America Is Not the Greatest Country on Earth. It’s No. 28

[Tigerace117]

I never said the British would have held on to how much of what would be the whole of America. All I said was if the Americans could do it, so could Britain. Britain expanded its territory beyond what it was at the time and eventually could not hold onto it all so it began to shrink, rather quickly. I’ve already mentioned that. But that doesn’t change the greater likelihood and logic of my point I’ve ever repeated. If so small a force as America had to expand into so large an area, so could have Britain. And, though Britain shrank from other areas of the world, those areas were much more populated and thus much more difficult to govern than even the wide expanse of America. And the total area Britain shrank from was greater than that of America. The fact that America expanded with such a small force, and the logic that the British could have done the same, stands unaffected by your links. Your refutation fails, again.

I already told you how much worse the rebels had it than the British and gave you a reference which gave overwhelming evidence of mistreatment of the rebels by the British. That’s the point I made. You said British leniency to the rebels was SOP but provided no evidence of same when asked, and have yet to do so, that would level treatment between the Americans and the British. I agree that other nations had it worse under the British. That does not affect the point I made. What I said is fact, not matter what you say. You can’t change fact unless you come up with something to refute that fact in the context presented. I offered you the chance and you haven’t taken that chance. The fact that supports my point stands and your weak “treatment in other countries” gambit fails.

Your links are a waste of your time and my reading. They are about what does not change the facts I’ve given regarding treatment of the rebels, nor change the logic of possible expansion by the British west of the Appalachians.

You have yet to answer my question or give support to your "SOP" treatment claim. You have no credibility.

And yet again, you fail at making a case. Your claims that "well, if America could do it, so can Britain" rings false. Despite your British Empire fanboyism, it simply doesn't change the facts.

Where exactly is Britain going to shrink to conquer the Pacific Northwest? What would they be willing to give up?

Singapore? Hong Kong? Gibraltar?

Don't make me laugh.

I've provided a massive amount of information to support my case. I highly doubt you've looked at a single one.

You have literally done nothing but plug your ears and go "nahnahnahnahnah your wrong I'm right" over and over and over again.

 

[Tigerace117]

No bigger or smaller than your "if".

You posed a counter-factual. All we know for certain is we didn't get involved in a way that mattered until we were directly attacked by an axis power, then we went all-in. How long would we have waited otherwise? Would we simply tolerate a Japanese empire in the West and a German empire in the East? It sure looked that way, at least given the sentiments of the times. The public and politicians really didn't want to throw another mass of young men at trenches, tanks, and rockets.

I don't think we would have. We and Japan had been on a collision course for years. As long as they insisted on aggressive expansion in the Pacific, we were going to collide.

 

[Tigerace117]

Pretty sad when you have to take credit for the Irish, who had a beef with the British, as your sole claim to fame.

Even sadder, that upon review, you've claimed glory from largely defeated raiders who made no gains and many of whom were arrested by the American government upon returning to the US.

They shouldn't have had any success at all. They were, as I said, fresh off the boat.

Not to mention;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York

Looks like your "Capitol" didn't fare so well.

 

[JANFU]

Fear not. Trumps going to make America great again. He even wears a hat that says so.

Hat is made in China.

 

[DamnYankee]

Since we're going to engage in stupid hyperbole, perhaps I should ask why you think they care what right-wing fascists think.

Ask one. Duh.

 

[Ganesh]

You'd have to have a fundamentally different crown government for that to work, one which was willing to be seen as "caving" to "colonial rabble". After the first two years of war I think everybody realized there wasn't any going back.

You make a valid point in regards to Quebec, but the French Canadians had been outnumbered in Canada by good Anglican Englishmen basically from the point of conquest onwards. Even though the Quebecois didn't especially like being ruled by Englishmen, they were outnumbered and stuck, more or less.

The caste system hugely helped in controlling India. There was nothing like that in North America. Not only that, but there were still revolts routinely in India.

