rule as a figurehead and local people were allowed to become civil servants. The result was that the populace often felt that they were pretty much ruling themselves since the government in London rarely intervened directly except for dire and serious matters.

If the British managed to retain American colonies, their imperial adventures in other locations might would have not been so successful.

	05-04-2004 06:12									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Colon Hey what's up with that stuff, my history books, or wherever else I read it said Dutch.

Maybe just a typo on Deutsch? That's how the Pennsylvania Dutch went wrong.

	05-04-2004 07:02									#108
	Remove this text

Either how, I feel cheated.

	05-04-2004 07:52									#109
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Even Chamberlain opposed negotiations with Germany in 1940, as did the Labour members of the war cabinet. Halifax was isolated. See John Lukas, Five Days in May.

Actually there's a lot of unwritten history about this period. If Britain had followed it's traditional appeasement policies, as Hitler expected, it would have made peace after the fall of France.

When I say "traditional" I don't mean Chamberlain, I mean it's continental policy over the preceding 3 centuries. More often than not Britain went for negotiated settlements in wars with France, Spain and Holland.

Churchill's was by no means as secure leader of Britain in the period 1940 - 42.

	05-04-2004 08:12									#110
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Colon Hey what's up with that stuff, my history books, or wherever else I read it said Dutch.

Delusions on your part?

	05-04-2004 08:14									#111
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Actually there's a lot of unwritten history about this period. If Britain had followed it's traditional appeasement policies, as Hitler expected, it would have made peace after the fall of France. When I say "traditional" I don't mean Chamberlain, I mean it's continental policy over the preceding 3 centuries. More often than not Britain went for negotiated settlements in wars with France, Spain and Holland. Churchill's was by no means as secure leader of Britain in the period 1940 - 42.

Actually, British foreign policy rested on two principles: 1.naval superiority 2.maintaining the balance of power on the continent, preferably through proxy armies and expeditionary forces combined with control over the seas.
Whenever Britain felt a power began to dominate the continent it would switch allegiances to counter that power, be it the Habsburgs, Napoleon or Hitler. In that sense the war against Hitler was perfect continuation of their traditional policy, except for the fact there wasn't a proxy army left anymore. (Russia wasn't much of an ally until Hitler attacked it)

	05-04-2004 09:14									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If Hitler had been treated in the traditional way, a deal would have been done.

Churchill kept Britain in the war beyond the point of reason.

	05-04-2004 09:19									#113
	Put an end to popups!

Are you being serious AH or are you planting troll bait?

Could the same thing be said of Britain in the WW1? They kept themselves in beyond the point of reason?

	05-04-2004 09:47									#114
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Are you being serious AH or are you planting troll bait?

He's being trollish. There was no way the UK was going to grant Germany hegemony. The only traditional strategy the Brits followed was buck passing.

	05-04-2004 10:25									#115
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Could the same thing be said of Britain in the WW1? They kept themselves in beyond the point of reason?

If France had fallen in WWI Britain would certainly have been looking for a negotiated settlement with Germany.

	05-04-2004 12:33									#116
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Just like she did after France in '40 when she really did stand alone, right Horsie?

	05-04-2004 15:28									#117
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DataAeolus At its height the total landmass of the British Empire was 300% of England herself.

errr, dude look at a map. take canada for example, on its own it's a damn sight more than 3x the size of england...

	05-04-2004 22:58									#118
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: If France had fallen in WWI Britain would certainly have been looking for a negotiated settlement with Germany.

I agree with this. If France fell, there would have been peace made. Britain would have tried to start a counterbalancing alliance soon afterwards though... perhaps trying to bring Austria-Hungary to a neutral side and Italy to within Britain's friendship.

	06-04-2004 04:35									#119
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Just like she did after France in '40 when she really did stand alone, right Horsie?

This is the point. Churchill was saved by Hitler's invasion of Russia and the Japanese attack. Had the military disasters continued, as they would have without US and Russian entry into the war, Britain would have had to make peace and Churchill with his policy of belligerence beyond reason would have fallen from power.

What would have triggered this? A threat to the empire, particularly anything that threatened communications to India, the jewel in the crown, such as the fall of Egypt and the canal zone.

Fortunately for the allies, Hitler was too impatient.

	06-04-2004 05:01									#120
	Suffering from ads?

OK. You make some sense, but they did fight practcally alone, along with the Commonwealth, for a little over a year in '40-'41. During that time, the threat to Britain itself was greater than it ever could have been in '15, '16 or '17.

On your side, had the French been forced to terms, they would likely have had to give up a border province or two and recognise German gains in Poland and the Ukraine as well as the Austrian position in the Balkans. It wouldn't have been the same choice for Asquith or Lloyd George that Churchill faced.

However even given that, saying that the Brits would have accepted German hegemony on the continent in that case is still a little suspect considering what they did in the case of both Boney and Hitler. I would still say that your supposition contradicts the observed behaviour of the Brits for the last longest while.