If America remains British, can Britain rule the world?

Do the Queens's subjects as individuals most often identify most readily as English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh, or as Britons?

Most of them identify as both. National identities aren't necessarily exclusive; quite a few people before the US Civil War identified with their home state as much as, or more than, with the US as a whole, but I don't see anyone quibbling over using the term "American" to refer to people of this period.
 
See, it could be interesting, but realities being what they are, the "British" would balk at it. Ocean-spanning super states just can't address the realities that all politics are local. It's not the best example, but East and West Pakistan certainly demonstrate some of the problems, and at least they were on the same subcontinent.

Best,

Oh, how can the United States hold together? Do you not know that the Rocky Mountains separate California from New York?
 
He's just baiting you. Ignore it.

And the response to his own statement in post 40 would be The United States ... Hawaii is many thosands of miles across the Pacific from the rest of the country, as are the territories such as Guam.
And Alaska is separated from the rest of the US by Canada, I'm also failing to see his point?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Oh, how can the United States hold together? Do you not know that the Rocky Mountains separate California from New York?

But they are not separated by another power or an ocean, are they?

Again, provide an example where such a nation state has existed, much less lasted. Thanks

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And the response to his own statement in post 40 would be The United States ... Hawaii is many thosands of miles across the Pacific from the rest of the country, as are the territories such as Guam.
And Alaska is separated from the rest of the US by Canada, I'm also failing to see his point?

Hawaii and Alaska, however, do not have more population than the Lower 48. The analogue is, as stated, that Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the heptarchy becomes states of the Union, and said nation state is dominated by the "Americans" not the "Britons."

Not really that difficult to follow.

Best,
 
Do the Queens's subjects as individuals most often identify most readily as English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh, or as Britons?

You know that there are poll questions about this very topic, right? In England, people in the major cities (especially London) identify more as British, people in exurbs and rural areas identify more as English.

Because France and Germany have always allied with each other, compromising on Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland.

Yes, and they stopped fighting each other in 1945. It's not just the horrors of WW2 that made them reset; it's also an economic balancing against both the US and the USSR.

Continental Europe was outclassed industrially and agriculturally by Britain, New England, and the Great Lakes States, as well as the Chernozem-rich region of Russia. Germany only surpassed Britain in industrial output at the very end of the 19th century and never surpassed the US or Russia in agricultural output.

Outclassed in per capita output, not in overall output.
 
To be fair, I think the point TFSmith121 was trying to make is that there are no modern states that have transoceanic or noncontiguous sections where all the sections are demographically similar, rather than a bunch of smaller exclaves and islands that are dominated by the homeland. The real challenge would be having both side's national interests staying aligned enough that they don't naturally drift apart.

Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who foresaw America as the future center of the British Empire before the revolution? That would be a fascinating series in attempting to keep both sides aligned enough that they cooperate and continue to stay united, and the constant compromises and oversteps both sides would take in maintaining it.
 
To be fair, I think the point TFSmith121 was trying to make is that there are no modern states that have transoceanic or noncontiguous sections where all the sections are demographically similar, rather than a bunch of smaller exclaves and islands that are dominated by the homeland. The real challenge would be having both side's national interests staying aligned enough that they don't naturally drift apart.

Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who foresaw America as the future center of the British Empire before the revolution? That would be a fascinating series in attempting to keep both sides aligned enough that they cooperate and continue to stay united, and the constant compromises and oversteps both sides would take in maintaining it.

I think it depends largely on how the Empire is run. If it's reasonably centralised, I'd expected there to be a lot of friction over time, ending either with a split or with the real centre of power shifting to America. If it's more like a defensive league, whose members pool their military resources but run their own affairs pretty much unimpeded, I don't think there would be as much difficulty. After all, it's not like NATO is in danger of splitting up into an American and a European half any time soon.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I think it depends largely on how the Empire is run. If it's reasonably centralised, I'd expected there to be a lot of friction over time, ending either with a split or with the real centre of power shifting to America. If it's more like a defensive league, whose members pool their military resources but run their own affairs pretty much unimpeded, I don't think there would be as much difficulty. After all, it's not like NATO is in danger of splitting up into an American and a European half any time soon.

NATO is an alliance between nation states, not an empire, and given the OP requests that AND that Americans remain "British," it's not much of a comparison.

Best,
 
But they are not separated by another power or an ocean, are they?

Again, provide an example where such a nation state has existed, much less lasted.
Best,

The glib answer is that the British Empire lasted until the 1940s, insofar as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa rallied to the defense of the Empire.

I'm not sure why oceans are more problematic than a transatlantic railway. It would be interesting to compare how long it took to cross America in 1914 to the Atlantic Ocean...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The glib answer is that the British Empire lasted until the 1940s, insofar as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa rallied to the defense of the Empire. I'm not sure why oceans are more problematic than a transatlantic railway. It would be interesting to compare how long it took to cross America in 1914 to the Atlantic Ocean...

Britain's population was far greater than any of the Dominions, however, and when push came to shove in the Pacific, the utter inability of Britain to "rally" to the defense of Australia and New Zealand was made manifest.

Americans figured out there was no return on soldiering for the King in 1775, because London was unwilling to share power, much less transfer it; it took the Australians et al until 1945 to figure that out.

Best,
 
Americans figured out there was no return on soldiering for the King in 1775, because London was unwilling to share power, much less transfer it; it took the Australians et al until 1945 to figure that out.

Best,

Hm. You can be as glib as you want, but I think the idea that London was "Unwilling to share power, much less transfer it" is really unfair, and certainly something Aussies, Kiwis, and Canucks would disagree with.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Hm. You can be as glib as you want, but I think the idea that London was "Unwilling to share power, much less transfer it" is really unfair, and certainly something Aussies, Kiwis, and Canucks would disagree with.

Given the number of Aussies et al who didn't volunteer for imperial service in conflicts from South Africa to Ireland to Chanak to both world wars, and their elected representatives who insisted that their conscripts not be treated the same as British conscripts, perhaps not.

Best,
 

Isaac Beach

Banned
Actually historically the number of volunteers in Australia in times of war has been -self declaratively- one of its crowning achievements. 16'000 from a population of 4 million is relatively substantial, as per the Boer War. 420'000 out of 4.9 million come WWI, or 38.7% of the male population. 730'000 all up for WWII out of a pop of just under 7 million, or 10% of the total Australian population. At this time Australians still considered themselves as a part of the British Empire, a sort of British, and whilst I can't speak for the rest of the former Empire Australia is relatively well known for its loyalty to London up until the Cold War.
Ireland was an internal conflict, Chanak wasn't a war anyone wanted including the British public. The Dominions weren't relevant.
 
Top