Yes, it would have taken a change in attitude from the crown, although that was in slow process. Britain offered representation in parliament, and as we have seen, at later dates the expropriation of Indian lands did not pose a problem in other locales. Canada followed a process of evolution from Britain, rather than revolution, perhaps because, in some measure, lessons were learned from south of the border. If the US had followed a similar path, the world's history may have been profoundly different. North America and the British Isles would have constituted just one part of a huge empire that, if similar patterns of population and development had occurred, would have been a colossus in the world. Napoleon may well have been deterred, the civil war may not have happened (Britain clamped down on slavery fairly early), even the two world wars may not have happened, or been restrained to quite a degree.

Just speculation of course, but certainly there would have been nothing stopping a British colonization of North America were it not for the split in the 1770s.

 

[Ganesh]

That's a very large "if".

Not really. The Japanese attack was pushed by militant hot-heads, and some of the wiser folk in the military knew it was a terrible idea. It may not have come about.

In 1940-41 many in the American public wanted nothing to do with foreign wars, although sentiment was gradually shifting. A number of events may have tended the US more towards isolationism, and away from involvement. A Japanese action in Asia that left US colonies and interests alone, for example, would have made war an extremely tough sell for the US administration. A quick German victory over the Soviets, and the utilization of their resources against Britain, may have left the US in an awkward position, secure for the time being in the western hemisphere, but with a now colossal fascist empire facing them in Europe, Asia, and Africa. And it would have only been for the time being, as technology at that time was already spanning the oceans, and making them far less of a secure barrier.

There were a lot of "ifs" around at the time, and the US only fell in line when the show was well underway. As Churchill put it after Pearl Harbor, "those that were formerly half willing, were now half ready".

 

[Ganesh]

Hat is made in China.

But those sweatshop workers in China love him. Even the fat and ugly women.

 

[Tigerace117]

Not really. The Japanese attack was pushed by militant hot-heads, and some of the wiser folk in the military knew it was a terrible idea. It may not have come about.

In 1940-41 many in the American public wanted nothing to do with foreign wars, although sentiment was gradually shifting. A number of events may have tended the US more towards isolationism, and away from involvement. A Japanese action in Asia that left US colonies and interests alone, for example, would have made war an extremely tough sell for the US administration. A quick German victory over the Soviets, and the utilization of their resources against Britain, may have left the US in an awkward position, secure for the time being in the western hemisphere, but with a now colossal fascist empire facing them in Europe, Asia, and Africa. And it would have only been for the time being, as technology at that time was already spanning the oceans, and making them far less of a secure barrier.

There were a lot of "ifs" around at the time, and the US only fell in line when the show was well underway. As Churchill put it after Pearl Harbor, "those that were formerly half willing, were now half ready".

Militant hotheads who controlled the bulk of the Japanese war machine and government, don't forget.

The Japanese couldn't have afforded to leave US interests alone. The Phillippines sits in a perfect spot to sever Japanese supply lines to the Dutch East Indies aka Indonesia, which is what they really were after. They also were arrogant and thought the US couldn't take a hit. Boy were they wrong.

The Japanese and Germans also were only "allies" in the loosest sense of the word. There was next to no collaboration.

 

[beefheart]

I've been to most of those countries on the list (including Malta). All are fine and good places to live. Iceland is a great place, but I can't take the cold.

Glad to see my Ireland is up there too, I'd love to retire there over the summer.

 

[Ganesh]

They shouldn't have had any success at all. They were, as I said, fresh off the boat.

Not to mention;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York

Looks like your "Capitol" didn't fare so well.

You have chosen a rather curious example for this little nationalist tit for tat. The conflict at York was part of the War of 1812, a very ill-advised American challenge of Britain at a time when the US was still a long way from from such abilities. It ended with none of US goals attained, and indeed with Washington burned to the ground, the president and administration having fled for the hills at that point.

The failure to overrun Canada was a particularly humiliating blow for the nascent USA, as from a logical point of view, it should have been a walkover. It was a lightly populated territory, consisting of French settlers, themselves conquered by the British not long before, and American settlers, most loyalists, but definitely not all, and various drifters and riff raff with no special love of the British crown. Due to the war in Europe, Britain could ill afford any significant troops to defend the colony, and the US had huge advantages due to a larger population, and of course, immediate proximity, with very short supply lines.

