The good news is that I've finally been able to find some gainful employment - I teach A Level history at night school.
One of the modules/seminars I teach is The British Empire in the 19th century.
Now, a lot has been said about the role of PC (political correctness) in modern society and I'm sure folks on this site have their own views on its rights or wrongs. But that is neither here nor there.
The main focus of the module is the rights and wrongs of imperialism. There are people in my class who are Asian/African, and so obviously their ancestors were probably being exploited and needless to say, they think the Empire was not a force for good. Now, being mixed race myself with a grandfather from Trinidad, I can sympathise.
But I'm their teacher, and I believe that an integral part of education is teaching people the skills of critical thinking, presenting all sides of an argument etc and ultimately making up their own minds.
Now, I've decided to do a devil's advocate style piece and present Great Britain as a force of good: cultural legacy, influence on the USA, world trade, law and justice, building railways in India, spread of the English language, taking on the Nazis etc
I'd interested (and appreciative) in lots of views from as many different people as possible, particualry non-brits, on the positives and negatives of the British Empire. Ignoring our current decline, is Great Britain the greatest nation the world has ever seen?
One could argue that the UK is the greatest nation ever.
It was the conflict between England and France in the 14th and 15th centuries that led to the modern concept of the nation state, which became established by 1600 AD in time for Britain to emerge from obscurity to become the most powerful nation/empire in the world, invent the industrial revolution, modern representative democracy, joint stock corporations, the rule of law, the division of labour, the middle classes, and other good things. Let's not forget the contribution of the Scots, Welsh and Irish in this mutual endeavour.
Britain's imperialism while imperialist and no doubt damaging was undoubtedly less damaging and more beneficial to the victims than that of most other nations (the USA is a notable exception). The Raj did the following for India; United the nation (excepting the Hindu/Muslim division). Got rid of Suttee and Thugee. Built the railways. Educated a whole class of Indians and helped establish democracy and the rule of law.
Britain's decline from the first rank of power was occasioned by involvement in defending allies against unwarranted invasion. By the time of Britain's obvious post-imperial decline, the nation state itself was becoming an increasingly powerless and outmoded concept in the modern world.
I do think Rome was greater, but unlike Rome that was, Britannia still breathes. Also Rome was not known for its innovation, just its organisation.
Its about time this understanding and awareness was re-awakened, patriotism has been left to the fanatics for too long and considered 'shameful' by loony left dogmatics. This is a mistake the US has not made, they might have power far beyond us, but its mostly bloat, the consequences of being a far bigger country. Still Americans came a long way and remember what they have done and what they stand for.
Why should Britons, of all people, forget.
No successful invasions for over 900 years, while not sitting quietly on the sideline. Not a bad record.
A 'little' island, that hits hard and paves the way for most of what makes the modern world what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Got to share this one.
Song in second half, note these guys are not racist. People didnt need walk on eggshells in the 50's.
Kilkrazy wrote:One could argue that the UK is the greatest nation ever.
Let's not forget the contribution of the Scots, Welsh and Irish in this mutual endeavour.
And the Cornish...
Anyhow, the current fashion of shame around anything to do with The Empire can be countered to a varying degree by the old Life of Brian 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' argument.
Further, consideration of a couple of points here:
It would appear that the British were the most benevolent of the empire builders of their age, you just need to take a look at what Belgium did to the Congo to realise we were a lesser evil.
How gentle would, say, the Zulus have been if they had obtained the gunpowder weaponry and technology and invaded Europe?
farmersboy wrote:No, you're not. These are supposed to be the finest, highest quality nation we've ever seen; yes there will be flash and mould lines that need cleaning (you'll always get that) but to even contemplate sending them out with missing pieces, miscasts, mould slip, more bubbles than an Aero bar? It's just not good enough...
Kilkrazy wrote:
Britain's imperialism while imperialist and no doubt damaging was undoubtedly less damaging and more beneficial to the victims than that of most other nations (the USA is a notable exception). The Raj did the following for India; United the nation (excepting the Hindu/Muslim division). Got rid of Suttee and Thugee. Built the railways. Educated a whole class of Indians and helped establish democracy and the rule of law.
I wouldn't cite India as an example of British Imperial success, especially as regards democracy, peace, or unity. That big Muslim country the Hindus wear as a hat was part of the British Raj after all.
Now, the Caribbean is a different matter. You guys got a bunch of poor island nations to adopt democratic government despite being population outliers.
Orlanth wrote:I do think Rome was greater, but unlike Rome that was, Britannia still breathes. Also Rome was not known for its innovation, just its organisation.
The Roman army was extremely innovative because of its organization structure.
Anyway, Britain is the hipster of global powers. Obscure now, but popular decades ago, and ironically appreciated.
dogma wrote: I wouldn't cite India as an example of British Imperial success, especially as regards democracy, peace, or unity. That big Muslim country the Hindus wear as a hat was part of the British Raj after all.
India was a problem for the British crown once their interests became threatened and they had to send more soldiers there in order to protect their assets. The British handled their subjects from a distance, sometimes misinterpreting what the Empire should do with their far away demense. This in turn led to disasterous rebellions and eventually to repression. Keep in mind the area has different people and religions and cultures, so not all British policies curtailed all their Indian subjects.
I would argue however that British Imperial was a success; they gave the British a key market to which raw goods were supplied and in turn manufactured goods were sent to enrich the Crown and the Isles. The successful Indian movement to separation from the Crown came about because many of those who pushed for independance came from British educational backgrounds. Finally, the Indian state during the World War period was instrumental in helping Britain and the Allies win the war. Under those contexts, I would say that the Imperial phase of British rule in India was a success.
Now failure to help transition the Indian subcontinent into separate states was a failure.
The early Ottoman Empire was pretty cool in terms of tolerance of religion for the day and age. A muslim conqueror who didn't force the conquered people to convert or execute them for being Christian or Jewish was something out of the usual. They also allowed autonomy of the conquered peoples as long as they paid taxes and for the most part the taxes was kept the same as the previous ruling regime's tax.
Cold beer, professional wrestling, nuclear proliferation, what more needs to be said. Oh well, you Brits did give us the founding fathers of heavy metal, (Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple) so I guess that's something.
iproxtaco wrote:Want to talk about tolerant empires? The Mongol Empire during the reign of Genghis.
Thats not correct. The Mongol EMpire just shifted all the portable assets of a country back to Mongolia. Most of the conquered countries didn't recover to anything approaching greatness until modern times.
iproxtaco wrote:Want to talk about tolerant empires? The Mongol Empire during the reign of Genghis.
Thats not correct. The Mongol EMpire just shifted all the portable assets of a country back to Mongolia. Most of the conquered countries didn't recover to anything approaching greatness until modern times.
That's relocation of resources. Genghis did not discriminate due to race or religion.
I think the "Great" is becoming a bit of a joke these days.
As for the past, I think we did our fair share of enlightening the rest of the world, though it does amuse me that having spread christianity to the far corners of the globe, most of us can't be bothered with religion anymore.
The best thing we did was to leave English everywhere so that it is now one of the three principal languages on the planet. It means that so long as I don't visit Latin America or China, I don't have to utter a single foreign syllable
Anyway, I really wish we would retire now and become more of a neutral country like Switzerland. Our debt problem could be solved at stroke by getting rid of our floating missile platforms that don't actually do anything.
Flashman wrote:I think the "Great" is becoming a bit of a joke these days.
Suggestion: Change name to 'Oh Great, Britain.' To be pronounced sarcastically.
Flashman wrote:Anyway, I really wish we would retire now and become more of a neutral country like Switzerland. Our debt problem could be solved at stroke by getting rid of our floating missile platforms that don't actually do anything.
I likes the sounds of this. Need to get our hands on some nice Nazi gold equivalent. African conflict diamonds, perhaps?
Flashman wrote:As for the past, I think we did our fair share of enlightening the rest of the world, though it does amuse me that having spread christianity to the far corners of the globe, most of us can't be bothered with religion anymore.
The Spanish and the French did a lot more than Britain. After all, Anglicanism numbers in 70+ million. Catholicism tops the chart at 1+ billion.
I'd definitely given the UK credit for the origins of what is now the modern concept of Force Projection the US so happily employs today though. Thx gents .
Frazzled wrote:
Thats not correct. The Mongol EMpire just shifted all the portable assets of a country back to Mongolia. Most of the conquered countries didn't recover to anything approaching greatness until modern times.
I see someone never heard of the Yuans, Timurids, or Mughals.
The Mongol Empire didn't even move that many assets. There is a reason the Khanates fractured the political structure of the body, and it is much the same as the reason behind the warring Alexandrian states.
htj wrote:So, what, he looted from all races and religions equally?
Yes. The ones they didn't wipe off the face of the earth of course.
The Chinese and all their various ethnicities are still around. The Hindus are still around. The Muslims are still around. So are the Koreans, and the Turks, and the Persians. Hell, even Georgia still exists.
It honestly looks like the Mongols didn't wipe anyone out.
A bit OT but of the same vein. What would of happened if the West had followed a "prime directive" rule form the 1800's onwards. Would the rest of the world caught up? People slate the UK and other European countries for their empire building, but what would of happened if we'd left them alone?
Wolfstan wrote:A bit OT but of the same vein. What would of happened if the West had followed a "prime directive" rule form the 1800's onwards. Would the rest of the world caught up? People slate the UK and other European countries for their empire building, but what would of happened if we'd left them alone?
Interesting question. China has a long history of isolationism, but that was driven largely by the West, and concerns over "purity". I would guess that the Mughals and the Ottomans wlould be the big players, at least if Russia is considered part of the West.
Flashman wrote:I think the "Great" is becoming a bit of a joke these days.
Well to be fair there is no such nation as Great Britain, never was.
Great Britain means the greater as in larger land of the Britons, the 'lesser' realms of the 'Britons are Brittany and Ireland. And this only applies to old pre-Roman celts. The name still stands and keeps its original meaning as the major land of the Britons, though the term British has changed over the last two millenia.
Furthermore Great Britain continues to exist as the specific proper name for the very large island just north of France. Ireland, Anglesey Isel of Wight etc are not part of Great Britain, though parts may be components of the United Kingdom, which is something else entirely.
I heard on the radio that a significant proportion of the population of Jamaica now wish they had not left the comfy confines of the Empire, what with poverty and crime etc.
Wolfstan wrote:A bit OT but of the same vein. What would of happened if the West had followed a "prime directive" rule form the 1800's onwards. Would the rest of the world caught up? People slate the UK and other European countries for their empire building, but what would of happened if we'd left them alone?
The US did pretty well for itself after the Revolutionary War, after all we had all of the cheap cotton the 19th century British textiles industry could ever dream of buying. We also did set up a thing called the Monroe doctrine relatively fast that said we wouldn't let European Nations colonize in our side of the hemisphere. All the while we were fighting pirates in the Barbary Coast, America became a pretty balls to the wall kind of country really quick in relations to other countries.
Monroe Doctrine was issued in 1823, shortly after the War of 1812 which ended in early 1815.
If we are going by modern standards, I would say USA, but I am a little biased in that category...
if we say all time...I might give it to the Romans, were just awesome in every category, held together an expansive empire comprised of MANY different types of peoples, furthered medicine and engineering and literature and warfare a great deal. Just overall, awesome.
dajobe wrote:If we are going by modern standards, I would say USA, but I am a little biased in that category...
if we say all time...I might give it to the Romans, were just awesome in every category, held together an expansive empire comprised of MANY different types of peoples, furthered medicine and engineering and literature and warfare a great deal. Just overall, awesome.
The same could be said of the British Empire, though, in spades.
I am not saying the english empire did not accomplish anything, they spread literacy and engineering and medicine to many parts of the world that had NONE prior to their arrival, and the world would have been a VERY different place if sed empire had never existed, but I think the magnitude in which the romans changed and advanced society cannot be matched. Also, the romans were a colonial power 900+ years, how many years were the english colonizing overseas? Alot, but i dont think that many. Another thing is that the Romans had their empire alot earlier than the english in a time when communication, travel and almost everything was harder, and I believe that it would be harder to run an empire without good, communication, transport, etc...
that they did, but that was also over the course of a little more than a 1000 years, can you name a government that has not had one leadership change since the year 750 BC? maybe china? and they have been changing recently
in 1651 the king still had a great deal of power and to say that English government has not changed since 1651 would be wrong. However, US govt has only been around for nearly 250 years which is not that long, but i do think we are here to stay.
halonachos wrote:The United States has always been a representative government.
So has Britain since 1651.
Perhaps you misunderstand what the word always means.
Just over 200 years? Alright, poorly worded on my part, admittedly. The point I was trying to make was that the US is a relatively young country. Rome lasted for well over the length of time the US has existed with no governmental restructures for several periods, so it's not an entirely fair comparison.
US has stuck with same balance of power between Executive, Judicial and Representative branch since its inception in 1787(when constitution was signed). Where as English parliament has had a great shift in power from the king, to the house of lords and now to the house of commons.
dajobe wrote:in 1651 the king still had a great deal of power and to say that English government has not changed since 1651 would be wrong. However, US govt has only been around for nearly 250 years which is not that long, but i do think we are here to stay.
So did Rome.
Oh, and it's probably not accurate to say that the king had a great deal of power in 1651, what with him being dead and all.
Oh, and it's probably not accurate to say that the king had a great deal of power in 1651, what with him being dead and all.
Actually, the funny thing is is that you can be dead and have a whole boat load of power. Well....technically I am not dead. I just pretend to be dead and watch in amusement as humanity does all the work for me in conquering the galaxy while I then go and astral project myself through all of time and space to be all the powerful people that ever existed in human existance.
That is nice, but still doesn't recognize the problem of saying that a country that hasn't always been a representative democracy always has been. If they have been a rep dem since 1651 then before 1651 it wasn't a rep, thus showing that it hasn't always been a rep dem. So saying it has always been one from the beginning like the US is a bit of a silly thing to say.
