A Footnote In The History of the UK & USA - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14206804
    This is an interesting video that describes the USA's once secret 'Plan Red', the plan to make war on Great Britain in the interwar years. And the British had their war plan as well. Its no secret that the Navy that concerned the British the most was the US Navy or that both Nations constantly trained for war against their respective fleets. USN Admiral and Geostrategist Alfred Thayer Mahan's idea of the decisive Naval Battle. His 1880 book, 'The Influence of Sea Power Upon History was the bible for the navies of the United States, Germany, Japan and Britain from mid 1880s onward. As Winston Churchill said, "People say that war with the United States is inconceivable but of course it isn't."
[youtube]B3ZbPzL3M3E[/youtube]
Enjoy...
#14207247
The single moment that British and US interests are not aligned, we will not be considered friends. The US bases it's friends and foes on it's own - rather than mutual - gain. That is always a dangerous ideology to face against, and no one should consider this a footnote. The time may very well come when we are on separate sides of a dispute, and the "special relationship" will be the real footnote then. Always be careful when it comes to US foreign policy, especially when Republicans are in power.

Culturally, they have no notion of their place within a global community. Though that could easily be said for a lot of countries, too...
#14207274
There was also a Plan Red-Orange (a war against the British and Japanese Empires simultaneously), and a Plan Green (war against Mexico). Looking through the newpapers from the time period a lot of the jockeying around seemed to centre on the Washington Naval Agreements and who was or wasn't obeying them, and who was or wasn't asking for an adjustment in the agreement.

When the Second World War began, they simply dusted off Red-Orange and developed it, substituting "Germany" where "Britain" had previously been.
#14207326
Rei Murasame wrote:Looking through the newpapers from the time period a lot of the jockeying around seemed to centre on the Washington Naval Agreements and who was or wasn't obeying them, and who was or wasn't asking for an adjustment in the agreement.
The big dispute was over heavy cruisers, the UK wanted unlimited numbers of cruisers but strict limits on the individual ships. The Americans wanted the opposite. This was the issue that wrecked the 1927 naval conference. Meanwhile Japan remained silent and went about building a class of cruisers that were for that time the most capable in the world. Refrence: The Myoko class heavy cruisers 10 X 8" guns, 8 x 5" guns and 12 x 24" long lance torpedo tubes weight 13,500 tons with a speed of 36knots!!!

In contrast the US Portland and New Orleans class cruisers weighed on average 9500 tons, had 9 eight inch guns and could reach speeds of 32knots. The British Heavy cruisers such as the Exeter weighed 8300 tons, had 6 x 8" guns and could reach speeds of 32 knots.

SpaciousBox wrote:The single moment that British and US interests are not aligned, we will not be considered friends.
This is true of all Allies. By their nature they are temporary bed mates.
SpaciousBox wrote:The US bases it's friends and foes on it's own - rather than mutual - gain.
So do the British unless you feel that the British empire was primarily an altruistic concern. The fact is that all nations that choose to project force around the globe are worried about themselves FIRST. Reference: The British Empires active support of the Confederacy (everything short of intervention) during our civil war and plans to invade the US through Canada to ensure a steady supply of 'Cotton' for its textile mills BUT the instant Egyptian and Indian cotton was available in quantity the British dropped the Confederacy like a hot potato.
SpaciousBox wrote:That is always a dangerous ideology to face against, and no one should consider this a footnote.
Indeed Allies should keep an eye on each other.
SpaciousBox wrote:The time may very well come when we are on separate sides of a dispute, and the "special relationship" will be the real footnote then. Always be careful when it comes to US foreign policy, especially when Republicans are in power.
Actually you have more to fear from the Democrats
SpaciousBox wrote:Culturally, they have no notion of their place within a global community. Though that could easily be said for a lot of countries, too...
Don't be absurd there is no such thing as the 'global community' its a predator prey situation. Aren't you glad that you are a member of the UK a predator nation just like the USA?

The big 'slow' stab in the back for you guys is going to come from your beloved EU. Can't you feel it twisting as we speak?
#14207412
I suppose the question is if you believe that sort of selfless reality is ok. Don't get me wrong, I believe whole heartedly that nations need to put their citizens first - there really isn't any other way to do it - but we very much are part of a global community, because we all share the same pool of resources and the same planet. We can either accept this, and thus accept some form of mutual cooperation, or we can go out into the world looking for us us us, even at the expense of others.

Now I personally am not in favour of the latter, and would be far more interested in focusing my efforts onto the former - with the benefits that come with it. I do not support the British empire, though also bare no bad-will towards it's actors. The last couple of centuries were culturally that way; conquest, imperialism, might equals right and a very much winner takes all mentality. People from that age can hardly be condemned for that mind-set, yet with the growth of enlightenment values and the Post-modern age, we as a species are starting to challenge those old world values. It's time to grow up and put that behind us. A long time coming? - yep. But in terms of old world vs new, America is very much old world, which makes it dangerous.