And just to add salt to the wound, it was the second time the US had been rebuffed at the border, the first was during the Revolutionary War, when the French pretty much did it themselves. President Madison must have had some discouraging thoughts indeed as he watched the flames burning.

 

[Sparky2]

The United States may not be the greatest country on earth, but we sure do attract more than our fair share of rabid fans who adore our cinema, music, fashions, space exploration accomplishments, cigarettes, whiskey, culture, and freedoms.

Maybe we should stop producing hit rock/pop/country/jazz/blues music, and allow the rest of the world to flock to the Scandinavian regions to absorb their music scene.
Oh, wait....


Or perhaps we should stop producing blockbuster, world-wide hit movies that spawn cultures and sub-cultures for generations around the planet.
Then the rest of the world can start to appreciate Norwegian, Swedish, and Finland cinema.
Uh.......

Levi jeans, Jack Daniels whiskey, Marlboro cigarettes, Clint Eastwood, Johnny Cash, BB King, and the Chevrolet Corvette;
They don't rate a number ranking somewhere down near 28 or 29 on anybody's subjective scale.
They stand on their own.

Look, I love Sweden, Norway, and Finland.
I LOVE Germany. (I have family there.)

I love Australia and New Zealand.
I love Canada, and I love Japan.

I love Saudi Ara.......
Oh never mind.
I hate Saudi Arabia.

All in all, every country is unique.
Every nation is awesome in their own wonderful and distinctive way.

You simply cannot compare the United States to any other nation in the modern world.
It's apples and oranges is all.

Or more like apples and hand-grenades.
:shock:

 

[Ganesh]

Militant hotheads who controlled the bulk of the Japanese war machine and government, don't forget.

The Japanese couldn't have afforded to leave US interests alone. The Phillippines sits in a perfect spot to sever Japanese supply lines to the Dutch East Indies aka Indonesia, which is what they really were after. They also were arrogant and thought the US couldn't take a hit. Boy were they wrong.

The Japanese and Germans also were only "allies" in the loosest sense of the word. There was next to no collaboration.

Yes, all true. But take a look at it within the sentiment of the times. In the US, a great many, probably most, felt that the US had been burned by supporting Britain and France during WW1. They defeated Germany, and then the winners went right back to their empires and jockeying for imperial position. They were damned if they were again going to send their kids to fight another war for someone else's imperial ambitions. Roosevelt had already made it pretty plain to Britain, that no matter how things turned out, the US would not support an ongoing British empire and colonies. Many in the public agreed.

A Japanese attack on European colonies in Asia, in that context, would have hardly raised a fury among the American public. As for severing supply lines, there is a big difference between being in a position to do it, and actually doing it. In 1941, the US was still in a race to come up to speed with military production in order to face off both German and Japanese threats. It was not ready in Dec 1941.

If the Japanese were smart, they would have told the US they could do a deal, and then move into the Dutch East Indies in the same way they did French Indochina. Invasion? Hey, not us, this is just a precautionary measure. We were invited. It's OK. The longer they put off the US, the stronger their position would have been.

 

[Brewdog]

I've discovered that any American believing the USA is the best place on earth, hasn't been many places.

 

[bluesmoke]

And yet again, you fail at making a case. Your claims that "well, if America could do it, so can Britain" rings false. Despite your British Empire fanboyism, it simply doesn't change the facts.

Where exactly is Britain going to shrink to conquer the Pacific Northwest? What would they be willing to give up?

Singapore? Hong Kong? Gibraltar?

Don't make me laugh.

I've provided a massive amount of information to support my case. I highly doubt you've looked at a single one.

You have literally done nothing but plug your ears and go "nahnahnahnahnah your wrong I'm right" over and over and over again.