The USA may be young, but we've been a country longer than Germany.
OK, seriously? Not ragging on the United States here. All faults aside, your country has been responsible for a positive trend towards individual liberty throughout the world and has been home to some great individuals. So please do not get defencive, I am not trying to take that from you. I am merely pointing out that claiming an unbroken political system for nearly 250 years, whilst accurate, is not that long a time, historically speaking. There are many countries that have kept the same political structure for the same length of time and considerably longer. The Roman Empire is one of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Edit: wrong quote
That is nice, but still doesn't recognize the problem of saying that a country that hasn't always been a representative democracy always has been. If they have been a rep dem since 1651 then before 1651 it wasn't a rep, thus showing that it hasn't always been a rep dem. So saying it has always been one from the beginning like the US is a bit of a silly thing to say.
The USA may be young, but we've been a country longer than Germany.
You're quite right, which is why I retracted it in my following post. You could argue that a country that alters it's political system is no longer the same country, though, merely one that shares the name of it's predecessor. It depends on what you consider makes a country a country. But that's semantics, not worth getting into.
i guess thats true, in whcih case, the English have been around for a while... Chinese have been around for a REALLY long time... there have been a ton of nations that have existed and done lots of things, but i'm not sure if nation is what he meant, i think he meant country because its hard to say that my nation (A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.) is better. Thats like saying English is better than Spanish. or My culture is better than your culture. Its impossible to say which is the greatest.
htj wrote:You're quite right, which is why I retracted it in my following post. You could argue that a country that alters it's political system is no longer the same country, though, merely one that shares the name of it's predecessor. It depends on what you consider makes a country a country. But that's semantics, not worth getting into.
Germany didn't just alter it's political system. Before the unification in 1871 there was no such thing as Germany, it was a bunch of smaller states that were part of the Holy Roman Empire. If just paving people exist on a plot of land is enough to consider it a country then African are far more mature as a group than the rest of us, with the Chinese and Native Americans falling behind them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote:its impossible to say which is the greatest.
That is pretty much exactly what is going on here though, and a surprising amount of "White Mans Burden" sort of thinking is being used to justify the conclusion.
halonachos wrote:The United States has always been a representative government.
So has Britain since 1651.
Perhaps you misunderstand what the word always means.
Just over 200 years? Alright, poorly worded on my part, admittedly. The point I was trying to make was that the US is a relatively young country. Rome lasted for well over the length of time the US has existed with no governmental restructures for several periods, so it's not an entirely fair comparison.
We had a Civil War and still kept the same government, hell even the rebels still had the same government.
1: we all misunderstood the question at first, and were talking about countries.
2: once it was pointed out we were talking about nations we switched and i thought it would be impossible to decide which NATION is best. A nation is defined as: A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
how can you compare one group of people with another, thier culture with eachother and saying its better. That is like saying I like pea soup, you like chicken noodle, mine is better than yours. you would reply, in what way are you grading it, it is impossible to say which is best, just that which you prefer.
your logic has greatly confused me...please elaborate on how saying that no single one is better is white mans burden.
Automatically Appended Next Post: this comment is directed at ahtman
Automatically Appended Next Post: halonnachos: we are now talking about nations,not countries, there is a difference, if you want to discuss countries put up a forum about it.
The comments about Great Britain being the greatest country because it brought western values to the world is pretty much exactly that kind of reasoning.
"Sure we oppressed and killed a lot of people and enforced our culture on them, but we civilized them using our own metric of civilization, the bunch of savages".
The US is the greatest nation in the history of known history, and you know why? We alone have accomplished what every other nation in the history of forever could only dream of doing: we put a man, a human being, on the moon, and planted our flag there. The Mongols, Romans, Brits, Chinese, etc. etc. etc. never even came close.
dajobe wrote:1: we all misunderstood the question at first, and were talking about countries.
2: once it was pointed out we were talking about nations we switched and i thought it would be impossible to decide which NATION is best. A nation is defined as: A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
how can you compare one group of people with another, thier culture with eachother and saying its better. That is like saying I like pea soup, you like chicken noodle, mine is better than yours. you would reply, in what way are you grading it, it is impossible to say which is best, just that which you prefer.
your logic has greatly confused me...please elaborate on how saying that no single one is better is white mans burden.
Automatically Appended Next Post: this comment is directed at ahtman
Automatically Appended Next Post: halonnachos: we are now talking about nations,not countries, there is a difference, if you want to discuss countries put up a forum about it.
I do believe that when you define Nation as a large group of people inhabiting a particular country you can call the United States a nation seeing as though we are a large aggregate of people inhabiting the same country...
that is true, that statement is white mans burden. but it can also be argued that medicine, literature and many of the other things brought to the foreign parts of the world greatly increased the "quality" of life. Increasing literacy, life expectancy, living conditions. Do you refute that point?
I take it that you are one of the people that thinks that Americans never should have expanded westward and taken on new territory because it belonged to Native Americans?
is it our fault that we carried smallpox? because people of that time definitely had an intricate understanding of how diseases transferred and immunity...your right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.
It is?
a nation is a group of people defined by a culture and similiar way of life, a country is defined by borders
dajobe wrote:is it our fault that we carried smallpox? because people of that time definitely had an intricate understanding of how diseases transferred and immunity...your right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.
It is?
a nation is a group of people defined by a culture and similiar way of life, a country is defined by borders
Its not our fault that we carried smallpox, but we did know that the natives weren't as immune to it as we were. Hell, biological warfare has been used for quite some time and even though we didn't know why they weren't as immune as we were we knew that they weren't. As an example you can look at Cortez and how he dealt with the Aztec and even Ghenghis Khan's use of decaying corpses as weapons.
Guys, why the pissing contest over who's the best?
I recommend we all settle down for a good old read of Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond and then reconvene for a session of friendly drinks, where I can make fun of people who drink lager while knowing that stout is going to hurt me more the next day.
The United States is unquestionably a nation. It probably has a stronger national identity than most other nations including the UK -- The American Dream.
The reason it isn't the greatest nation is because it hasn't been around long enough and hasn't had the opportunity to so as much stuff as the UK. If the era of nations persists, then perhaps the USA will be able to overtake the UK in terms of achievements, however we are considering the current situation.
China has been around for a long time, but for much of that time it hasn't been a nation, and its achievements more or less ran out in the middle ages.
Obviously I am classing achievements as progress in art, literature, technology, and social and political life as "good" things.
Kilkrazy wrote:The United States is unquestionably a nation. It probably has a stronger national identity than most other nations including the UK -- The American Dream.
The reason it isn't the greatest nation is because it hasn't been around long enough and hasn't had the opportunity to so as much stuff as the UK. If the era of nations persists, then perhaps the USA will be able to overtake the UK in terms of achievements, however we are considering the current situation.
We're not that great.
Especially when 2/3's of the government shuts itself down for budget reasons
And have you ever tried to find good fish 'n chips in America? 'Cause I sure as sugar haven't found any.
ON TOPIC: Britain is likely a high candidate for "Nation of The Year", and I can see many years of good things to come.
Greatest nation the world has ever seen just sounds a tad vain.
US art and literature was never as 'good' as their European counterpart, but then again the US lacked a good number of philosophers and the ability to send things to Europe via road or rail.
The US for its little time of existance has done really great things; the US kicked Europe out of the western hemisphere, created two countries in Africa, was key in two World Wars, developed nuclear weaponry and energy, landed on the moon, created the world's two first metal sailing vessels, developed the base of the internet, founded the United Nations, helped rebuild Europe, and even though it hasn't militarily taken over the world American influence is just about anywhere you go.
Kilkrazy wrote:The United States is unquestionably a nation. It probably has a stronger national identity than most other nations including the UK -- The American Dream.
The reason it isn't the greatest nation is because it hasn't been around long enough and hasn't had the opportunity to so as much stuff as the UK. If the era of nations persists, then perhaps the USA will be able to overtake the UK in terms of achievements, however we are considering the current situation.
We're not that great.
Especially when 2/3's of the government shuts itself down for budget reasons
And have you ever tried to find good fish 'n chips in America? 'Cause I sure as sugar haven't found any.
ON TOPIC: Britain is likely a high candidate for "Nation of The Year", and I can see many years of good things to come.
Greatest nation the world has ever seen just sounds a tad vain.
True, though if you want to think about such things there must be one and the UK is a good candidate.
dajobe wrote:US has stuck with same balance of power between Executive, Judicial and Representative branch since its inception in 1787(when constitution was signed). Where as English parliament has had a great shift in power from the king, to the house of lords and now to the house of commons.
No we haven't. The Executive branch has grown much more powerful over the past 150 years (Primarily this can be traced back to the Civil War) while the legislative branch has grown somewhat weaker (14th Amendment, Progressive Era reforms to the Senate, and the increasing massiveness of the Federal bureaucracy under the Executive Branch). Some could argue the Judicial Branch grew radically more powerful as a result of the 14th Amendment and it's Constitutional implications on the application of Federal Law and State Law.
created the world's two first metal sailing vessels
French and Brits had them before us. We were just the first to use them in warfare. The Civil War in general was a mile stone for warfare. It began the transition from Napoleonic into the current Modern War. There's a reason even people in Europe often know a lot about it.
Kilkrazy wrote:The United States is unquestionably a nation. It probably has a stronger national identity than most other nations including the UK -- The American Dream.
The reason it isn't the greatest nation is because it hasn't been around long enough and hasn't had the opportunity to so as much stuff as the UK. If the era of nations persists, then perhaps the USA will be able to overtake the UK in terms of achievements, however we are considering the current situation.
China has been around for a long time, but for much of that time it hasn't been a nation, and its achievements more or less ran out in the middle ages.
Obviously I am classing achievements as progress in art, literature, technology, and social and political life as "good" things.
I'm sorry? What? The US was the first nation to harness and weaponize the power of the atom. The US was the first (and only) nation to put a man on the moon. The US was the first (and only) nation to send a probe out beyond the solar system. The US has a larger Navy than the next ten navies combined (and lets not even mention the rest of the US military, the Marine Corps alone is larger and more capable than most nations entire military forces), an achievement that Great Britain/the UK, at the height of its power, could only dream of. Americans are responsible for manned powered flight, the telephone, usable electricity, radios, automobiles, microwave ovens, nuclear energy, satellite communications, gps, and a host of other technologies that are necessary for luxurious modern day lifestyles. US music, television, and films have dominated the world scene for the last half century. Hollywood produces films that have global appeal and in many nations outstrips the popularity of their own domestic movie industry. American culture and history has influenced and inspired foreign writers and filmmakers, resulting in works of literature such as Winnetou, massively beloved by German and other European populations, as well as Spaghetti Western films that have defined that genre. American culture has permeated the world scene, I can go to almost any nation in the world and find at least one native of that country wearing a Yankees cap or some other article clothing relating to American sports, culture, or entertainment. In some parts of the world, especially in the western hemisphere, this is the norm, rather than the exception. The US still has 'colonies' all around the globe: Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway, etc. not to mention a global network of military bases, the sun truly never does set on the United States. At one time or another, the US controlled or occupied the Panama Canal, the Phillippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Veracruz, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Greenland, Iceland, Austria, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I can find a McDonalds in almost any corner of our spherical globe. What exactly has Great Britain done in terms of achievement that could possibly hope to outclass the US? You had a global empire, this is true and a powerful navy (that in relative terms was never nearly as powerful as the current US Navy), and during the British Invasion period you threw some pretty great bands our way, but chances are you'll hear people listening to just as many (if not more) American bands being listened to on the world scene as you would British.
Kilkrazy wrote:The United States is unquestionably a nation. It probably has a stronger national identity than most other nations including the UK -- The American Dream.
The reason it isn't the greatest nation is because it hasn't been around long enough and hasn't had the opportunity to so as much stuff as the UK. If the era of nations persists, then perhaps the USA will be able to overtake the UK in terms of achievements, however we are considering the current situation.
China has been around for a long time, but for much of that time it hasn't been a nation, and its achievements more or less ran out in the middle ages.
Obviously I am classing achievements as progress in art, literature, technology, and social and political life as "good" things.
I'm sorry? What? The US was the first nation to harness and weaponize the power of the atom. The US was the first (and only) nation to put a man on the moon. The US was the first (and only) nation to send a probe out beyond the solar system. The US has a larger Navy than the next ten navies combined (and lets not even mention the rest of the US military, the Marine Corps alone is larger and more capable than most nations entire military forces), an achievement that Great Britain/the UK, at the height of its power, could only dream of. Americans are responsible for manned powered flight, the telephone, usable electricity, radios, automobiles, microwave ovens, nuclear energy, satellite communications, gps, and a host of other technologies that are necessary for luxurious modern day lifestyles. US music, television, and films have dominated the world scene for the last half century. Hollywood produces films that have global appeal and in many nations outstrips the popularity of their own domestic movie industry. American culture and history has influenced and inspired foreign writers and filmmakers, resulting in works of literature such as Winnetou, massively beloved by German and other European populations, as well as Spaghetti Western films that have defined that genre. American culture has permeated the world scene, I can go to almost any nation in the world and find at least one native of that country wearing a Yankees cap or some other article clothing relating to American sports, culture, or entertainment. In some parts of the world, especially in the western hemisphere, this is the norm, rather than the exception. The US still has 'colonies' all around the globe: Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway, etc. not to mention a global network of military bases, the sun truly never does set on the United States. At one time or another, the US controlled or occupied the Panama Canal, the Phillippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Veracruz, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Greenland, Iceland, Austria, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I can find a McDonalds in almost any corner of our spherical globe. What exactly has Great Britain done in terms of achievement that could possibly hope to outclass the US? You had a global empire, this is true and a powerful navy (that in relative terms was never nearly as powerful as the current US Navy), and during the British Invasion period you threw some pretty great bands our way, but chances are you'll hear people listening to just as many (if not more) American bands being listened to on the world scene as you would British.
