 |
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
Suex was seized illeaglly in 1956. And only the intervention of the US government stopped Britain and France crushing the seizure of our lawful property.
It is one of the most misguided things your country ever did, and it was one of the most direct causes for our government refusing to commit anything to Indochina a decade later. Whilst militarily not important a small British presence in that Theatre would have been priceless for you politically and may (nothing more than may) have helped change things. As it is we know what happened.
Do you not realise all countries make mistakes? You clearly have issues with Britain the way you words come across but, and open your eyes here, America is not perfect either.
And ask yourself how that comes across to people living in countries that were democracies (albeit limited) before your country even existed and who banned slavery fifty years before you (pretended to) after your civil war.
And if Britian were Imperial bullies remind me how you took control of Cuba and the Phillipines again?
Neither of our countries histories are perfect - I can see that, can you? |
That's the whole point of this thread though.... in a pro-Brit thread... I have to bash them... I would have done the same thing to a pro-America thread.
I think America is worse than Britain because of the hypocrisy. Slavery is the prime example. IMO conservatives ruin America by forcing compromise on issues that are wrong. The liberals in America compromised on slavery with the conservatives until the Civil War started. And now, the liberals are forced to compromise on just about every other issue in order to maintain civility.
Guns are a perfect example. Americans will spend 4 billion dollars a day fighting terror attacks that killed 3,000... yet nearly 10,000 will die from gunshot murders in America. I doubt it would cost nearly 4 billion a day to get guns off the streets, yet we don't because conservatives shield themselves with the 2nd Amendment... yet when it comes to illegal searches... conservatives are the first to deficate on the 4th Amendment.
I got more.... start a bash America thread and I'll continue.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Andy-Man
|
 |
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
sava, i dontthink you know much about the rise anf fall of british power, and the fact that the UK has the 2nd highest industrial POTENTIAL (doesnt use it any more) inm Europe, it has a plentiful supply of Iron and coal, and high grade oil to. Small islands can be highly industrialiserd y'know, a la japan.
Britain became a great power because of good leadership and the willingness to gamble, and obviously its hegamonic power in the 19th was due to the financial income of the empire...
And the point of this thread was that Britain has maintained a power status *alothough a small one) dues to the fact of the 2Wars. without them Britian would have declined slopwly and painfully, violently trying to hold onto its empire.
as it stands, the UK is still a major economic and trade power, has the most elitist Military, and a fairly large military (still small in relative rerms, but 3carriers dont seem bad to me, along wit about 1000 tanks).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackStone
|
|
London England
Aug 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steelehc
Don't get me wrong. I like Britain. America's only true ally, and the only one that has stuck with us for a really long time.
But...
The Royal Navy has 3 carriers, yes. However, these are merely 21,000 ton VSTOL carriers. I say merely, because the USN fleet carriers displace up to 105,000 tons. They can still project power, but do not make the UK a superpower.
Steele |
Apparently we have got two of those big buggers on order, won`t see them for another ten years of something, but i`m sure we will have a few wars to make up for that, maybe bomb iceland or something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
I think its the other way round, if the Wars hadn't happend, Britain would have declined MUCH sooner.
So, if it hadnt been for WW1 and 2, britain would have probably fought violently to keep the colonies when they finally rebbelled (a la France), would have declyined economicly, and left other nations to surpass it, which due to war never reached their full potential.
|
The two wars had three major effects:
1) The loss of one million men in WWI;
2) A massive bill for fighting the wars; and
3) The end of the preferential imperialistic trade routes after WWII.
If the wars do not occur then Britain would gain the economic benefits created by the million men who remain alive. This would maintain the British economy.
The two wars were a massive drain on the British government finances and in turn on the economy. So again, if the wars are not fought then the British economy will likely remain strong or at least have financial reserves to keep growing.
At the end of the WWII, the Brits were forced to end the imperialistic trade system which was essentially an economic union. The end of this system created a major economic shock that forced British industries to restructure, a process that took decades.
I think you are right that if the two wars do not occur then Britain would have been willing to fight to keep its colonies, but would they have had to fight?
WWII showed the world that Asians (i.e. Japan) were capable of winning battles against a white nation. That was a huge boost to people trying to win their independence. If WWII does not occur then recruiting people to fight against colonialism would have been much harder.
Also, events in Asia change. The Chinese were able to regain control of their country following the defeat of Japan. If Japan is not defeated then it is likely that the pre-1941 situation remains intact If China is not independent then there is little chance of Mao winning. If Mao does not win then the Vietnamese lose a major supporter and probably not have defeated the French.