Britain didn’t need to shrink to theoretically expand west of the Appalachians into the Pacific Northwest. Remember, the area of the Louisiana Purchase I am assuming Britain would purchase from France as did America (French-British relations improved after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815). I’m following that model but for taking California and the Southwest from Mexico. And, the “Second British Empire” began in the 1780’s with greater expansion of territory. This expansion continued until 1920, when Britain then controlled 24% of the earth’s land area. It would be doubtful Britain would give up anything. I would just hazard a guess that as Britain gave up territories and allowed those foreign populations (unlike the British citizens of the Colonies) to become independent, Britain just might keep America.

I’ve looked at every one of your links except the last list, for reasons I already gave. If you can give one or two that you think negate my scenario, pick them out and please post them. I’ve responded to your links. I give you a link and you refuse to accept the fact as significant, but you can’t give a reference to back up your refutation of British “SOP” leniency. I answer your questions, you won’t answer mine. I make logical and rational statements that, if you knew your history, you would find reasonable. Even if you had an opposing opinion.

If you want a reference, I’ll give it to you. Pick something out that you don’t know or maybe can’t find the history on. However, I’m somewhat reticent when someone like you refuses to acknowledge or recognize the significance of the referenced facts and not come up with any pertinent evidence to negate those facts when you say so and are asked. If you think I have no factual support, pick out something I've said crucial to my scenario and let's pick it apart

You simply can’t recognize the logical reasoning in my given scenario, or refuse to acknowledge what you see. And, still, you haven’t answered my question or come up with that “SOP” reference. I’ll have to admit, I doubt it would make up for the torturing and death of so many Patriots at the hands of the British.

 

[Tigerace117]

You have chosen a rather curious example for this little nationalist tit for tat. The conflict at York was part of the War of 1812, a very ill-advised American challenge of Britain at a time when the US was still a long way from from such abilities. It ended with none of US goals attained, and indeed with Washington burned to the ground, the president and administration having fled for the hills at that point.

The failure to overrun Canada was a particularly humiliating blow for the nascent USA, as from a logical point of view, it should have been a walkover. It was a lightly populated territory, consisting of French settlers, themselves conquered by the British not long before, and American settlers, most loyalists, but definitely not all, and various drifters and riff raff with no special love of the British crown. Due to the war in Europe, Britain could ill afford any significant troops to defend the colony, and the US had huge advantages due to a larger population, and of course, immediate proximity, with very short supply lines.

And just to add salt to the wound, it was the second time the US had been rebuffed at the border, the first was during the Revolutionary War, when the French pretty much did it themselves. President Madison must have had some discouraging thoughts indeed as he watched the flames burning.

The big thing about the War of 1812 is that the British burnt the White House. We didn't have our best commander in charge of the invasion-- think of what Andrew Jackson could have done-- he'd have gone through the Brits like a knife through butter-- but even so we managed to defeat them and torch their capital.

 

[Tigerace117]

Britain didn’t need to shrink to theoretically expand west of the Appalachians into the Pacific Northwest. Remember, the area of the Louisiana Purchase I am assuming Britain would purchase from France as did America (French-British relations improved after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815). I’m following that model but for taking California and the Southwest from Mexico. And, the “Second British Empire” began in the 1780’s with greater expansion of territory. This expansion continued until 1920, when Britain then controlled 24% of the earth’s land area. It would be doubtful Britain would give up anything. I would just hazard a guess that as Britain gave up territories and allowed those foreign populations (unlike the British citizens of the Colonies) to become independent, Britain just might keep America.

I’ve looked at every one of your links except the last list, for reasons I already gave. If you can give one or two that you think negate my scenario, pick them out and please post them. I’ve responded to your links. I give you a link and you refuse to accept the fact as significant, but you can’t give a reference to back up your refutation of British “SOP” leniency. I answer your questions, you won’t answer mine. I make logical and rational statements that, if you knew your history, you would find reasonable. Even if you had an opposing opinion.

If you want a reference, I’ll give it to you. Pick something out that you don’t know or maybe can’t find the history on. However, I’m somewhat reticent when someone like you refuses to acknowledge or recognize the significance of the referenced facts and not come up with any pertinent evidence to negate those facts when you say so and are asked.