I'm sure if i could be bothered i could make a block of text far larger than that one but i really can't be...
Also @Dajobe please stop saying England and not the UK. They are not the same things and everytime you say it the Welsh, Scottish and Irish get very irate.
pruplefood, that was just 5 minutes off the top of my head, I could make an even bigger block of text than that, I just chose to highlight the important bits, and even now I'm realizing I missed stuff, like wall street, the fact that global trading is done using the US Dollar, the worlds economy is more or less slave-rigged to the US, etc. etc. etc.
purplefood wrote:
Also @Dajobe please stop saying England and not the UK. They are not the same things and everytime you say it the Welsh, Scottish and Irish get very irate.
Take into account the relative sizes of each nation and then weigh them on their achievements...
It's easy to do things when you're big.
Making one of the biggest empires in the history of mankind starting from a country that is pretty damn small when you get down to it is fairly impressive.
Incidentally i found out that my home city is almost a thousand years old today... you learn something new everyday.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Also @Dajobe please stop saying England and not the UK. They are not the same things and everytime you say it the Welsh, Scottish and Irish get very irate.
Yeah but let's be honest, they don't count
Shush...
If they hear you it'll be braveheart all over again and we don't have the option to execute them any more...
purplefood wrote:Take into account the relative sizes of each nation and then weigh them on their achievements...
It's easy to do things when you're big.
Making one of the biggest empires in the history of mankind starting from a country that is pretty damn small when you get down to it is fairly impressive.
Incidentally i found out that my home city is almost a thousand years old today... you learn something new everyday.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Also @Dajobe please stop saying England and not the UK. They are not the same things and everytime you say it the Welsh, Scottish and Irish get very irate.
Yeah but let's be honest, they don't count
Shush...
If they hear you it'll be braveheart all over again and we don't have the option to execute them any more...
Making one of the biggest empires in the history of mankind starting from a country that is pretty damn small when you get down to it is fairly impressive.
Incidentally i found out that my home city is almost a thousand years old today... you learn something new everyday.
Thats the thing, the US started out as a very small little sliver of territory with a smaller population than even jolly ole england had, whats more it was in fact 13 separate countries, each one of which was individually smaller, that united for a common purpose. Just throwing it out there because its a little known fact in my own country,so I can only imagine that its totally unknown outside of it, but the US is in fact 50 separate nations that share sovereignty with the federal government. Thats why its the United STATES and not United STATE. This is not so much the case any longer due to the rise of federal power around the time period of the Great Depression and WW2, but the early United States was very much different than it is today, with the States being considerably more powerful and relatively independent.
Kilkrazy wrote:The United States is unquestionably a nation. It probably has a stronger national identity than most other nations including the UK -- The American Dream.
The reason it isn't the greatest nation is because it hasn't been around long enough and hasn't had the opportunity to so as much stuff as the UK. If the era of nations persists, then perhaps the USA will be able to overtake the UK in terms of achievements, however we are considering the current situation.
China has been around for a long time, but for much of that time it hasn't been a nation, and its achievements more or less ran out in the middle ages.
Obviously I am classing achievements as progress in art, literature, technology, and social and political life as "good" things.
I'm sorry? What? The US was the first nation to harness and weaponize the power of the atom. The US was the first (and only) nation to put a man on the moon. The US was the first (and only) nation to send a probe out beyond the solar system. The US has a larger Navy than the next ten navies combined (and lets not even mention the rest of the US military, the Marine Corps alone is larger and more capable than most nations entire military forces), an achievement that Great Britain/the UK, at the height of its power, could only dream of. Americans are responsible for manned powered flight, the telephone, usable electricity, radios, automobiles, microwave ovens, nuclear energy, satellite communications, gps, and a host of other technologies that are necessary for luxurious modern day lifestyles. US music, television, and films have dominated the world scene for the last half century. Hollywood produces films that have global appeal and in many nations outstrips the popularity of their own domestic movie industry. American culture and history has influenced and inspired foreign writers and filmmakers, resulting in works of literature such as Winnetou, massively beloved by German and other European populations, as well as Spaghetti Western films that have defined that genre. American culture has permeated the world scene, I can go to almost any nation in the world and find at least one native of that country wearing a Yankees cap or some other article clothing relating to American sports, culture, or entertainment. In some parts of the world, especially in the western hemisphere, this is the norm, rather than the exception. The US still has 'colonies' all around the globe: Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway, etc. not to mention a global network of military bases, the sun truly never does set on the United States. At one time or another, the US controlled or occupied the Panama Canal, the Phillippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Veracruz, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Greenland, Iceland, Austria, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I can find a McDonalds in almost any corner of our spherical globe. What exactly has Great Britain done in terms of achievement that could possibly hope to outclass the US? You had a global empire, this is true and a powerful navy (that in relative terms was never nearly as powerful as the current US Navy), and during the British Invasion period you threw some pretty great bands our way, but chances are you'll hear people listening to just as many (if not more) American bands being listened to on the world scene as you would British.
purplefood wrote:Take into account the relative sizes of each nation and then weigh them on their achievements...
It's easy to do things when you're big.
Making one of the biggest empires in the history of mankind starting from a country that is pretty damn small when you get down to it is fairly impressive.
Incidentally i found out that my home city is almost a thousand years old today... you learn something new everyday.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Also @Dajobe please stop saying England and not the UK. They are not the same things and everytime you say it the Welsh, Scottish and Irish get very irate.
Yeah but let's be honest, they don't count
Shush...
If they hear you it'll be braveheart all over again and we don't have the option to execute them any more...
Making one of the biggest empires in the history of mankind starting from a country that is pretty damn small when you get down to it is fairly impressive.
Incidentally i found out that my home city is almost a thousand years old today... you learn something new everyday.
Thats the thing, the US started out as a very small little sliver of territory with a smaller population than even jolly ole england had, whats more it was in fact 13 separate countries, each one of which was individually smaller, that united for a common purpose. Just throwing it out there because its a little known fact in my own country,so I can only imagine that its totally unknown outside of it, but the US is in fact 50 separate nations that share sovereignty with the federal government. Thats why its the United STATES and not United STATE. This is not so much the case any longer due to the rise of federal power around the time period of the Great Depression and WW2, but the early United States was very much different than it is today, with the States being considerably more powerful and relatively independent.
Hooboy. Breaking it down into readable texts and responses...
chaos0xomega wrote:[
I'm sorry? What? The US was the first nation to harness and weaponize the power of the atom.
With the aid of a considerable amount of British research, and scientists from other nations, such as good old Albert Einstein. That little project could have been based in Wales and achieved the same result, its hardly something the US can claim sole credit for.
The US was the first (and only) nation to put a man on the moon. The US was the first (and only) nation to send a probe out beyond the solar system.
Accomplishments, true. However, the Russians were the first to put a man in space. And to be frank, if any other first world nation was prepared to throw the necessary money at it, they could do it as well. They've just got better things to spend their money on.
The US has a larger Navy than the next ten navies combined (and lets not even mention the rest of the US military, the Marine Corps alone is larger and more capable than most nations entire military forces)
And the Chinese have a bigger army. Your point? The US has the force to conduct a war to wipe out any third, or even second world nation they choose. But to be honest again, any first world nation would be capable of building a force to do that if they wanted to divert the amount of necessary money. You guys spend a ridiculous amount on your forces. Like the space department, building a crapload of carriers isn't something that would be impossible for the British. They just spend it on things like the NHS instead.
Americans are responsible for....the telephone,
A controversial claim of late.
....usable electricity, radios, automobiles, microwave ovens, nuclear energy, satellite communications, gps, and a host of other technologies that are necessary for luxurious modern day lifestyles.
Sure. And Fact is, technologies have been invented by other people. I could go from the Italian Camera Obscura, to drugs devised under the British Empire. This is hardly something America has a monopoly on.
US music, television, and films have dominated the world scene for the last half century.
Well. They've dominated areas in US influence. I doubt you'd find so many fans in Archangelsk.
But I quibble on that one, the fact is America does dominate the cinema department.
Hollywood produces films that have global appeal and in many nations outstrips the popularity of their own domestic movie industry.
I would question the global appeal part. I must admit that I personally, tend to find 95% of American films a dreadful bore. Most of what Hollywood churns out is pure junk, just the same action films and romcoms rehashed over and again. It's got to the point now where you expect the latest crappy comedy film with Will Farell/Adam Sandler/whoever in, as they're made seasonally. When it comes down to what I would consider to be cinematic greats, many other nations can contest it. Quantity of culture is not quality of culture, I would think, in this case.
American culture has permeated the world scene, I can go to almost any nation in the world and find at least one native of that country wearing a Yankees cap or some other article clothing relating to American sports, culture, or entertainment. In some parts of the world, especially in the western hemisphere, this is the norm, rather than the exception.
I can go to many places and find they drink tea and play cricket. I can go to many previously spanish places and find they consume spanish style cuisine. Again, not exclusive to America. And a tremendous amount of it is down to pure and simple financial colonialism, and attempting to continuously expand. Something which it could be argued, has already reached breaking point, there's nowhere left for American culture to go where it would be considered welcome.
The US still has 'colonies' all around the globe: Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway, etc. not to mention a global network of military bases, the sun truly never does set on the United States.
To be frank, if you're going for the amount of geography controlled card, you're not even in the same league as the British Empire on this one.
At one time or another, the US controlled or occupied the Panama Canal, the Phillippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Veracruz, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Greenland, Iceland, Austria, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
See above comment.
I can find a McDonalds in almost any corner of our spherical globe.
Mcdonalds counts as a cultural achievement?
What exactly has Great Britain done in terms of achievement that could possibly hope to outclass the US?
To be honest, I'm wondering here what the US has done specifically to eclipse us, the Romans, or a dozen other nations throughout history. Military power is only ever relevant for the time necessary (more people on the globe will naturally equal more people in the various armies for example), there have been more invtentions made in the rest of the world if only by the fact the US is quite young, they don't even compete on a geographical scale, and as for cultural influence...well, what language are you speaking again?
The US is a powerful and influential nation, but no more powerful than Britain was during Pax Britannica, or the Romans during their ascension, relatively speaking. Not only that America cultural influence is very new and short lived. All these cultural influences you mention came along within the last 60 years or so. I'm sure if you reverted to the period of the British Empire, you'd find they had considerably more cultural influence on a greater proportion of the world during their time, then the Americans have now.
This is not so much the case any longer due to the rise of federal power around the time period of the Great Depression and WW2, but the early United States was very much different than it is today, with the States being considerably more powerful and relatively independent.
The Progressive Era gets no love anymore. You're also forgetting the very important Civil War and Reconstruction amendments. Power doesn't drastically shift much in the 1930's and WWII for the US (most of the shifts attributed to that time period actually happened beforehand). The 50's is where it's at yo
Kilkrazy wrote:The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.
Great Britain isn't a nation.
That said, GB does contain the most durable polity in the history of the world: England.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:The US is the greatest nation in the history of known history, and you know why? We alone have accomplished what every other nation in the history of forever could only dream of doing: we put a man, a human being, on the moon, and planted our flag there. The Mongols, Romans, Brits, Chinese, etc. etc. etc. never even came close.
That is the absolute oddest criteria for national quality I have ever heard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm sorry? What? The US was the first nation to harness and weaponize the power of the atom.
Without the UK and Canada it is unlikely that would have occurred.
chaos0xomega wrote:
The US has a larger Navy than the next ten navies combined (and lets not even mention the rest of the US military, the Marine Corps alone is larger and more capable than most nations entire military forces), an achievement that Great Britain/the UK, at the height of its power, could only dream of.
Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Vietnam, South Korea, and India all have larger military forces. The list gets even longer if we look at per capita totals.
Your figure regarding the number of ships is also wrong. The US has 286 ships. Russia has 233, Britain has 99, and France has 86. Moreover, thinking in those terms, the Royal Navy at the height of its power dwarfed every other blue-water force in the world with over 500 ships. The British possessed the largest, and most powerful fleet in the world up until WWII.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Americans are responsible for manned powered flight...
There are a lot of claims competing with the one by the Wrights.
chaos0xomega wrote:
...usable electricity...
The list of people that contributed to the development of usable electricity is extremely long and spans many nations.
Ketara wrote:Hooboy. Breaking it down into readable texts and responses...
chaos0xomega wrote:[
I'm sorry? What? The US was the first nation to harness and weaponize the power of the atom.
With the aid of a considerable amount of British research, and scientists from other nations, such as good old Albert Einstein. That little project could have been based in Wales and achieved the same result, its hardly something the US can claim sole credit for.
The US was the first (and only) nation to put a man on the moon. The US was the first (and only) nation to send a probe out beyond the solar system.
Accomplishments, true. However, the Russians were the first to put a man in space. And to be frank, if any other first world nation was prepared to throw the necessary money at it, they could do it as well. They've just got better things to spend their money on.
The US has a larger Navy than the next ten navies combined (and lets not even mention the rest of the US military, the Marine Corps alone is larger and more capable than most nations entire military forces)
And the Chinese have a bigger army. Your point? The US has the force to conduct a war to wipe out any third, or even second world nation they choose. But to be honest again, any first world nation would be capable of building a force to do that if they wanted to divert the amount of necessary money. You guys spend a ridiculous amount on your forces. Like the space department, building a crapload of carriers isn't something that would be impossible for the British. They just spend it on things like the NHS instead.
Americans are responsible for....the telephone,
A controversial claim of late.
....usable electricity, radios, automobiles, microwave ovens, nuclear energy, satellite communications, gps, and a host of other technologies that are necessary for luxurious modern day lifestyles.