The Vietnamese defeat of the French is a major watershed because it is the first time that a colonial power is overthrown. the victory was used as proof that Europeans could be defeated and helped spark other wars of independence.
After WWII, Europeans also questioned the morality of maintaining colonies and America gains the power to exert its belief of self-determination (FDR and Wilson). So if the wars do not happen then Europeans would have fought harder to maintain their colonies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Andy-Man
|
|
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
The Royal Navy has 3 carriers, yes. However, these are merely 21,000 ton VSTOL carriers.
Even France's carrier is quite a bit bigger than that (and has Rafale's on board, instead of Harriers). It's sad that the royal navy certainly isn't what it used to be. It's debatable wheter the Brits are even the number 1 naval power in Europe, let alone elsewhere.''
well, the fench carrier (they have 1 i think) is big but very very expense iand inefficient. And i think it would be fair to say britain has the biggest navy in europe (not buy much though): 3 carriers, 12 subs and quite a few destroyers.
and Tingkai, if WW1 had never have happened, Germany would have industiraly and economicaly surpassed britain totally by 1920, british industry was in big decline also, so withut WW1, Britian would have lost its hold as THE super power, it would have just become a power. number 3 in the world, empire or not. WW1 destroyed ALL its oponents and made them empire lats anothe 20yrs...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
and Tingkai, if WW1 had never have happened, Germany would have industiraly and economicaly surpassed britain totally by 1920, british industry was in big decline also, so withut WW1, Britian would have lost its hold as THE super power, it would have just become a power. number 3 in the world, empire or not. WW1 destroyed ALL its oponents and made them empire lats anothe 20yrs... |
You make the mistake of assuming a zero-sum economic result. Just because Germany gets bigger doesn't mean that Britain gets smaller. The British economy would benefit from the rising German economy. If Germany has more money then it can buy more British goods that adds more money to Britain which can then buy more German goods and an upward spiral is created.
With the stronger British economy, Britain would be better able to maintain its military strength.
Furthermore, WWI did not destroy all of Britain's economic opponents. The Japanese and the U.S. economies are much stronger in 1918 then they were in 1914.
The thesis you initially posed is that if the Wars hadn't happend, Britain would have declined MUCH sooner.
I don't see much evidence to support that claim.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Darkshade
|
 |
Evil HQ, Adelaide, South Australia
May 2001
time: 14:18
|
|
In my view, one factor that played a major part in the decline of the British Empire was the policies post WWI in regards to the Royal Navy.
They fell behind in production and maintenance of their capital ships, fell significantly behind in naval air operations (something they had been leaders in at the end of the war), and returned to the days of the Victorian fleet in being an exalted social club.
Factor in the non-construction of the naval base at Singapore, and power could no longer be projected.
It was still a large fleet, but was a shadow of that of the Great War.
Even the mighty Hood, pride of the navy, was an aged ship due for scrapping in the early 1940s, or at least a protracted overhaul in 1939.
The King George V class battleships were very good vessels, but were not produced soon enough in sufficient numbers to counter the various threats to Empire. The Lion I and Lion II class' never made it off the slip.
The Fleet Air Arm was inferior to that of Japan or the United States in numbers and quality of aircraft.
The British adherence to the naval treaties of Washington and London did prove to be a handicap when compared to the actions of its less scrupulous defenders.
Without the Royal Navy at an optimum level, Britain could not protect her Empire in the manner to which it was accustomed, as such.
And the decline in power of the Royal Navy can be traced to the policies and attitudes of the interwar period.
Thus, WWII was the final blow in a succession of blows that caused the contraction of British power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
the british economy has never declined, GDP has always been growning, but at a slower rate then rivals,. |
Really? What happened to British GDP during the 1930s depression?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
I don't see how anyone can argue that WWII helped Britain in any way....
Look at the most powerful countries economically after WWII: The US, Germany and Japan.
The US was powerful because it didn't have its infrastructure destroyed like all the other world powers. Furthermore, it used that position to help rebuild Germany and Japan. The reason why Germany and Japan thrived after the war was because of this new, completely rebuilt infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the two major powers of the 'loosing' side became so prosperous after WWII.
Britain on the other hand was completely bankrupt and couldn't even afford to switch back from War production to civil production.
To see this, compare two cities which were completely destroyed in WWII: Coventry in England and Muenster in Germany. Coventry is a complete hellhole because Britain had no money to rebuild it, whereas Muenster is a beautiful city which has been rebuilt in the original style of the old city which was destroyed (it is absolutely amazing BTW) using US funds.
