If America remains British, can Britain rule the world?

TFSmith121

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.

With regards to Australia, the AIF and AMF divide is obvious. Volunteering to defend Australia is one thing; not volunteering to defend the Empire is something else.

Best,
 
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,

On that point, one thing I've always found interesting is how Washington only joined the revolutionary cause because he was pissed he wasn't promoted in the british army.
 
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.

In practical terms, there needn't be much difference between "an alliance between nation states" and "an empire".

Heck, after Canada et al. were granted dominion status, the British Empire arguably *was* an alliance between nation states. By WW2 they even had a choice of whether or not to join in Britain's wars: Canada, Australia and New Zealand independently declared war on Germany, whereas Ireland chose to stay out.

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.

Passed on 11 December 1931, the act, either immediately or upon ratification, effectively both established the legislative independence of the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire from the United Kingdom and bound them all to seek each other's approval for changes to monarchical titles and the common line of succession. It thus became a statutory embodiment of the principles of equality and common allegiance to the Crown set out in the Balfour Declaration of 1926. It thus had the effect of making the Dominions sovereign nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931

Last I checked, 1931 is earlier than 1945, and "effectively establishing the legislative independence of the self-governing Dominions" counts as "sharing power".

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.

Lolwut? As HowAboutThisForAName said, over one-third of the Australian male population volunteered in WW1. Or are you going to pull the "yeah but that means two-thirds didn't" move now?
 
In practical terms, there needn't be much difference between "an alliance between nation states" and "an empire".

Heck, after Canada et al. were granted dominion status, the British Empire arguably *was* an alliance between nation states. By WW2 they even had a choice of whether or not to join in Britain's wars: Canada, Australia and New Zealand independently declared war on Germany, whereas Ireland chose to stay out.



Passed on 11 December 1931, the act, either immediately or upon ratification, effectively both established the legislative independence of the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire from the United Kingdom and bound them all to seek each other's approval for changes to monarchical titles and the common line of succession. It thus became a statutory embodiment of the principles of equality and common allegiance to the Crown set out in the Balfour Declaration of 1926. It thus had the effect of making the Dominions sovereign nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931

Last I checked, 1931 is earlier than 1945, and "effectively establishing the legislative independence of the self-governing Dominions" counts as "sharing power".



Lolwut? As HowAboutThisForAName said, over one-third of the Australian male population volunteered in WW1. Or are you going to pull the "yeah but that means two-thirds didn't" move now?
True,just like how the Delian League's often referred as the Athenian Empire.
 
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,

If the USA didn't already exist I think you would say that a super state so large couldn't function
 
Please, provide an example of an integrated democratically governed nation state in the modern era divided by the Atlantic, Pacific, or any other ocean.

Thanks

France and French Guyana?

If you just need water East and West Malaysia or Indonesia also work
 
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.

Agreed. I don't think Ireland makes much sense as a reference point, because not even Britain deployed a ton of men there, and the entire island was viewed as a headache more than anything by 1920.

So in other words, the only example we have of some sort of transatlantic ethnically homogenous state during the period with a unified foreign policy is... The OTL British Empire. :p
 
If the USA didn't already exist I think you would say that a super state so large couldn't function

Especially because, until the transcontinental railway was completed, travelling across the Atlantic from London to New York was actually quicker, easier, safer and cheaper than travelling across the US from New York to California.
 
Agreed. I don't think Ireland makes much sense as a reference point, because not even Britain deployed a ton of men there, and the entire island was viewed as a headache more than anything by 1920.

So in other words, the only example we have of some sort of transatlantic ethnically homogenous state during the period with a unified foreign policy is... The OTL British Empire. :p

Was there actually any call-up of colonial volunteers during the Irish war? I don't recall any, in which case, the absence of colonial volunteers is kinda moot...
 
Was there actually any call-up of colonial volunteers during the Irish war? I don't recall any, in which case, the absence of colonial volunteers is kinda moot...

No, there was not.

But TFSmith is right. The idea of a North American liberal democracy with strong ties to Britain, economically, culturally, and in foreign policy, strains credulity. Can you imagine Americans gushing over some baby born to a British prince? :p
 

TFSmith121

Banned
On that point, one thing I've always found interesting is how Washington only joined the revolutionary cause because he was pissed he wasn't promoted in the british army.

If you really think that's the only reason, there's not much point.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No, there was not.

But TFSmith is right. The idea of a North American liberal democracy with strong ties to Britain, economically, culturally, and in foreign policy, strains credulity. Can you imagine Americans gushing over some baby born to a British prince? :p

Can you imagine a British prime minister being the poodle of an American president's efforts to redraw the map in Southwest Asia?

On wait.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Before the war began, almost everyone in the colonies was a British loyalist; amazingly enough, denial of basic political rights - including military occupation of what were allegedly loyal subjects and with no right of redress other than 3000 miles away across the Atlantic in London - led to war.

Who ever would have expected that not sharing - much less not transferring - political power would have led to such a result?

Best,
 
I'm not sure why you think that America and Britain have irreconcilable differences, given the voices in support of compromise on both sides, and the historic experience of the actual British Empire.
 
Before the war began, almost everyone in the colonies was a British loyalist; amazingly enough, denial of basic political rights - including military occupation of what were allegedly loyal subjects and with no right of redress other than 3000 miles away across the Atlantic in London - led to war.

Who ever would have expected that not sharing - much less not transferring - political power would have led to such a result?

Best,
Putting the blame solely on the UK parliament is disingenuous of you. A lot of issues were reactions to illegal smuggling and colonials refusing to raise or pay for troops (thereby leading to non-colonial troops having to be stationed).
Parliament does have a large part to blame but making the colonials out to be only victims is like saying "you weren't to blame when I hit you for calling my mother a whore" (not that you'd ever do that!)
 
Top