Sure. And Fact is, technologies have been invented by other people. I could go from the Italian Camera Obscura, to drugs devised under the British Empire. This is hardly something America has a monopoly on.
US music, television, and films have dominated the world scene for the last half century.
Well. They've dominated areas in US influence. I doubt you'd find so many fans in Archangelsk.
But I quibble on that one, the fact is America does dominate the cinema department.
Hollywood produces films that have global appeal and in many nations outstrips the popularity of their own domestic movie industry.
I would question the global appeal part. I must admit that I personally, tend to find 95% of American films a dreadful bore. Most of what Hollywood churns out is pure junk, just the same action films and romcoms rehashed over and again. It's got to the point now where you expect the latest crappy comedy film with Will Farell/Adam Sandler/whoever in, as they're made seasonally. When it comes down to what I would consider to be cinematic greats, many other nations can contest it. Quantity of culture is not quality of culture, I would think, in this case.
American culture has permeated the world scene, I can go to almost any nation in the world and find at least one native of that country wearing a Yankees cap or some other article clothing relating to American sports, culture, or entertainment. In some parts of the world, especially in the western hemisphere, this is the norm, rather than the exception.
I can go to many places and find they drink tea and play cricket. I can go to many previously spanish places and find they consume spanish style cuisine. Again, not exclusive to America. And a tremendous amount of it is down to pure and simple financial colonialism, and attempting to continuously expand. Something which it could be argued, has already reached breaking point, there's nowhere left for American culture to go where it would be considered welcome.
The US still has 'colonies' all around the globe: Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway, etc. not to mention a global network of military bases, the sun truly never does set on the United States.
To be frank, if you're going for the amount of geography controlled card, you're not even in the same league as the British Empire on this one.
At one time or another, the US controlled or occupied the Panama Canal, the Phillippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Veracruz, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Greenland, Iceland, Austria, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
See above comment.
I can find a McDonalds in almost any corner of our spherical globe.
Mcdonalds counts as a cultural achievement?
What exactly has Great Britain done in terms of achievement that could possibly hope to outclass the US?
To be honest, I'm wondering here what the US has done specifically to eclipse us, the Romans, or a dozen other nations throughout history. Military power is only ever relevant for the time necessary (more people on the globe will naturally equal more people in the various armies for example), there have been more invtentions made in the rest of the world if only by the fact the US is quite young, they don't even compete on a geographical scale, and as for cultural influence...well, what language are you speaking again?
The US is a powerful and influential nation, but no more powerful than Britain was during Pax Britannica, or the Romans during their ascension, relatively speaking. Not only that America cultural influence is very new and short lived. All these cultural influences you mention came along within the last 60 years or so. I'm sure if you reverted to the period of the British Empire, you'd find they had considerably more cultural influence on a greater proportion of the world during their time, then the Americans have now.
The British did a lot too, but then again they got a lot from the Romans and the Norse who acted like bees with knowledge and goods being the pollen.
England itself owned a lot of land, which is cool especially when said lands revolt against you and win.'
United States defeat England in Revolutionary War to become a nation.
Then there was the War of 1812, both sides take land and all is reconciled with the Natives losing out on this one.
Then we have the Monroe Doctrine; the US effectively ends European imperialism in the Western Hemisphere(this is kind of a big deal).
The US opens up Japan to the rest of the world via Commodore Perry and a few cannonballs.
The US threatens Canada, Chile, and some other nations before engaging in the Spanish American War which kicked the Spanish out of the western hemisphere once and for all.
The US aided the allies in WW1 and then in WW2, with the Marshall Plan funds were given to Europe to rebuild it.
Put a man on the moon, sure Russia was first to put up a satellite and a man in space but we went for the whole enchilada. This feat hasn't been done since and sure you can say that 'any country with money could do that' but they didn't.
Became a global super power in under 300 years.
Our culture can be felt anywhere, even near European landmarks you can find McDonalds restaurants(which helped end Communism by the way ).
England never kicked an entire country out of a hemisphere. They fought a 70 something year war that didn't do anything, needed help to beat Napolean and relied on American exports of raw goods.
halonachos wrote:
Then we have the Monroe Doctrine; the US effectively ends European imperialism in the Western Hemisphere(this is kind of a big deal).
Not really, Latin American rebels did that. Well, they did that until Napoleon II conquered Mexico during the ACW, and then there's Canada. The Monroe Doctrine was basically just an excuse for American politicians to whine about the immoral nature of colonialism, no one really cared about it because America couldn't do anything more than whine.
halonachos wrote:
The US opens up Japan to the rest of the world via Commodore Perry and a few cannonballs.
The Japanese forces opposing Tokugawa of course did nothing.
halonachos wrote:
Put a man on the moon, sure Russia was first to put up a satellite and a man in space but we went for the whole enchilada. This feat hasn't been done since and sure you can say that 'any country with money could do that' but they didn't.
Perhaps because it isn't particularly important.
halonachos wrote:
Our culture can be felt anywhere, even near European landmarks you can find McDonalds restaurants(which helped end Communism by the way ).
You know that language you're speaking isn't called "American" right?
halonachos wrote:
England never kicked an entire country out of a hemisphere.
Neither did the US. Spain is in the Western hemisphere.
Actually Dogma, the British supported it(if they couldn't have a colony nobody would).
The English language steals bits and pieces from everywhere, we have german cognates and other fun bits of grammar from other language structures. Don't forget the the Phonecians developed the alphabet and the Romans were using one long before any country.
As far as the opening up of Japan goes, Japan was an isolationist country so we decided to send some ships over there to open up their ports. They told us no and we sent a couple of cannonballs their way and forced them to open up.
Putting a man on the moon wasn't important? You do realize the vast amount of calculations that had to go into doing it shows a bit of something important.
Again, our culture can be felt everywhere and we've added to the vocabulary as well. Jeans, T-Shirt and various other words are used just like that in other languages.
T-Shirt=T-Shirt in English, Spanish, German, and many other languages.
The Monroe Doctrine was a bit of balls in my opinion. We couldn't back it up but we said it was so anyways and it also set a precedence for US influence on this side of the globe. Its why we have a lot of territories and protectorates this side of the world.
I also hear about Einstein being from Germany and other such things trying to dampen the success of the American nation. The point of America is that its a melting pot and once a person enters this soil and we hire them to work for us in exchange for them living here they become part of that aggregate that makes up a nation. Einstein was a German, but the US bought him and many other scientists.
Again, I would cite the rise to power of the United States in that short time frame compared to the longer periods of time it took other nations. Except for maybe the ancient time period because walking is slow.
halonachos wrote:Actually Dogma, the British supported it(if they couldn't have a colony nobody would).
They had two large colonies in what is now Canada after the Monroe Doctrine was established. They only accepted the doctrine because they knew the US couldn't enforce ti against them, and it gave them pretense to combat Spain.
halonachos wrote:
The English language steals bits and pieces from everywhere, we have german cognates and other fun bits of grammar from other language structures. Don't forget the the Phonecians developed the alphabet and the Romans were using one long before any country.
The point is that other cultures have global significance, meaning that the US is far from unique in that sense.
halonachos wrote:
As far as the opening up of Japan goes, Japan was an isolationist country so we decided to send some ships over there to open up their ports. They told us no and we sent a couple of cannonballs their way and forced them to open up.
Uh, no, that's not what happened. Japanese isolationism was an internally contentious issue for almost a century before the US cared about it.
halonachos wrote:
Putting a man on the moon wasn't important? You do realize the vast amount of calculations that had to go into doing it shows a bit of something important.
No, not really. It was important during the Cold War for the United States, but it has never been so for any other nation, except perhaps Russia.
halonachos wrote:
Again, our culture can be felt everywhere and we've added to the vocabulary as well. Jeans, T-Shirt and various other words are used just like that in other languages.
So have many other cultures.
halonachos wrote:
T-Shirt=T-Shirt in English, Spanish, German, and many other languages.
In Spanish it translates to camiseta.
halonachos wrote:
The Monroe Doctrine was a bit of balls in my opinion. We couldn't back it up but we said it was so anyways and it also set a precedence for US influence on this side of the globe. Its why we have a lot of territories and protectorates this side of the world.
First, that isn't balls, its an inability to assess one's own capacity to do a thing, which is why the Doctrine was ignored by almost every nation in the world.
Also, we only have 3 territories in the Western Hemisphere.
halonachos wrote:
I also hear about Einstein being from Germany and other such things trying to dampen the success of the American nation. The point of America is that its a melting pot and once a person enters this soil and we hire them to work for us in exchange for them living here they become part of that aggregate that makes up a nation. Einstein was a German, but the US bought him and many other scientists.
What? The US didn't buy Einstein. He never worked on a US government project.
halonachos wrote:
Again, I would cite the rise to power of the United States in that short time frame compared to the longer periods of time it took other nations. Except for maybe the ancient time period because walking is slow.
The second British Empire rose to power over ~30 years.
I have no problem with nationalism when its based on accurate information, but US nationalism almost never is. US citizens often claim things as examples of US prominence which have nothing to do with the nation in order to overestimate their own importance. Its honestly sad because there are plenty of things that the US actually did which are worthy of pride. Its like a playground argument over whose dad is stronger, only this one is between adults.
With the aid of a considerable amount of British research, and scientists from other nations, such as good old Albert Einstein. That little project could have been based in Wales and achieved the same result, its hardly something the US can claim sole credit for.
Sour Grapes. I suggest you read "The Uneasy Alliance: Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Atomic Bomb, 1940–1945". The vast majority of the funding was paid for by the US and conducted by US citizens (or at least immigrants to the US, another one of our many great national assets btw). Britain wasn't formally involved with the Manhattan Project until around December '43/January '44, and that was only because the British government was finally forced to acknowledge that it was incapable of pursuing the bomb on its own by the senior researchers of its own project, due to a lack of resources, etc. and the fact that what little info the US was willing to share with them proved that the US had well and away outpaced British efforts.
Accomplishments, true. However, the Russians were the first to put a man in space. And to be frank, if any other first world nation was prepared to throw the necessary money at it, they could do it as well. They've just got better things to spend their money on.
More sour grapes. The fact of the matter is that the US could afford to throw the necessary money at it, and had the (captured German scientists (again immigrants, a strong national asset) with their associated) scientific expertise for it. The only other nation that was willing to do the same thus far were, as you said, the Russkies, but half of their attempted missions were total failures.
And the Chinese have a bigger army. Your point? The US has the force to conduct a war to wipe out any third, or even second world nation they choose. But to be honest again, any first world nation would be capable of building a force to do that if they wanted to divert the amount of necessary money. You guys spend a ridiculous amount on your forces. Like the space department, building a crapload of carriers isn't something that would be impossible for the British. They just spend it on things like the NHS instead.
Sour grapes again. The real fact of the matter is that the space program and defense spending is a very small amount of the American GDP, and only 20% of the annual budget (compared to 43% for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, yeah, we spend more on public welfare and social programs than we do on defense). As for China, yes, they have more personnel, but they are actually cutting manpower and I don't really see them as a realistic threat. They would put up more of a fight than Iraq did, I'm more affraid of the insurgency that would result after the likely occupation than the PLA. Speaking of Iraq: "Iraq went from being the fourth largest army in the world to the second largest army in Iraq in 24 hours." Size =/= capability (and need I remind everyone that the Gulf War era Iraqi army had a decade of combat experience against Iran).
Americans are responsible for....the telephone,
A controversial claim of late.
Not really. Most of the other 'likely inventors' of the telephone were inventors, and in any case Bell's patent was the basis for the modern telephone, not Reis, Bourseul, or Manzetti.
Sure. And Fact is, technologies have been invented by other people. I could go from the Italian Camera Obscura, to drugs devised under the British Empire. This is hardly something America has a monopoly on.
No, but America has developed a lot of the technologies we take for granted today, most likely including the technologies that you are using to view and reply to this post.
Well. They've dominated areas in US influence. I doubt you'd find so many fans in Archangelsk.
No, but I'm sure I'd find plenty of ladies who would love to marry an American man and get the hell out of there
I would question the global appeal part. I must admit that I personally, tend to find 95% of American films a dreadful bore. Most of what Hollywood churns out is pure junk, just the same action films and romcoms rehashed over and again. It's got to the point now where you expect the latest crappy comedy film with Will Farell/Adam Sandler/whoever in, as they're made seasonally. When it comes down to what I would consider to be cinematic greats, many other nations can contest it. Quantity of culture is not quality of culture, I would think, in this case.
Yes, but you and I represent the educated minority in this world who realize how lame Hollywood is. The fact is that Hollywood has income streams coming in from all over the place, which means that someone out there likes this stuff (hell, even Kim Jong Il is into American cinema). Oh, and while we're arguing this point, I have to say I find Monty Python and most british comedy in general to be a dreadful bore. How is that stuff at all funny? I've heard the "its more intellectual, etc. " arguments before, stow it, explain to me how this is at all more intellectual and sophisticated comedy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s (I will admit I do find it slightly amusing, but really!!?)... and don't even get me started on Da Ali G Show.
I can go to many places and find they drink tea and play cricket. I can go to many previously spanish places and find they consume spanish style cuisine. Again, not exclusive to America. And a tremendous amount of it is down to pure and simple financial colonialism, and attempting to continuously expand. Something which it could be argued, has already reached breaking point, there's nowhere left for American culture to go where it would be considered welcome.
Disagreed. There are still plenty of places on the globe where Americans are very much greeted with open arms (I've traveled a bit recently, as well as met travelers from elsewhere, and know this to be true, either that or I'm very easy to lead on). Granted, thats probably because they assume we're all filthy stinkin rich and will blow thousands of dollars a second, but still.
To be frank, if you're going for the amount of geography controlled card, you're not even in the same league as the British Empire on this one.
