RE: article from European Union Times

RE: article from European Union Times (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

breatheasone -> RE: article from European Union Times (12/1/2009 7:59:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: I don't think anybody's being hard on her. She has a history of posting this kind of shit and of retorting with an eyelid bat and a sentence along the line of "I had no idea it was that bad!" every single time. Enough already . Either she stands by what she posts, or she's prepared to put up with the ensuing berating. For fuck's sake. I'm with ya there kittin. There IS a history here plus it's a little hard to not notice the Neo-Nazi stuff i'm really surprised to hear this from you, i know in my heart i have not posted anything intentionally to start trouble or incite arguments, or even to hurt anyone. And i DID say this also already on this thread post #30 quote: ORIGINAL: breatheasone quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Yeah well, I note that you're still incapable of elaborating on the "interesting" article you posted. Not that surprising, but perhaps next time, you'll check your source before posting: not all the stuff you receive in your mailbox is worthy of any other fate than landing facedown on the compost heap. Yes thats true, you are right. i will be more careful about what else is on a site, thankyou for giving me a heads up i appreciate it.

Moonhead -> RE: article from European Union Times (12/1/2009 8:27:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Britain almost came into the American civil war on the Confederacy's side, you know. Supposedly Prince Albert had to talk Victoria out of that after some ship on the trading routes was seized. The disruption of the cotton trade caused a lot of trouble up north as well. The disruption of the cotton trade was a major concern for Britain but there was also the strategic consideration. Britain recognized that the U.S. was a potential rival for world dominance and therefore wouldn't mind seeing it split in two. Interesting point. I'm not sure that Britain had recognised America as a threat by then, though. They were much more concerned about Russia, Germany, France and Belgium (in roughly that order) at the time. I think the worries about America came a lot later.

Marc2b -> RE: article from European Union Times (12/1/2009 12:19:54 PM)
quote: Interesting point. I'm not sure that Britain had recognised America as a threat by then, though. They were much more concerned about Russia, Germany, France and Belgium (in roughly that order) at the time. I think the worries about America came a lot later. Not as a current threat but as a potential threat. There is also the "payback" factor (for the Revolution) to consider.

NorthernGent -> RE: article from European Union Times (12/4/2009 11:36:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I'm not sure that Britain had recognised America as a threat by then, though. They were much more concerned about Russia, Germany, France and Belgium (in roughly that order) at the time. I think the worries about America came a lot later. Not at all. The British government was never overly concerned by Germany because the country had enemies on either side - France and Russia - and between them they kept a lid on German designs. France and Russia were locked in through loans - neither could afford the other to lose a war and contrary to popular opinion the Germans (despite Prussia) spent less on armaments than France or Russia. The three countries Britain were worried about in the 60 years from the mid 18th century were Russia/France/US - those were the three that had the means to cause Britain real problems in her sphere of influence. The Germans were effectively encircled and no one was going to hand it to them on a plate - so they were never really in the game which is why they took a massive risk by encouraging world war one. Germany could not obtain what she wanted through diplomacy so it had to be a war and with both Russia and France increasing their armies it was now or never in 1914. The British strategy with her competitors was always appeasement - primarily because we had everything we wanted and more so we stood to lose most from a war. It happened with France in Africa and the US in the 1890s. And how true it turned out to be as despite grabbing more land in the aftermath of WW1 the big loser was Britain. You simply can't afford to fight a four year war and expect to hang onto the lion's share of imperial concerns - with the benefit of hindsight Britain would not have entered that war - it was felt at the outset that Britain wouldn't have to send much of an army and wouldn't use up a great deal in the way of resources as the plan was to starve the Germans into submission through blockading the ports.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125