This is not to mention that almost all of Britain's overseas business interests were transfrered over to American companies after the wars, for two reasons: firstly as a bribe for the US to enter the war on the UK's side and secondly to try and finance the rebuilding of the UK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Andy-Man
|
|
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Really? What happened to British GDP during the 1930s depression? |
what i meant was, britian is a trillion$ nation today, but it is not the #1 economy, and it certainly was never a trillion dollar nation before.
quote:
it used that position to help rebuild Germany and Japan |
i thought Japan become an economic powerhouse because they weren't allowed to have a military, so the gun vs butter argument wasn't there and there was more money to invest in economy.
and germany is an industrial supernation, so it had an easier time recovering then elsewehere.
but back to the point, what i am saying is, without the wars, britian would have declined in a way that would have probably lead to war wit USA in the 30's of earlier, and by 1914, britiain's ability to fight a total war on that scale was diminished. i am also saying, that if neither world war happened, britain would never have been a victor in the 2 greatest wars in history, and so would have declined and became as significant as Spain has been since 1700's. The wars, even though destroying britian, in one way also kept them in a position to be an international forrunner.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
el freako
|
 |
Bristol, European Union
Oct 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
the british economy has never declined, GDP has always been growning |
GDP figures only started in 1948, but since then there have been three largish falls in GDP, 1973-75 (3%), 1979-81 (5%) and 1990-91 (3%).
Many historical estimates of GDP for the period before 1948 show large falls in 1919-21 (18%), 1926 (5%), and 1929-31 (11%)
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
what i meant was, britian is a trillion$ nation today, but it is not the #1 economy, and it certainly was never a trillion dollar nation before.
forrunner. |
That's a little disingenous, the main reason we are a trillion dollar (actually a $1.4trn) economy is because of inflation.
Since 1950 the level of prices in the US has risen by 527% (in other words what cost $1 in 1950 cost $6.27 in 2001).
That might sound like a huge rise and indeed, from a historical perspective it is, but it represents an average inflation rate of 3.7%.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
what i meant was, britian is a trillion$ nation today, but it is not the #1 economy, and it certainly was never a trillion dollar nation before.
|
But isn't that part of this hypothetical discussion. If Britain does not fight two world wars then its economy could have well have grown faster and higer.
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
but back to the point, what i am saying is, without the wars, britian would have declined in a way that would have probably lead to war wit USA in the 30's of earlier,
|
Whoa. Isn't this a whole new theory.
Why would war break out between Britian and the US when:
- Britian and the US had been at peace for almost 100 years (1815-1914)
-If there is no world wars, isolationist would have remained strong in the US
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
and by 1914, britiain's ability to fight a total war on that scale was diminished.
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
i am also saying, that if neither world war happened, britain would never have been a victor in the 2 greatest wars in history,
[\QUOTE]
Ahh, finally something that everyone can agree on. Yes, if the wars do not happen then Britain cannot win the wars. 
[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Andy-Man
and so would have declined and became as significant as Spain has been since 1700's.
[\QUOTE]
What would you say are the reasons for Spain's decline and are these factors mirrored in Britain's decline?
[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Andy-Man
The wars, even though destroying britian, in one way also kept them in a position to be an international forrunner. |
Did Britain remain an "international forerunner" in the post-45 period or did it become a relatively insignificant mid-size power?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
Germany was a slighty stronger industrial nation then Brritain in 1914, USA was significantly better, USA vs Britian after 1890, no way Britain wins.
|
I think that would depend on where the war was. If Britain tried to fight a war against the US on the American continent the US would have won, but if it had tried to fight on the European continent the UK would have won.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
I read some of your posts, and i saw one of you writing about how europe conquered the world, just to loose it again in two bloody civil wars.
Let me tell you all one thing: Colonialism is´nt passed, it just changed form. The European Union and the US still have 100% economical controll of all the third world countries, and then it really does´nt matter much if they have their own flag and president. The money goes to europe/us anyways.
And dont tell me britain let their colonies go peacefully, what do you guys think they really are fighting for in afghanistan and iraq? "They have weapons of mass destruction"
Israel, the US, Russia, Britian and France. They are countries with "weapons of mass destruction". Israel and Russia uses them, and America is targetting nuclear weapons at the world. If our leaders were so idealistic they should bomb themselves.
Why are all of you so nationalists? Thats the worlds biggest problem.
I am norwegian but i hate my country for exploiting Burma, Nigeria and the rest of them. And i hate them for supporting the colonial wars of Bush and Blair.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-03-2002 19:43
|