That wasn't the point, it was the fact that the US has a global empire just as much as Britain once did. If you do want to compare the total amount of landmass controlled at their respective heights, there isn't that large a difference between the two, really it comes down to Canada basically making up the difference, but considering their basically the 51st state
Mcdonalds counts as a cultural achievement?
No, but its evidence of the American influence on the globe. I don't know of any foreign fast food chains (unless you want to surprise me with something I didn't know), I think Arthur Treachers Fish and Chips is as close as I can get to a British fast food chain, and I've not only never eaten there, but its not even British, its an American chain with a British name(and from what I understand a sad imitation of the real thing).
The US is a powerful and influential nation, but no more powerful than Britain was during Pax Britannica, or the Romans during their ascension, relatively speaking. Not only that America cultural influence is very new and short lived. All these cultural influences you mention came along within the last 60 years or so. I'm sure if you reverted to the period of the British Empire, you'd find they had considerably more cultural influence on a greater proportion of the world during their time, then the Americans have now.
Very much doubt that. First let me say that I feel the US has accomplished more, relatively speaking, in its short existence than Great Britain did in its much longer existence as a global power. As for influence there are nations all over the world that are frequently referred to as 'the 51st state' by its own populations to express the amount of influence the US has over its own domestic politics, including: Canada, Mexico, the UK, Australia, New Zealand (hell, they even have a political party that seeks to make this a reality), Iraq, Israel, Japan, Taiwan (in polls conducted in that country, something like 55% of residents actually favored becoming a US state as opposed to something like 30% wanting to reunite with China), Albania, and Poland... and those are only the ones that I know of (I'm very much an expansionistic, imperialistic bastard... and entertain myself by creating my own what-if? scenarios that could plausibly occur). Thats not to mention all the other nations or foreign territories that have at one point or another sought US statehood such as the Dominican Republic and Sicily.
When Great Britain was at its height, the areas that weren't under British rule, colonial or otherwise, feared conquest or actively fought against such a thing occurring. Hell, the areas of the world that WERE under colonial rule for the most part wanted to not be. Compare this to the modern US where Puerto Rico, the only US territory that could reasonably be expected to form a state (tiny islands are too tiny) is expected to have a referendum sometime in the next year or so (and I'll just throw out that the pro statehood New Progressive Party is the party of the sitting governor, about 3/4 of the sitting mayors, and about 2/3 of the territories legislative branch).
The Progressive Era gets no love anymore. You're also forgetting the very important Civil War and Reconstruction amendments. Power doesn't drastically shift much in the 1930's and WWII for the US (most of the shifts attributed to that time period actually happened beforehand). The 50's is where it's at yo
While you are right that reconstruction era and the progressive era saw the rise of a stronger federal government, the balance of power didn't really tip into the federal governments favor for good until the 30s. Hell, the US forces mustered for WW1 were still in large part state militias (in the form of the increasingly federalized National Guard).
That is the absolute oddest criteria for national quality I have ever heard.
I was trying to be humorous, why so serious?
Without the UK and Canada it is unlikely that would have occurred.
Again, I direct you to "The Uneasy Alliance: Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Atomic Bomb, 1940–1945".
Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Vietnam, South Korea, and India all have larger military forces. The list gets even longer if we look at per capita totals.
Your figure regarding the number of ships is also wrong. The US has 286 ships. Russia has 233, Britain has 99, and France has 86. Moreover, thinking in those terms, the Royal Navy at the height of its power dwarfed every other blue-water force in the world with over 500 ships. The British possessed the largest, and most powerful fleet in the world up until WWII.
Number of ships means nothing when a majority of Russia and Britains ships are smaller destroyers and corvettes. In terms of tonnage, which is the generally accepted way in military circles to compare the size of navies to one another, the US is larger than the next 13 combined (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467). At the height of its power, the Royal Navy only maintained a force larger than the next two combined (although they measured in a combination of number of ships and relative tonnage). As for having the largest military, I never claimed that, just that the US had a larger military than most other nations, and that this was evident in the fact that the Marines active strength was larger than most countries entire militaries (in fact the active strength of the Marines is only about 20,000 personnel less than the entire active strength of the British Armed Forces...). As for those countries you've listed, in terms of numbers, the US ranks second for active strength, behind China only. India ranks 3rd, N. Korea ranks 4th, Russia 5th, the rest all rank lower than that. Its only if you include reserve and paramilitary components that things get turned around, but reserve and paramilitary components are largely meaningless, as every nation has different policies regarding that, in some nations they are nothing more than conscripts who might have received basic rifle operation training, and nothing more, in others the reserve/paramilitary component is the equivalent of the regular army. In any case, I'm not really phased, as the two Gulf Wars have shown us, even the most fanatical and elite paramilitary forces break in the face of Western military power (in large part provided by the US), as witnessed when Republican Guard units crumbled just as quickly, if not more quickly than regular Iraqi army units.
There are a lot of claims competing with the one by the Wrights.
No,not really. The Wrights had the first successful flight of a powered heavier-than-air aircraft, PERIOD. There is a claim that some guy in Connecticut (part of the US, so its a moot point anyway) successfully flew a powered aircraft the years prior, but from what I understand there is zero evidence to support such a claim aside from a newspaper article. The French have a claim on the first flight of a powered lighter-than-air aircraft (balloons), which isn't quite so impressive given that balloons aren't really used for anything truly significant these days (regrettably so, viva le dirigible!). Everyone else only managed, at best controlled flight in a glider, or uncontrolled flight (resulting in a crash). A couple claim 'hops' which isn't flight, its unsustainable lift.
The list of people that contributed to the development of usable electricity is extremely long and spans many nations.
Fair enough, there were many contributions made globally.
Nope, that was the Germans.
I was under the impression that the Germans only managed what was in effect an over-glorified tricycle rather than an actual four wheeled car. Perhaps I am wrong on this one?
Russia was first, followed by Canada.
No, Russia put satellites with radio transmitters into orbit. The US was the first to put something in orbit capable of actually relaying a message, thus communications. Sputnik just made beeping noises (not even a morse code pattern...), to my knowledge Alouette (the first Canadian satellite) was a research probe, it didn't communicate anything. Telstar (developed by AT&T or Bell IIRC) is internationally accepted as the first communication satellite capable of receiving and relaying signals.
If you believe that, then you haven't done much traveling.
Yeah, I have actually. American artists frequently conduct world tours and draw massive crowds, just a few that have done so in recent memory: Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, Foo Fighters, Linkin Park, and those are only the ones I remember reading about recently on my fb news feed (barring Michael Jackson who I know for a fact played to sell-out crowds wherever he went). Star Wars, Titanic, Avatar, Pirates of the Carribean, and the Lord of the Rings are all American Films and also have the highest worldwide grosses in the history of film. In fact, I'm not sure if there is a single non-American film in the top 50 highest worldwide gross list. Shows like Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, House, Law and Order, CSI, South Park, Family Guy, the Simpsons, and Futurama are watched globally, and all happen to be American shows as well.
No, no it isn't.
Yes, yes it is. I just got back visiting my family in the Dominican Republic. It was impossible to go anywhere where someone wasn't wearing an article of clothing featuring the Yankees, Red Sox, or Mets.
Midway isn't a colony. Its a wildlife preserve that is part of the Hawaiian Island Chain.
Colony was in quotes, call it what you want, territory, wildlife preserve, whatever, its property of the US of A.
Created economics, analytic philosophy, the novel, English literature, political science, and industry?
Nobody created economics, political science, and industry. All of those things predate Britain by a very long time. I will accept that they developed leading (in some cases dominant) theories in those areas, but create them they did not.
I'm not sure they can claim the novel either, perhaps you will humor me by enlightening me to the situation, but it seems the novel was a gradual evolution to its current form from works of epic literature such as Illiad and the Odyssey.
I will give you analytic philosophy, but English Literature. Yes they invented that, and the American literature. Okay, so we don't have anything quite as great as Shakespeare,but we do have some truly great and monumental works of literature which are read globally, perhaps not quite as ubiquitous as the bards works, but Moby Dick is just as well known as Romeo and Juliet.
As for your later comment that the moon thing isn't important, then why have China, India (IIRC), and the European Space Agency all announced manned missions and the rest of the developed world all plan for unmanned exploration?
The Doctrine wasn't ignored by the british who at the time had a navy to back us up.
England as a nation has been around for quite some time, before America was just a glint in England's eye.
Jeans is still Jeans in most languages, and hamburger is well known as hamberguesa in spanish. Tea=Te, so yes we borrow a lot from other languages that in turn borrow from earlier languages. Medical terminology tends to be Latin while mathematics tends to be Greek which is why we have sextuplets and hexagons instead of hextuplets and hexagons or sextuplets and sexagons.
Days of the week are also surprisingly close as are months.
halonachos wrote:
As far as the opening up of Japan goes, Japan was an isolationist country so we decided to send some ships over there to open up their ports. They told us no and we sent a couple of cannonballs their way and forced them to open up.
I think you may be confusing that with the Opium Wars between Britain and China, because that's basically what happened to us. I don't recall the US doing this to any Asian country.
halonachos wrote:
As far as the opening up of Japan goes, Japan was an isolationist country so we decided to send some ships over there to open up their ports. They told us no and we sent a couple of cannonballs their way and forced them to open up.
I think you may be confusing that with the Opium Wars between Britain and China, because that's basically what happened to us. I don't recall the US doing this to any Asian country.
We did it to Japan in 1853. It was one of the major events that sparked of the Bakumatsu (Demise of the Tokugawa Shogunate) and the Meji Restoration. Arguably the event sparked the series of events that gave birth to modern Japan... who we went to war with in 1941... Life's a
Kilkrazy wrote:The United States is unquestionably a nation. It probably has a stronger national identity than most other nations including the UK -- The American Dream.
The reason it isn't the greatest nation is because it hasn't been around long enough and hasn't had the opportunity to so as much stuff as the UK. If the era of nations persists, then perhaps the USA will be able to overtake the UK in terms of achievements, however we are considering the current situation.
China has been around for a long time, but for much of that time it hasn't been a nation, and its achievements more or less ran out in the middle ages.
Obviously I am classing achievements as progress in art, literature, technology, and social and political life as "good" things.
I'm sorry? What? The US was the first nation to harness and weaponize the power of the atom. The US was the first (and only) nation to put a man on the moon. The US was the first (and only) nation to send a probe out beyond the solar system. The US has a larger Navy than the next ten navies combined (and lets not even mention the rest of the US military, the Marine Corps alone is larger and more capable than most nations entire military forces), an achievement that Great Britain/the UK, at the height of its power, could only dream of. Americans are responsible for manned powered flight, the telephone, usable electricity, radios, automobiles, microwave ovens, nuclear energy, satellite communications, gps, and a host of other technologies that are necessary for luxurious modern day lifestyles. US music, television, and films have dominated the world scene for the last half century. Hollywood produces films that have global appeal and in many nations outstrips the popularity of their own domestic movie industry. American culture and history has influenced and inspired foreign writers and filmmakers, resulting in works of literature such as Winnetou, massively beloved by German and other European populations, as well as Spaghetti Western films that have defined that genre. American culture has permeated the world scene, I can go to almost any nation in the world and find at least one native of that country wearing a Yankees cap or some other article clothing relating to American sports, culture, or entertainment. In some parts of the world, especially in the western hemisphere, this is the norm, rather than the exception. The US still has 'colonies' all around the globe: Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway, etc. not to mention a global network of military bases, the sun truly never does set on the United States. At one time or another, the US controlled or occupied the Panama Canal, the Phillippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Veracruz, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Greenland, Iceland, Austria, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I can find a McDonalds in almost any corner of our spherical globe. What exactly has Great Britain done in terms of achievement that could possibly hope to outclass the US? You had a global empire, this is true and a powerful navy (that in relative terms was never nearly as powerful as the current US Navy), and during the British Invasion period you threw some pretty great bands our way, but chances are you'll hear people listening to just as many (if not more) American bands being listened to on the world scene as you would British.
I'm sure if i could be bothered i could make a block of text far larger than that one but i really can't be...
Also @Dajobe please stop saying England and not the UK. They are not the same things and everytime you say it the Welsh, Scottish and Irish get very irate.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Sour Grapes. I suggest you read "The Uneasy Alliance: Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Atomic Bomb, 1940–1945". The vast majority of the funding was paid for by the US and conducted by US citizens (or at least immigrants to the US, another one of our many great national assets btw). Britain wasn't formally involved with the Manhattan Project until around December '43/January '44, and that was only because the British government was finally forced to acknowledge that it was incapable of pursuing the bomb on its own by the senior researchers of its own project, due to a lack of resources, etc. and the fact that what little info the US was willing to share with them proved that the US had well and away outpaced British efforts.
Its not sour grapes, its accurate.
Britain was part of the Manhattan Project following the Qubec Agreement in August '43. Prior to that they shared information with the US.
Anyway, that article doesn't make an argument about cost, or relay any of the information you're using here. Honestly, based on your summary, I doubt you read it.
chaos0xomega wrote:
More sour grapes. The fact of the matter is that the US could afford to throw the necessary money at it, and had the (captured German scientists (again immigrants, a strong national asset) with their associated) scientific expertise for it. The only other nation that was willing to do the same thus far were, as you said, the Russkies, but half of their attempted missions were total failures.
Nasa's body count is larger by percentage and gross total than the that of the Soviet Space Program.
But hey, maybe Challenger and Colombia were supposed to explode in flight.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Sour grapes again. The real fact of the matter is that the space program and defense spending is a very small amount of the American GDP, and only 20% of the annual budget (compared to 43% for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, yeah, we spend more on public welfare and social programs than we do on defense).
So does every other developed nation in the world. The US, uniquely, spends a larger percentage of its GDP on defense than any other developed nation.
chaos0xomega wrote:
As for China, yes, they have more personnel, but they are actually cutting manpower and I don't really see them as a realistic threat.