You simply can’t recognize the logical reasoning in my given scenario, or refuse to acknowledge what you see. And, still, you haven’t answered my question or come up with that “SOP” reference. I’ll have to admit, I doubt it would make up for the torturing and death of so many Patriots at the hands of the British.

Your claim was that England would shrink in a certain area to make up for expanding in the Pacific Northwest. I think the Lousiana Purchase might have been butterflied away, as Napoleon only sold it because he needed the money and the Haitian Expedition was a miserable failure. With England in control in the New World, the likelyhood of that deal being made are slim.

British standard operating procedure was kill all the rebels, burn it all down. They did it over and over and over, especially in Ireland. Yet in America.... The worst you get is POW camps which were awful in an era where most POW camps were awful(ships, but still...)

 

[Tigerace117]

Yes, all true. But take a look at it within the sentiment of the times. In the US, a great many, probably most, felt that the US had been burned by supporting Britain and France during WW1. They defeated Germany, and then the winners went right back to their empires and jockeying for imperial position. They were damned if they were again going to send their kids to fight another war for someone else's imperial ambitions. Roosevelt had already made it pretty plain to Britain, that no matter how things turned out, the US would not support an ongoing British empire and colonies. Many in the public agreed.

A Japanese attack on European colonies in Asia, in that context, would have hardly raised a fury among the American public. As for severing supply lines, there is a big difference between being in a position to do it, and actually doing it. In 1941, the US was still in a race to come up to speed with military production in order to face off both German and Japanese threats. It was not ready in Dec 1941.

If the Japanese were smart, they would have told the US they could do a deal, and then move into the Dutch East Indies in the same way they did French Indochina. Invasion? Hey, not us, this is just a precautionary measure. We were invited. It's OK. The longer they put off the US, the stronger their position would have been.

But they weren't smart, in the same way that Hitler wasn't smart. They had good individual commanders, but their overal operating style was unnecessarily vicious-- like a mad dog.

 

[Ganesh]

The big thing about the War of 1812 is that the British burnt the White House. We didn't have our best commander in charge of the invasion-- think of what Andrew Jackson could have done-- he'd have gone through the Brits like a knife through butter-- but even so we managed to defeat them and torch their capital.

Well, no, not really. The British capital was (and is) London, England. York was the capital of Upper Canada, one of several then colonies that made up British North America, at the time a small village in a virtual wilderness. York was destroyed, but it was hardly a defeat. American forces were driven from Upper Canada, and the plan for the conquest of remaining British colonies was about as successful as demands for the end of Shanghaing of US sailors (ie: it was not). To make things even more embarrassing, the American army was driven out by a combination of British regulars, and Canadian militia. Who was in the militia? Americans....or at least those recently from that region, that despite the revolutionary fervor, founding fathers, pursuit of happiness, etc, still chose the British crown. Yes, most of those in the colony were American ex-pats, members of a large part of the population from there who did not buy into the new regime.

 

[bluesmoke]

Your claim was that England would shrink in a certain area to make up for expanding in the Pacific Northwest. I think the Lousiana Purchase might have been butterflied away, as Napoleon only sold it because he needed the money and the Haitian Expedition was a miserable failure. With England in control in the New World, the likelyhood of that deal being made are slim.

British standard operating procedure was kill all the rebels, burn it all down. They did it over and over and over, especially in Ireland. Yet in America.... The worst you get is POW camps which were awful in an era where most POW camps were awful(ships, but still...)

I didn’t say Napoleon would have made the Louisiana Purchase and agree he would not have had Britain won the Revolutionary War. I doubt any other country would buy it. But as relations improved between France and Britain, that improved the likelihood of its sale to Britain.

Is your POW paragraph a response to my request for a reference to your following previously posted claim?: “Compared to the standard operating procedure of the day where rebels often weren't even taken prisoner, yeah, that's pretty ****ing lenient.” (post #119, page 12). If so, do you now mean to say that the rebels were not often taken prisoner? Another point of fact, rebels were not considered POW’s by the British and thus not treated humanely. They were considered traitors.

