Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither

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.

And this was why Churchill devoted so much of his time into trying to inveigle Roosevelt into bringing The United States into what was at that time essentially a European war.

Actually Hitler offered quite reasonable terms to Britain - a global alliance, Britain keeps it's empire - in return for a free hand in Europe. Hitler was an admirer of the British empire and didn't see what he was doing in Europe as much different from what Britain had done in it's colonial empire or for that matter what the United States had done in it's Western expansion. In fact the lebensraum idea drew heavily from the American experience - Hitler was a big fan of Westerns. His major beef with the Western powers was Germany was being prevented from doing what the Western powers had already done in subjugating nations. Mussolini felt similarly. They had a point.

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.

It's true that a key tennant of British foreign policy was to prevent one power from dominating the continent. But the appeasement policy was an integral part of this over 3 centuries. They tried to buy off rising powers and to avoid confrontation. In this respect Chamberlain's policy at Munich was perfectly consistent with British forieng policy traditions. Similarly, when the battle went against them, they would seek a negotiated settlement. This policy went all the way back to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I's time when Britian was dealing with Spain, the super power of the time.

Britain did peace deals with revolutionary France after 1789, and with Napoleon.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
And this was why Churchill devoted so much of his time into trying to inveigle Roosevelt into bringing The United States into what was at that time essentially a European war.

Actually Hitler offered quite reasonable terms to Britain - a global alliance, Britain keeps it's empire - in return for a free hand in Europe.

That last bit there is something the Brits after Elizabeth never considered reasonable, as it would have meant them being dominated sooner rather than later.

With the RN and the Commonwealth, Britain had less reason to come to terms with Wilhelm than they did with Hitler.

Hitler was an admirer of the British empire and didn't see what he was doing in Europe as much different from what Britain had done in it's colonial empire or for that matter what the United States had done in it's Western expansion. In fact the lebensraum idea drew heavily from the American experience - Hitler was a big fan of Westerns. His major beef with the Western powers was Germany was being prevented from doing what the Western powers had already done in subjugating nations. Mussolini felt similarly. They had a point.

I guess it's good you can see they had a point, but I can't say I blame the Brits for an attitude of preferring to go down swinging than to succumb.

And yes, they knew they very well could lose. That is why there were plans for moving the remains of the Royal Navy to Halifax if worse came to worse.

It's true that a key tennant of British foreign policy was to prevent one power from dominating the continent. But the appeasement policy was an integral part of this over 3 centuries. They tried to buy off rising powers and to avoid confrontation. In this respect Chamberlain's policy at Munich was perfectly consistent with British forieng policy traditions. Similarly, when the battle went against them, they would seek a negotiated settlement. This policy went all the way back to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I's time when Britian was dealing with Spain, the super power of the time.

Britain did peace deals with revolutionary France after 1789, and with Napoleon.

Negotiations, accomodations, and as you say it, appeasement, may very well have been favoured to prevent the rise of too significant a power, but once the fox was loose in the hen house, then the Brits would press on 'til that fox was gone. That they did repeatedly.

They were nothing but hostile to France while her power was rising and did not stop til they stripped her of the choice bits overseas in the 18th century.

Then, when Napoleon threatened European domination, they did not really stop until he was gone. btw, there was peace from Mar '02 to May '03, but the rivallry could not be laid aside entirely and Pitt did indeed return. Peace returned when Boney was gone.

No sir. I think you are going to have to look further afield to find support for your thesis that the Brits could have lived happily and peacfully with a European hegemon other than themselves. You won't find many good examples in history since Lizzy.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


as it would have meant them being dominated sooner rather than later.

Where is the evidence for that? Whilst The United States and a range of other powers remained , Germany could not dominate the world.

With the RN and the Commonwealth, Britain had less reason to come to terms with Wilhelm than they did with Hitler.

Actually they had every reason to come to terms - both wars were ruinous for Britain economically. They would have been better of getting back to their strength global commerce.

I guess it's good you can see they had a point, but I can't say I blame the Brits for an attitude of preferring to go down swinging than to succumb.

That was Churchill's attitude but other voices, since muted by the eventual outcome, thought that was stupid.

And yes, they knew they very well could lose. That is why there were plans for moving the remains of the Royal Navy to Halifax if worse came to worse.

So part of the argument was why on earth would you risk Britain's occupation in the first place? For the dsake of Poland? For the sake of France, which had sought terms with Germany?

Negotiations, accomodations, and as you say it, appeasement, may very well have been favoured to prevent the rise of too significant a power, but once the fox was loose in the hen house, then the Brits would press on 'til that fox was gone. That they did repeatedly.

Untrue. Britain did not want one power to dominate, but it didn't want a power vaccuum either. It's also worth remembering that Britain stood aloof from Europe for much of it's history in "splendid isolation". There was a strong strand in British foreign policy that continental affairs were none of it's concern.

They were nothing but hostile to France while her power was rising and did not stop til they stripped her of the choice bits overseas in the 18th century.

Untrue. After each war from Louis XIV through to Napoleon, the appeasement policy was applied and there was horse trading of colonies, often restoring the status quo ante. The Carribean islands are an excellent example. These changed hands several times but more often than not were returned to their former owner, either Britain or France. These wars were essentially mercantile in nature.

Then, when Napoleon threatened European domination, they did not really stop until he was gone. btw, there was peace from Mar '02 to May '03, but the rivallry could not be laid aside entirely and Pitt did indeed return. Peace returned when Boney was gone.

Untrue. There was vigorous political debate within Britain about whether Napoleon should be opposed or accomodated. This raises another nuance of Britain's continental policy - the main sin was not to dominate Europe but to build a navy. This turned Britain against continental powers again and again because they became a naval threat - from Portugal through to Spain and Holland and France and finally Germany before WWI.

No sir. I think you are going to have to look further afield to find support for your thesis that the Brits could have lived happily and peacfully with a European hegemon other than themselves. You won't find many good examples in history since Lizzy.

Well, as I have pointed out, Britain coexisted with a range of dominant powers in Europe. Where they tended to fall out with European powers was over colonial and naval matters.

One good example of this is Russia. Britain was not troubled by the expansion of Tsarist empire and the accumulation of vast territories until 2 things happened - firstly, the expansion of Russia brought it to the borders of the British sphere of influence in the Middle East and Asia. Secondly, Russia started to develop naval ambitions and to seek warm water ports. Then things changed quite quickly and dramatically - the Crimean war being one example of Britain trying to curb Russia's southward advance, the "great game" on the frontiers of India being another.

[notyoueither]

I'll have to catch you tomorrow, Horsie. It is an interesting tack you are taking.

[Alexander's Horse]

Yes, you sleep on it

Think about this also - Churchill was basically a loony extremist and widely regarded as such within British political circles before the war - but Thank God for him because WWII turned into a just war as a result, quite by accident really.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
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.

(bolding mine)

Didn't the U.S. and Britain aspire to parity in naval power after WWI, as the treaties in the 1920s seem to indicate with the ratio of 5 / 5 / 3 (the three being Japan) for capital ships? Of course the U.S. emphasis on aircraft carriers meant that it was becoming predominant at sea even before WWII, though that wasn't an established fact until the war in the Pacific started.

Otherwise I tend to agree with most of your drift, simply wanted to point out that the U.S. was already a Collossus by the end of the 19th century, though rarely was this recognized.