You're the only person in the world holding that perspective.
chaos0xomega wrote:
They would put up more of a fight than Iraq did, I'm more affraid of the insurgency that would result after the likely occupation than the PLA. Speaking of Iraq: "Iraq went from being the fourth largest army in the world to the second largest army in Iraq in 24 hours." Size =/= capability (and need I remind everyone that the Gulf War era Iraqi army had a decade of combat experience against Iran).
The Chinese military police force is larger than the entire US military, and of rough technical equivalence. If the US tried to invade China it would lose badly.
Veterancy doesn't mean anything by necessity, just ask the British, French, or even the US.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Not really. Most of the other 'likely inventors' of the telephone were inventors, and in any case Bell's patent was the basis for the modern telephone, not Reis, Bourseul, or Manzetti.
Wrong. The invention of the telephone is one of the single most disputed topics in the history of technology.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Yes, but you and I represent the educated minority in this world who realize how lame Hollywood is. The fact is that Hollywood has income streams coming in from all over the place, which means that someone out there likes this stuff (hell, even Kim Jong Il is into American cinema).
So does every other major cinema "organization" in the world.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Disagreed. There are still plenty of places on the globe where Americans are very much greeted with open arms (I've traveled a bit recently, as well as met travelers from elsewhere, and know this to be true, either that or I'm very easy to lead on). Granted, thats probably because they assume we're all filthy stinkin rich and will blow thousands of dollars a second, but still.
There are places in which everyone from the developed world are greeted with open arms.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Very much doubt that. First let me say that I feel the US has accomplished more, relatively speaking, in its short existence than Great Britain did in its much longer existence as a global power.
Don't use quality as a euphemism for quantity.
chaos0xomega wrote:
As for influence there are nations all over the world that are frequently referred to as 'the 51st state' by its own populations to express the amount of influence the US has over its own domestic politics, including: Canada, Mexico, the UK, Australia, New Zealand (hell, they even have a political party that seeks to make this a reality), Iraq, Israel, Japan, Taiwan (in polls conducted in that country, something like 55% of residents actually favored becoming a US state as opposed to something like 30% wanting to reunite with China), Albania, and Poland.
And many US citizens often refer to it as a UN subject. Clearly then the UN is the foremost global power.
chaos0xomega wrote:
When Great Britain was at its height, the areas that weren't under British rule, colonial or otherwise, feared conquest or actively fought against such a thing occurring.
Uh, dude, "The 51st state." is a pejorative, not a loving expression.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Hell, the areas of the world that WERE under colonial rule for the most part wanted to not be. Compare this to the modern US where Puerto Rico, the only US territory that could reasonably be expected to form a state (tiny islands are too tiny) is expected to have a referendum sometime in the next year or so (and I'll just throw out that the pro statehood New Progressive Party is the party of the sitting governor, about 3/4 of the sitting mayors, and about 2/3 of the territories legislative branch).
You're comparing an island too small to have an independent economy to a place like India?
chaos0xomega wrote:
I was trying to be humorous, why so serious?
I find American nationalists to be deeply obnoxious.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Again, I direct you to "The Uneasy Alliance: Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Atomic Bomb, 1940–1945".
As I said, I already read it, it has nothing to do with the relative role of any of the nations involved. It deals with politics, not finance.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Number of ships means nothing when a majority of Russia and Britains ships are smaller destroyers and corvettes.
The majority of US ships are also smaller craft, so what?
chaos0xomega wrote:
In terms of tonnage, which is the generally accepted way in military circles to compare the size of navies to one another, the US is larger than the next 13 combined (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467).
That article doesn't mention naval tonnage. I've hearad 13x, 17x, 5x, and not a multiple of any of the top 10 at all.
chaos0xomega wrote:
At the height of its power, the Royal Navy only maintained a force larger than the next two combined (although they measured in a combination of number of ships and relative tonnage).
There were only two significant, non-English, imperial powers during the Victorian period.
chaos0xomega wrote:
As for those countries you've listed, in terms of numbers, the US ranks second for active strength, behind China only.
No, that's wrong, no one would ever classify Indian, Iranian, or North Korean military reserves/paramilitary as inactive. Well, wikipedia does, but wikipedia is not a worthwhile source. Hell, even wikipedia's source doesn't do that.
chaos0xomega wrote:
No,not really.
Uh, yes, really. Evidently you don't bother to actually read history, because this is the same issue you had with the telephone.
chaos0xomega wrote:
I was under the impression that the Germans only managed what was in effect an over-glorified tricycle rather than an actual four wheeled car. Perhaps I am wrong on this one?
Since when do cars have four wheels, and only four wheels?
Look up the name Benz, though.
chaos0xomega wrote:
No, Russia put satellites with radio transmitters into orbit
What do you think radio transmitters are for?
chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, I have actually. American artists frequently conduct world tours and draw massive crowds, just a few that have done so in recent memory: Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, Foo Fighters, Linkin Park, and those are only the ones I remember reading about recently on my fb news feed (barring Michael Jackson who I know for a fact played to sell-out crowds wherever he went). Star Wars, Titanic, Avatar, Pirates of the Carribean, and the Lord of the Rings are all American Films and also have the highest worldwide grosses in the history of film. In fact, I'm not sure if there is a single non-American film in the top 50 highest worldwide gross list. Shows like Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, House, Law and Order, CSI, South Park, Family Guy, the Simpsons, and Futurama are watched globally, and all happen to be American shows as well.
I'm wondering how this has anything to do with domination.
I guess the Chinese must have dominated the US culinary scene due to the prevalence of ethnic Chinese restaurants.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Yes, yes it is. I just got back visiting my family in the Dominican Republic. It was impossible to go anywhere where someone wasn't wearing an article of clothing featuring the Yankees, Red Sox, or Mets.
Right, the single largest producer of professional baseball players, per capita, would never be an outlier regarding the prevalence of attire related to professional baseball teams; especially if it happens to be a quasi-US territory.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Colony was in quotes, call it what you want, territory, wildlife preserve, whatever, its property of the US of A.
So is Wyoming.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Nobody created economics, political science, and industry. All of those things predate Britain by a very long time.
Uh, no, they don't. Economics began with Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism, Hobbes created what we call political science (as distinct from political philosophy), and industry as a process didn't exist until the industrial revolution.
chaos0xomega wrote:
I will accept that they developed leading (in some cases dominant) theories in those areas, but create them they did not.
Yeah, they did. The English refined what had been previously called "philosophy" into the social sciences.
chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm not sure they can claim the novel either, perhaps you will humor me by enlightening me to the situation, but it seems the novel was a gradual evolution to its current form from works of epic literature such as Illiad and the Odyssey.
The novel, in its current form, is almost entirely the result of Robinson Crusoe. Fiction existed before that, but not in the form represented by Defoe.
chaos0xomega wrote:
...but Moby Dick is just as well known as Romeo and Juliet.
I don't know about that. And, even if it is, Herman Melville isn't read publicly in China.
chaos0xomega wrote:
As for your later comment that the moon thing isn't important, then why have China, India (IIRC), and the European Space Agency all announced manned missions and the rest of the developed world all plan for unmanned exploration?
Because only the three organizations you listed did?
As I said, it was important to the US during the Cold War, but there isn't much support to send US citizens back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:The Doctrine wasn't ignored by the british who at the time had a navy to back us up.
The novel, in its current form, is almost entirely the result of Robinson Crusoe. Fiction existed before that, but not in the form represented by Defoe.
I thought Hemingway was credited with the novel? Or is he just the modern novel?
LordofHats wrote:
We did it to Japan in 1853. It was one of the major events that sparked of the Bakumatsu (Demise of the Tokugawa Shogunate) and the Meji Restoration. Arguably the event sparked the series of events that gave birth to modern Japan... who we went to war with in 1941... Life's a
That article cites internal dissent as the dominant force leading to the end of Tokugawa.
LordofHats wrote:
It's the only instance I know of of the US using gunboat diplomacy.
Really?
The 2nd Barbary War.
Great White Fleet.
Panama v. Colombia.
Everything related to Taiwan.
India v. Pakistan.
Vietnam.
Korea.
Kosovo.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
Nicaragua.
Many, many others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
I thought Hemingway was credited with the novel? Or is he just the modern novel?
I've heard him given the American novel, but not the novel in general. Personally, I give him the masculine novel. He was the first author to de-feminize it.
In terms of Malaysia, I'm glad of the large amount of development they did in my country while they were here. What I'm not so fond of is abandoning us and holing up in Singapore while the Japanese invaded... on bicycles.
Ahtman wrote:This must be where the USA gets its overinflated sense of self worth from. We often confuse having a history with being great as well.
Well, if it wasn't for the KGB blowing ALL of it's money on undersea warfare, and not on taking down the CIA, we'd all be speaking russian right now, and the world would be a soviet one, but, gladly, the KGB failed, communism suffered a severe wound, and, many years later, I get to live in this amazing country called america.
Of course, us americans have to remember that america isn't perfedct, but, you need to be proud of where you're from, I'm proud I came from russia, I'm proud to live in america, and if I lived in the UK, I would be proud.
Swordwind wrote:In terms of Malaysia, I'm glad of the large amount of development they did in my country while they were here. What I'm not so fond of is abandoning us and holing up in Singapore while the Japanese invaded... on bicycles.
Sorry about that
I lived just outside of KL as a small child. Unfortunately I don't really remember it (I was only 2-3). I have since gone back and visited and it is a very nice country. Even went back to my old house and they still had the same old stone table and chairs in the garden
Proud can also = jingoistic, flag waving, l art hollier than thou
NOT always Rem, but sometimes.
Well, you're right, but, I prefer to be subtle in ways, I'm not any better than anyone else. Sadly, there are people like that, who act like jerks to us foreigners, and swing their flag in our face, implying we aren't glad to be in america.
dogma wrote:Because I am neither classy, nor kind, but I am good at analysis.
My point is that pride doesn't emanate from what can't be changed, it emanates from what we want to continue existing.
I could, for example, be Italian while wishing Italy to be destroyed.
So I see, so, then, your preferene is to see with your eyes, and state the facts. Just remember, not everything is in black and white, there's reason behind everything. I choose to be proud because I have a right to, even if I choose not to rub it in other people's faces.
remilia_scarlet wrote:
So I see, so, then, your preferene is to see with your eyes, and state the facts. Just remember, not everything is in black and white, there's reason behind everything.
Facts aren't necessarily black and white. Usually they aren't colored at all.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The good news is that I've finally been able to find some gainful employment - I teach A Level history at night school.
One of the modules/seminars I teach is The British Empire in the 19th century.
Now, a lot has been said about the role of PC (political correctness) in modern society and I'm sure folks on this site have their own views on its rights or wrongs. But that is neither here nor there.
The main focus of the module is the rights and wrongs of imperialism. There are people in my class who are Asian/African, and so obviously their ancestors were probably being exploited and needless to say, they think the Empire was not a force for good. Now, being mixed race myself with a grandfather from Trinidad, I can sympathise.
But I'm their teacher, and I believe that an integral part of education is teaching people the skills of critical thinking, presenting all sides of an argument etc and ultimately making up their own minds.
Now, I've decided to do a devil's advocate style piece and present Great Britain as a force of good: cultural legacy, influence on the USA, world trade, law and justice, building railways in India, spread of the English language, taking on the Nazis etc
I'd interested (and appreciative) in lots of views from as many different people as possible, particualry non-brits, on the positives and negatives of the British Empire. Ignoring our current decline, is Great Britain the greatest nation the world has ever seen?
I would say its been a mixed bag. Whilst there has been good found from the British empire it has been at the expense of other nations independence and autonomy. Which has only in the last century seen a reversal with the devolution of government to Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Personally I don't identify myself as British. But Scottish or Orkadian ( I come from the Orkneys). And hope in my lifetime the union will be broken. The notion of the British empire is an outmoded one in my view. But then again I am very against any form of Imperialism so others mileage may vary.
Everyone was having a good laugh at the Yanks then someone knocks over paddy's pint, Brilliant!
Actually know I think about it my vote goes to the Ro Ireland. In less than a century they have spread about the world to the point where I can get a pint of (variable quality) Porter in most sizeable towns in a replica of an Irish boozer. Take that McD's.
Also Economics, they have taught us allot about that recently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lexx wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The good news is that I've finally been able to find some gainful employment - I teach A Level history at night school.
One of the modules/seminars I teach is The British Empire in the 19th century.
Now, a lot has been said about the role of PC (political correctness) in modern society and I'm sure folks on this site have their own views on its rights or wrongs. But that is neither here nor there.
The main focus of the module is the rights and wrongs of imperialism. There are people in my class who are Asian/African, and so obviously their ancestors were probably being exploited and needless to say, they think the Empire was not a force for good. Now, being mixed race myself with a grandfather from Trinidad, I can sympathise.
But I'm their teacher, and I believe that an integral part of education is teaching people the skills of critical thinking, presenting all sides of an argument etc and ultimately making up their own minds.
Now, I've decided to do a devil's advocate style piece and present Great Britain as a force of good: cultural legacy, influence on the USA, world trade, law and justice, building railways in India, spread of the English language, taking on the Nazis etc
I'd interested (and appreciative) in lots of views from as many different people as possible, particualry non-brits, on the positives and negatives of the British Empire. Ignoring our current decline, is Great Britain the greatest nation the world has ever seen?
I would say its been a mixed bag. Whilst there has been good found from the British empire it has been at the expense of other nations independence and autonomy. Which has only in the last century seen a reversal with the devolution of government to Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Personally I don't identify myself as British. But Scottish or Orkadian ( I come from the Orkneys). And hope in my lifetime the union will be broken. The notion of the British empire is an outmoded one in my view. But then again I am very against any form of Imperialism so others mileage may vary.