As for the EU, they are an organisation I don't think I'll ever get my head around. There is a very strange blend of true co-operation and old-style economic imperialism, and I can't really tell you which will win out. I'm in favour of Europe as an idea, but not fond of the centralisation that seems to be taking place - especially with the more recent federalisation of economic policy. I am pleased Britain didn't sign it's budget over to Brussels.
#14207464
SpaciousBox wrote:I suppose the question is if you believe that sort of selfless reality is ok. Don't get me wrong, I believe whole heartedly that nations need to put their citizens first - there really isn't any other way to do it - but we very much are part of a global community, because we all share the same pool of resources and the same planet. We can either accept this, and thus accept some form of mutual cooperation, or we can go out into the world looking for us us us, even at the expense of others.

Now I personally am not in favour of the latter, and would be far more interested in focusing my efforts onto the former - with the benefits that come with it. I do not support the British empire, though also bare no bad-will towards it's actors. The last couple of centuries were culturally that way; conquest, imperialism, might equals right and a very much winner takes all mentality. People from that age can hardly be condemned for that mind-set, yet with the growth of enlightenment values and the Post-modern age, we as a species are starting to challenge those old world values. It's time to grow up and put that behind us. A long time coming? - yep. But in terms of old world vs new, America is very much old world, which makes it dangerous.

As for the EU, they are an organisation I don't think I'll ever get my head around. There is a very strange blend of true co-operation and old-style economic imperialism, and I can't really tell you which will win out. I'm in favour of Europe as an idea, but not fond of the centralisation that seems to be taking place - especially with the more recent federalisation of economic policy. I am pleased Britain didn't sign it's budget over to Brussels.
First let me say that was a fine post.

However, I don't know how dangerous the USA is or how old world it is actually. The USA is terrible with respect to bleeding a defeated nation dry..we just don't do it. Look at Iraq, if the Old British Empire had knocked over Iraq the rebuilding of Iraq would have involved ONLY British companies (using virtual slave labor) and the UK would have been getting oil at dirt cheap prices for as long as they could control the landscape. On the other hand the US & UK companies didn't get an ass load of those rebuilding contracts and we both buy oil from a Iraq at the going rate. And we (US) don't need any Oil from Iraq, we can get it at a lower prices elsewhere.

The new European (continental) form of imperialism may not involve military action but it does involve putting poor nations so deeply into debt that they can never get out of it. Once that is done the resources they have become the property of their debtors and the people of those regions end up with nothing. If anything that is even more cynical and immoral than the old world method of conquest and regime change to facilitate exploitation.

But bear in mind that I believe Iraq was a needless and shady affair. If I had it my way Saddam would still be in power, his military would have been rebuilt and rearmed with US weapons (for a price) and he would have been given a clear set of parameters to follow. A couple of those would have been Crush the Kurds, Contain Iran, do not seek a middle eastern empire, Kill as many Islamists as you can (he was already doing that) and forget the Euro**. Perhaps a massive air campaign combined with large punitive raids of short duration would have been necessary to urge him into compliance.

**The goal For Iraq was not to get those non existent WMD's or purloin their oil it was to protect the dollar as the world reserve currency and was a defense against the Euro. But that could have been done more easily without much blood loss.

I would really look to China as the up and coming greedy octopus. Once they get a functional carrier battle group or two together watch the show.
#14208448
The British Cabinet at the time openly discussed such a possibility and it was predicted that an Anglo-American conflict would result in a stalemate and to ensure such an outcome, the Washington Conference was held in 1921, which produced a ten-year agreement that fixed the ratio of battleships at 5:5:3—that is 525,000 tons for the US, 525,000 tons for Britain, and 315,000 tons for Japan, thus reaching parity with America. The British government went further to reach an accommodation with America and it dropped the Anglo-Japanese Alliance to show that it harboured no hostile intent against the US but the alliance was the cornerstone of the British Empire's Far East strategy to protect Australia and New Zealand and its demise changed the course of history.
#14208502
Good post ThirdTerm
   Another sticky point for Great Britain was that the bulk of their Battle fleet had been constructed before the battle Jutland and many suffered from obsolescent design features. After the war the British simply couldn't afford to build a completely new fleet. In contrast the American fleet had been rapidly enlarged after the Battle of Jutland and the lessons learned there by the British were incorporated into their designs.

   The United States dumped fifteen old battleships and 2 new super battle cruisers (Lexington & Saratoga)** along with 13 new battleships under construction. But still the United States emerged from the conference with the newest and most capable battle fleet. Then Japan, the USA and the UK started to use their 135,000 ton allotments for aircraft carriers. And starting in the nineteen thirties the USA, and Great Britain started building 35,000 ton treaty battle ships to replace their least capable units once they hit their 20th birthday. The Japanese had withdrawn from the treaty in 1934 and went their own way.

**These two battle cruiser hulls were converted into 38,000 ton 890 foot long aircraft carriers under the terms of the treaty. These could house 80 aircraft and had the same gun firepower as a heavy cruiser (4 dual 8" gun turrets).

Note: The Japanese probably showed the most creativity in upgrading their older ships. A prime example was the complete reconstruction of the entire Kongo class of Battle Cruisers into modern fast battleships. The four ships of the Kongo class were constructed between 1911--1915 and were initially coal burners.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]