“Your claim was that England would shrink in a certain area to make up for expanding in the Pacific Northwest.” I made no such claim. Again and again, you attribute words to me I did not state that are significant in your retort. You have no credibility.
You just made a complete post of gobbledygook. I really think your neural transmitters aren’t making it across the synaptic cleft.

 

[Ganesh]

But they weren't smart, in the same way that Hitler wasn't smart. They had good individual commanders, but their overal operating style was unnecessarily vicious-- like a mad dog.

No, they were not smart. But that doesn't change the original point raised here, the US struggled to stay out of WW2 as hard as it could, despite all that was happening in the world, and only got mean and dirty when there was no choice. Freedom was something that could be burned to the ground in Europe and Asia as far as many Americans at the time considered, as long as they did not have to step up to the plate.

 

[Tigerace117]

I didn’t say Napoleon would have made the Louisiana Purchase and agree he would not have had Britain won the Revolutionary War. I doubt any other country would buy it. But as relations improved between France and Britain, that improved the likelihood of its sale to Britain.

Is your POW paragraph a response to my request for a reference to your following previously posted claim?: “Compared to the standard operating procedure of the day where rebels often weren't even taken prisoner, yeah, that's pretty ****ing lenient.” (post #119, page 12). If so, do you now mean to say that the rebels were not often taken prisoner? Another point of fact, rebels were not considered POW’s by the British and thus not treated humanely. They were considered traitors.

“Your claim was that England would shrink in a certain area to make up for expanding in the Pacific Northwest.” I made no such claim. Again and again, you attribute words to me I did not state that are significant in your retort. You have no credibility.
You just made a complete post of gobbledygook. I really think your neural transmitters aren’t making it across the synaptic cleft.

Yes, you did in fact make that claim. However, this is completely and totally pointless, as nobody has convinced anybody of anything and so I'm out.

Adios.

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes, you did in fact make that claim. However, this is completely and totally pointless, as nobody has convinced anybody of anything and so I'm out.

Adios.

It certainly is pointless when you can't make a point, or even cite what you say I said.

Adiue

In summation, let me say...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Ha_XjCuA8

 

[bluesmoke]

No, they were not smart. But that doesn't change the original point raised here, the US struggled to stay out of WW2 as hard as it could, despite all that was happening in the world, and only got mean and dirty when there was no choice. Freedom was something that could be burned to the ground in Europe and Asia as far as many Americans at the time considered, as long as they did not have to step up to the plate.

It took a lot to convince Congress and the people to go to war. Before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt figured joining the war was inevitable. The Japanese militarily stunned the US with a Pearl Harbor punch, but didn't follow through. They lost their chance and woke a giant.

 

[Higgins86]

Whelp, without us;

Iceland would probably be, at best, a floating airstrip for Nazi Germany

Singapore would be part of the tender embraces of the Japanese Empire

Sweden would be a Nazi or Soviet puppet

Andorra would have been annexed

The U.K. would have been starved into submission

Finland would have been caught between the Nazis and the Soviets for practically the rest of eternity, or at least until they both collapsed

Spain would still likely be Falangist

The Netherlands would be part of the Third Reich

Canada would be scared ****less

Australia would be even more scared ****less

Norway would be German occupied

Luxembourg wouldn't exist

Ireland would probably have drifted into the German camp

Malta would have bombed off the face of the earth

Germany would still be "Sieg Heil"-ing up and down half of Europe

Denmark would be occupied

Cyprus likely would have gone to hell in a hand basket even more than it already did.

Belgium would be German occupied

Switzerland would probably have been dismembered

Il Duce's successors would still be running Italy

Brunei would be Japanese

Portugal would either be part of Spain or still under the Estado Novo

Israel wouldn't exist

France would still be run from Vichy

Slovenia wouldn't exist

Greece would be occupied

Japan would still be fascist.

So....

Without Britain the America you know wouldn't exist, check mate.