And yet Salmon's plan to ostracise the rest of the UK continues. All EU students get free education, English have to pay. Nice feller.
You're lucky I can not bring myself to be cut off from square sausage or there would be hell to pay!
That article cites internal dissent as the dominant force leading to the end of Tokugawa.
My understanding has been that Perry's actions sparked the keg that had been building for awhile. The catalyst of the chain reaction? EDIT: Then again, the last time I learned about this was in like... the 10th grade from our notoriously factual error ridden US history books
dogma wrote:Really?
The 2nd Barbary War.
Great White Fleet.
Panama v. Colombia.
Everything related to Taiwan.
India v. Pakistan.
Vietnam.
Korea.
Kosovo.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
Nicaragua.
Huh... I guess I've just always thought of Gunboat Diplomacy as being shooting your boats guns at a nation you're not at hostilities with XD. Which if Wiki is correct is not the proper way to approach the term Good thing I can fall back on the excuse that I'm not a naval or foreign policy historian
Would that whole thing with Iran after one of our boats struck a mine in the 80's count too?
Argh. It's a bit complicated to work out whether the influence of Britain on Ireland is positive or negative overall. There are plenty of positives, plenty of negatives. I think what people tend to forget is that stuff like the Famine might have had it's root cause in English colonisation and dispossession (and any narrative or Irish history cannot ignore the Famine, population levels are still massively down from pre-Famine days), it was really the greedy actions of the Irish ruling class that allowed it to reach the horrific scale it did. You can argue that they weren't irish, but they would certainly have seen themselves as Irish. A lot of the narrative has been polluted by nationalists after the fact and distorted to fit their narrative.
If I had to pick one English figure that I thought had an extremely negative effect I would say Cromwell, not just for the massacres and slavery, but for the dispossession of huge amounts of the populace that lead to widespread discontent and set the stage for later poverty.
But for every Cromwell there are a hundred examples of benevolence and concern for the Irish if you go looking for them.
I think the British Empire was pretty good as Empires go- my favourite thing is the fact that they decided they werent' having any of this slavery nonsense before a lot of other major world powers, and then went about stopping it.
Da Boss wrote:Argh. It's a bit complicated to work out whether the influence of Britain on Ireland is positive or negative overall. There are plenty of positives, plenty of negatives. I think what people tend to forget is that stuff like the Famine might have had it's root cause in English colonisation and dispossession (and any narrative or Irish history cannot ignore the Famine, population levels are still massively down from pre-Famine days), it was really the greedy actions of the Irish ruling class that allowed it to reach the horrific scale it did. You can argue that they weren't irish, but they would certainly have seen themselves as Irish. A lot of the narrative has been polluted by nationalists after the fact and distorted to fit their narrative.
If I had to pick one English figure that I thought had an extremely negative effect I would say Cromwell, not just for the massacres and slavery, but for the dispossession of huge amounts of the populace that lead to widespread discontent and set the stage for later poverty.
But for every Cromwell there are a hundred examples of benevolence and concern for the Irish if you go looking for them.
I think the British Empire was pretty good as Empires go- my favourite thing is the fact that they decided they werent' having any of this slavery nonsense before a lot of other major world powers, and then went about stopping it.
The famine was caused by the British occupation, there is no denying that. They gave power to a small minority of Irish people, but the vast majority of the rich and powerful were British, not Irish. It was the greedy actions of the BRITISH ruling class, not the Irish that allowed it reach such a scale.
Dude, most of the landowners were irish. Perhaps sometime back in the day their ancestors had lived in britain, but by the time of the Famine they were the IRISH ruling class. The truth of the whole story is not one of nations screwing over nations so much as rich fethers screwing over poor fethers, much as it is today and ever has been.
Even so, the famine wasn't a famine so much as theft. The English took away the land from its rightful owners, and then they took the food from the people who really needed it. Though there was a blight on the potato crops in Ireland (and across Europe, though not with such disastrous results), there was actually plenty of other food being produced there. Crops like wheat, barley, and oats were successfully grown by the English landlords, but they were shipped to England. Likewise, beef, lamb, and pork, as well as butter, eggs, and poultry. It was all out of reach for the Irish.
Ah, good, we can finally sort out the Irish question. I'm sure this thread will succeed where decades of serious research and politcal discourse have failed!
Toast, I'm aware of the fact that food was being exported and I've acknowledged the fact that the Irish peasantry had been dispossessed.
The Landlords were "anglo-irish"- that is originally from Britain but having lived in Ireland and considered Irish. Many were "absentee" and lived in England, yes, but many still lived in Ireland. The middlemen who worked for them would have been mostly Irish. If you want to debate that they weren't "really" irish, well, okay, but that's opening up a whole big can of worms. The British Government acknowledged the problems in Ireland, and they didn't do enough to fix them, damn straight. The British share a lot of (possibly most of) the blame for the Famine, but let's get rid of our stinking victim complex here. We've preyed upon each other as much as anything, a practice that continues to this day. It does us no credit to blame all of the ills of our past on the british, and not acknowledge the scummy behaviour of many of our countrymen.
I know this is an emotive subject, but I hope you are reading what I am posting carefully. (I am also Irish, btw, though that should make no difference).
Britain took most of the food produced in Ireland to England, thousands starved because of the greed of the crown. I do not beleive that blame is shared. The blame is entirely on the crown. Of course their were bastard Irishmen who took advantage of their kinsmen, but I do not see how the blame would be shared when food was taking from the Irish people, after they grew it on their own land. I also understand this has happened to countless other civilizations over the centuries and is not a unique occurance. But people have to acknowledge all aspects of their history, the good the bad and the ugly, and not just dismiss something and claim no responsibility.
Da Boss wrote: It does us no credit to blame all of the ills of our past on the British
Toast:
The exports to England were making money for the Irish landowners! They profited. The rich elite of ireland profited much the same as the rich elite of England.
What I'm trying to say is, nationalist thought just stops us from realising that it's the rich bastards who are out to get us, not the tea slurping scone munchers across the water.
The rich bastards that came from Britain? The same rich bastards that the British put in power? The landowners were not true Irish, the were of British decent. Their parents came from Britain and stole the land, they have kids who are anglo Irish and inherit the land, they continue to steal form the Irish, they have kids, etc.
I don't see how you think its the Irish peoples fault.
That's a weak argument, unless you want to go back to the original neolithic settlers of Ireland as the one true irish. Because they were wiped out/assimilated by the Celts, who then absorbed the Vikings, the Normans and everyone else who came along.
I don't think it's "the irish people's fault" but I think it's a lot more complex than "It's all Britain's fault!"
Are all our rich bastards at present from Britain? Because they seem to have done a fine job of bollocksing the country without much help from any Sassanach bros.
How? you claimed the ruling elite were Irish, I disproved it by showing you that they were British. If you want to debate what makes an Irish man go ahead, I'll ignore it. But you were saying it was the Irish ruling class fault, while the Irish ruling class were British.
*facepalm*
So...if I make an argument about what constitutes an irishman you'll ignore it because you've "proven" that the Irish Aristocracy were all British. Because their ancestors came from Britain.
Excellent. Well. I am not feeling particularly optimistic that we'll reach any sort of agreement here, but I do want to point out that I said it was PARTIALLY the fault of the Irish ruling class (who we seem to disagree about) and PARTIALLY the fault of the British ruling class. I have not, at any time, blamed everything on the Irish.
Out of interest, whereabouts are you from and what do you do for a living?
To your other point, well, how to put it, you're wrong mate. The plantation of British aristocrats into Ireland began 200 years before the Famine. They'd been there a lot longer than 1 generation by that stage, by and large.
The Penal Laws for example had been in place for over 100 years at that stage.
Nah, you gotta act on bias to have it be discrimination. It's bad though and should be avoided if possible, but it rarely is.
(Oh, and not all discrimination is bad, either. We don't let kids vote or drive for a reason )
Cheers. I'm a teacher originally from Wexford. (the France of Ireland).
The last book I read that covered some history of Russia was about the Crimean War. Before that I read a book about the 1812 campaign, and a biography of Peter the Great. However they were all in English.
The last book I read that covered some history of Russia was about the Crimean War. Before that I read a book about the 1812 campaign, and a biography of Peter the Great. However they were all in English.
Isn't Russian History grand? They have a lot of ballet and railroads, sure they have some darkspots like every time they weren't at a ballet, but they're good people. Actually they remind me of Americans, passionate to a fault and tough as hell.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Sour Grapes. I suggest you read "The Uneasy Alliance: Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Atomic Bomb, 1940–1945". The vast majority of the funding was paid for by the US and conducted by US citizens (or at least immigrants to the US, another one of our many great national assets btw). Britain wasn't formally involved with the Manhattan Project until around December '43/January '44, and that was only because the British government was finally forced to acknowledge that it was incapable of pursuing the bomb on its own by the senior researchers of its own project, due to a lack of resources, etc. and the fact that what little info the US was willing to share with them proved that the US had well and away outpaced British efforts.
Its not sour grapes, its accurate.
Britain was part of the Manhattan Project following the Quebec Agreement in August '43. Prior to that they shared information with the US.
Anyway, that article doesn't make an argument about cost, or relay any of the information you're using here. Honestly, based on your summary, I doubt you read it.
You're right, it misses the point on cost, but everything else is pretty much spot on. BTW, sharing information =/= being part of the Manhattan Project... I'll get to that in a bit, enjoy the following series of quotes that illustrate my point (in chonological order btw):
"Thus the American offer of a jointproject, perhaps jointly controlled, was allowed to fade out. This missed opportunity was to prove, for Britain, a costly error - a miscaluclation of future needs and possibilities, of British weakness and American strength. Britain would never regain the opportunity to be a full partner in the atomic enterprise." P 207
"For Britain, by the summer her optimism about her capacity to build a bomb during the struggle against the Axis had become a casualty of the war.... Britains advisory committe on atomic energy(the Tube-Alloys Consultative Council) concluded that she would have to depend significantly upon American assistance to pursue the bomb project. There was no reasonable alternative but to transfer work to the United States."P 208
"'We must face the fact,' an unhappy Anderson reluctantly advised Churchill on July 30, 'that...[our] pioneering work...is a dwindling asset and that, unless we capitalize it quickly, we shall be outstripped. We now have a real contribution to make to a 'merger'. Soon we shall have little or none." P 208
"Unfortunately for Anderson's strategy, Britain had already lost her advantage. The United States, with her great resources, had moved well ahead in most areas of necessary work on atomic energy. The Major scientific problems no longer seemed so difficult, Conant wrote, and 'from now on, it is a question of development and solving of a multitude of mechanical problems.' The United States, Conant and Bush concluded, did not need British help..." P 209
"When Stimson pointed out that the United States was doing 'ninety percent of the work' on the bomb..." P 210
"In London, when Si John Anderson received the new rules, he was shocked... The British and the Canadians were being excluded from much of the project." P 211 (this is at the end of 1942/start of 1943, so much for information sharing/cooperation)
I will however make a note that Canada supplied the US with uranium ore and heavy water, although I will also state that the US has and had the capability to manufacture heavy water,and has its own not insignificant uranium deposits. I will also note that the heads of the Manhattan Project DID want the help of a handful (literally) of top British scientists to try to speed along the research, but I think the quotes illustrate my point quite clearly. It wasn't until July 1943 (p 216) that Churchill and Roosevelt finally came to a definitive political agreement to work together, and it wasn't until August that this agreement was formalized under the Quebec Agreement. "Under the Quebec agreement, the British pushed immediately to send some scientists to the United States to join various parts of the Manhattan Project and to gain as much information as possible in order to build a bomb after the war.... 'The knowledge our men would acquire, John Anderson counciled the Prime Minister, would be greater than that which they could get by working[in Britain during the war.]'" P 220
"By December 1943, after three months of negotiations, American and British representatives have hammered out the terms of interchange. Chadwick would have access to.... He was also to... work at [Los Alamos]... and could take a small British team of scientists there." P 222
Theres more, but I feel that these quotes and citations are adequate in illustrating and supporting my claims:
1. Prior to the Quebec Agreement, information exchange was limited
2. Britain was not formally involved in the Manhattan Project until December 1943, despite Quebec being signed in August, due to the exact terms of the agreement still being ironed out until December (the last quote illustrates that the terms finally allowed British scientists access to the research facilities, etc.)
3. That this formal agreement only came about after Britain admitted its own inability to complete the bomb without American assistance
and 4. That British scientists admitted that American efforts had already well and away surpassed their own, and the British were not necessary to the success of the American project.
Nasa's body count is larger by percentage and gross total than the that of the Soviet Space Program.
But hey, maybe Challenger and Colombia were supposed to explode in flight.
Ouch, thats a bit harsh man... and please back up your claim about being larger by percentage and gross total though. I've typed out way more quotes than I would have liked, because I apparently "did not read an article" (I think its quite clear I did, btw), the least you could do is oblige me by doing the same. I find it hard to believe, considering the Nedelin catastrophe on its own killed somewhere between 75 and 150 people... I will also point out that the US, unlike our Soviet adversaries, never (to my knowledge) green lit a mission (in fact... enforced its continuation) knowing that a participant was pretty much doomed to death, as was the case with Vladimir Komarov and Soyuz 1 (assuming that there is some shred of validity and truth in Starman).
So does every other developed nation in the world. The US, uniquely, spends a larger percentage of its GDP on defense than any other developed nation.
And your point? We might not need to spend a larger portion, but we can....
You're the only person in the world holding that perspective.
Definitely not. While I am worried about the repercussions of a war with China, I have no doubt as to our current ability to win it (as pyrrhic as such a victory may be), nor do many other officials. Much of China's 'newest' military hardware in active use has been around for decades already, and is vastly inferior to their American analogs. Yes, they have prototype stealth fighters, etc. but they are just prototypes. Additionally, while it is making efforts to improve in pretty much every area, it is still severely lacking in training, leadership, and experience. China can't claim the title of greatest nation the world has ever seen for things it can't yet or hasn't yet done, that would be like giving out the Nobel Prize for things you haven't yet accomplished.... oh wait...
The Chinese military police force is larger than the entire US military, and of rough technical equivalence. If the US tried to invade China it would lose badly.
Veterancy doesn't mean anything by necessity, just ask the British, French, or even the US.
If by rough technical equivalence you mean they carry around a firearm developed in the 70s, then you would be right. Your average US infantryman has access to much more advanced hardware than an Armed Policeman, and much more advanced training. You're trying to equate a gendarmes to a frontline infantrymen? It doesn't work that way. Its an internal police force used to police the civilian population and provide fire rescue services. Comparing them to the Army/Marines is like saying that an NYPD officer is the same as an infantryman. They are not, they have a radically different purpose and levels of training. Yes, there is a small SWAT-like community within it, but 1. Its small, 2. again, they're not warfighters, they aren't equipped or trained for that mission.
As for veterancy, it means something, just not necessarily everything.
Wrong. The invention of the telephone is one of the single most disputed topics in the history of technology.
Educate me then. Everything I have ever read basically boils down to "Yes, there were other similar inventions made around the same time, even before, but Bell's patent is the one that the modern telephone has evolved from, and most if not all of the other possible 'first telephones' operate via different mechanisms."
So does every other major cinema "organization" in the world.
I've yet to see Bollywood bring in that kind of worldwide revenue...
There are places in which everyone from the developed world are greeted with open arms.
Okay, your point? That just confirms what I stated, doesn't it?
Don't use quality as a euphemism for quantity.
Shouldn't that be reversed? In any case, I meant the quote in question to illustrate both.
And many US citizens often refer to it as a UN subject. Clearly then the UN is the foremost global power.
Refer to what as a UN subject? Most people I know refer to the UN as Americas bitch...
Uh, dude, "The 51st state." is a pejorative, not a loving expression.
Depends on the context. Clearly to the people in Taiwan and a miniscule political party in New Zealand, it isn't.
You're comparing an island too small to have an independent economy to a place like India?
Umm, excuse me? To small to have an independent economy? First define for me independent economy, because there are smaller sovereign nations out there that have done just fine for themselves, plenty of them in fact, Luxembourg, Singapore, Liechtenstein, San Marino, and Monaco being the main ones). And yes, I am, prior to British rule, there wasn't a nation known as India. The area currently known as India was controlled by numerous rival factions that frequently fought amongst each other. To put it bluntly, the people of the Indian subcontinent despised British rule so much that they actually put aside their differences and united against British occupation.
I find American nationalists to be deeply obnoxious.
At least we're (I'm) not rude. Under these circumstances however, I think the term you are look for would be 'exceptionalist', not nationalist (although still technically correct in its usage in the modern sense of the term).
As I said, I already read it, it has nothing to do with the relative role of any of the nations involved. It deals with politics, not finance.
The quote this was in response to was "Without the UK and Canada it is unlikely that would have occurred. " 'That' referring to the US being the first to build an atom bomb. There was no mention of finance here, and as I've illustrated already, earlier in this post, the US was very much able to do it without the US and Canada.
The majority of US ships are also smaller craft, so what?
In relative terms, the Royal Navy, Russian Navy, and French Navy has far more small vessels per major surface combatant than the US does. Hell, the US Navy has more cruisers alone than the Royal Navy has major surface combatants (the Royal Navy has none at all). As for the 233 ship Russian Navy, I suggest you look into that fleets actual disposition (way more bottom heavy than the US, Royal, or French navies, in fact about half of all vessels listed as in service are support vessels, like tankers, cargo vessels, etc.), I also suggest you look into the operational condition of those 233 ships listed as being in service, a very large portion of them (I'd say about half, possibly more, its very difficult to be certain, even for defense analysts) are listed as in service and flying an ensign so that a skeleton crew can be maintained and receive pay. Only about half of those ships (if that) are in any way operational or even serviceable, but Russia needs the ships in service to justify keeping the personnel around, which despite generally having piss poor morale and performance, are decently well trained and experienced, but lacking in motivation to actually do the job. The hope is that with the pending revitalization of the Navy, this will all turn around and the veteran crews will hopefully be an asset.
That article doesn't mention naval tonnage. I've hearad 13x, 17x, 5x, and not a multiple of any of the top 10 at all.
Did you read it at all (hurts, doesn't it?):
"Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners?"
By virtue of the fact that it is larger than the next 13 largest combined, it is also larger than the next 10 combined. Forgive me for not being specific enough.
There were only two significant, non-English, imperial powers during the Victorian period.
France and Germany. And your point is? My point still stands, that the Brits only managed to keep a Navy larger than the next two combined, while the US is keeping a fleet larger than the next 13 combined.
No, that's wrong, no one would ever classify Indian, Iranian, or North Korean military reserves/paramilitary as inactive. Well, wikipedia does, but wikipedia is not a worthwhile source. Hell, even wikipedia's source doesn't do that.
Uh, yeah they would. Active strength means active duty regular military forces. Reserves are not included in that number, as the number of active reserve (and to a lesser extent paramilitary) fluctuate to much to give an accurate assessment, it is generally assumed that in times of relative peace, barring major disasters, the reserves are generally inactive. And yes, the IISS actually DOES do that. Take it up with them, I think they're a bit more knowledgeable about the subject than either of us.
As for classifying things as active/inactive, it depends. The N. Korean worker-peasant red guard, some 3-4 million paramilitary troops, are an inactive force. They are only called up during wartime (and I men an actual legit shooting war, not this sitting with thumbs up our asses ceasefire that they have going). Ditto with the 1.5 million man Iranian Basij organization. You also have to realize that many reserve units are not combat/direct action units, but are things such as engineering units, air defense units, etc. although again this varies nation to nation (I have no doubt that a majority of N. Koreas reserve are infantry).
Uh, yes, really. Evidently you don't bother to actually read history, because this is the same issue you had with the telephone.
Since when do cars have four wheels, and only four wheels?
Look up the name Benz, though.
car: a motor vehicle with four wheels; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine; "he needs a car to get to work" - Princeton
automobile: A road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor and able to carry a small number of people - Merriam Webster
An automobile, autocar, motor car or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor. Most definitions of the term specify that automobiles are designed to run primarily on roads, to have seating for one to eight people, to typically have four wheels, and to be constructed principally for the transport of people rather than goods. - Oxford
Need I go on?
Fair enough on Benz though.
What do you think radio transmitters are for?
Again, did you read the rest of the point? TELSTAR WAS THE FIRST COMMUNICATION SATELLITE. Sputniks went beep beep beep, and Canada's sent atmospheric data. Neither of them qualify as COMMUNICATION SATELLITES.
To answer your question, radio transmitters are for a wide variety of things, including but not limited to communication. Radio transmitter =/= communication.
I'm wondering how this has anything to do with domination.
I guess the Chinese must have dominated the US culinary scene due to the prevalence of ethnic Chinese restaurants.
Having eaten real Chinese food, I would say the US has dominated the Chinese culinary scene in the US due to the reworking/creation of dishes for the American palette. And where did domination come into this? Its not about domination, its about influence.
Right, the single largest producer of professional baseball players, per capita, would never be an outlier regarding the prevalence of attire related to professional baseball teams; especially if it happens to be a quasi-US territory.
So whats your point? I said there are some parts of the world where this behavior is the norm rather than the exception, and I backed it up with an example. There are parts of Canada, Mexico, and the rest of Central America where I, or others I know have witnessed this behavior (including a friend who lives in Panama that just confirmed it as being the case there), and I am sure there are others as well. It doesn't matter if the DR is an 'outlier' or the largest producer of pro b-ball players per capita. No statement was ever made to disqualify the DR from candidacy as an example based on these things.
And it WAS a quasi-US territory. The attempt to join the Union (voted down by Congress) was in the late 1800s, we briefly occupied it for about a year in the mid 60s following the assassination of their dictator (Trujillo). Thats about as close as you get to quasi-US territory, aside from the obscene amount of CULTURAL INFLUENCE we have on the island.
So is Wyoming.
And your point (Wyoming is a beautiful state by the way)?
Uh, no, they don't. Economics began with Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism, Hobbes created what we call political science (as distinct from political philosophy), and industry as a process didn't exist until the industrial revolution.
Political Science - Political Philosophy is a subset of Political Science (confirmed to me by my friend who just graduated a degree in political science, with a disciplinary focus in political philosophy). You stated that Brits created political science. As an aspect of political science, political philosophy predates the very existence of political philosophy, and as such it would be impossible for Hobbes to create political science as a whole. At best he created the modern theory/application/practice of political science, but considering that Machiavelli (Italian) predates Hobbes, and is frequently cited as a founder of political science, I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you.
Economics - Adam Smith (a Scotsmen) is generally accepted as being responsible for the separation of economics from philosophy, etc. with "The Wealth of Nations". Prior to that however, Aristotle, Xenophon, Thomas Aquinas, amongst others, all wrote on economic theory.Thomas Aquinas has been referred to by some as the founder of "scientific economics". As he was a 13th century Italian Priest, and therefore neither British, nor alive in the 19th century, Jeremy Bentham/Britain did not invent economics.
Industry - refers to the production of an economic good (either material or a service) within an economy (Merriam Webster). By that definition, industry predates the industrial revolution by several millenia.
Yeah, they did. The English refined what had been previously called "philosophy" into the social sciences.
Great, so they coined a term to describe something that already exists. Where is the accomplishment. See response to previous quote for more info.
The novel, in its current form, is almost entirely the result of Robinson Crusoe. Fiction existed before that, but not in the form represented by Defoe.
Fair enough, I'll take your word for it.
As I said, it was important to the US during the Cold War, but there isn't much support to send US citizens back.
The US plans on going back (although theres some budget shennanigans going on with that one), I didn't list it with the others because I thought it was public knowledge at this point.
I sense a new meme coming on......
*goes off to Photoshop*
YAY!
or are you doing this because of that sour grapes feeling?
Anyway, as I know little on the topic of English-Irish relations, I'm staying out of that discussion, and I don't know how Russia relates to the rest of this, but considering the post Soviet (which I consider to be the height of Russian power) behavior of the majority of its former vassal states, I would say they don't quite qualify for the greatest nation in the world title...
The last book I read that covered some history of Russia was about the Crimean War. Before that I read a book about the 1812 campaign, and a biography of Peter the Great. However they were all in English.
Isn't Russian History grand? They have a lot of ballet and railroads, sure they have some darkspots like every time they weren't at a ballet, but they're good people. Actually they remind me of Americans, passionate to a fault and tough as hell.
True, especially after the fall of the soviet union. Of course, you'd be suprised how many americans defected to the soviet union, I guess because they really are alike in ways. They were both strong willed, they both were adamant about their views, I'm just glad america won, since they're now both free.
As for reading, I've never cared for a lot of russian literature, I like books about the czars and how they lived, or the tyrannical history of vlad the impaler, or the poems by inprisoned poets during the soviet era.
remilia_scarlet wrote:
As for reading, I've never cared for a lot of russian literature, I like books about the czars and how they lived, or the tyrannical history of vlad the impaler, or the poems by inprisoned poets during the soviet era.
Except Vlad the Impaler wasnt Russian, IIRC, he was Romanian (or lived in the region of what is now Romania).
Here is one of the key things that I think the English did, that had a lasting and "improving" impact on the western world: the advent of the State Army... Stick with me here for a little bit while I show this to you. In 1415, Henry V was marching around France (which is pretty common knowledge), and got into a bit of a scuffle with a French army of superior numbers (a great deal superior, by many accounts).. Because he said "to hell with the rules of chivalry" most of his army was made up of peasant archers (the famous English Long Bowman), who proceeded to trash the french army. As a result, and the subsequent loss of a great number of its nobility, the French King Charles VII (after a small civil war, where there were 2 kings of France), created the "compagnies d'ordonnance" and the "francs-archers". These were military units, created and called up not from the knighthood, or nobility, but the peasants, and perhaps volunteers. These men were paid a salary, and their sole job was that of soldiering, living in barracks, etc. The creation of the standing, state run military, IMO, is the single greatest contributor to what militaries look like today, and allowed many of them to accomplish the things that they did, including Napoleon, and the British Empire.
As it's been pointed out, the Germans are in fact the ones who created the automobile, and the internal combustion engine. The thing that the Americans largely get created for "inventing" in the automobile, was Henry Ford's Assembly line, bringing production costs below the basement in price, bringing an affordable machine to the masses.
And to those doubting the importance of the Apollo missions, which sent man to the moon: The reason these missions were so important, beyond the whole, We're free so we're better than you commie pricks, thing.. was the technology that went into it. Without the Apollo missions, you would not be able to sit here typing on a computer like you do now, or at the very least, it would be nowhere near as advanced as it is now. This is because the Apollo missions led directly to the advent of the micro-circuit board, and in turn the microprocessor, and PCs.
Another thing that America has "given" the world: the use of Trigonometry in Artillery. Before the civil war, everyone was just lobbing cannon balls straight at each other. I forget the battle atm, and i forget the name of the confederate who devised the idea, but here's in a nutshell how things went down: The Union forces were camped, and heavily fortified on the blindside of the top of this hill.. the confederates were behind the hill, safe from Union cannons. This confederate Lieutenant (or junior officer of low grade), who was a school teacher before the war, came up with the idea of lobbing cannon shells over the hill, because he knew the relative distance to the Union forces (by way of infantrymen, and scouts, spotters, etc.), and he knew the height of the hill that he had to shoot over. They then angled the guns up near where he thought was the right angle, and presto!! launching cannon shells high up creates all sorts of nasty problems for the people on the receiving end.
Mr Mystery wrote:Trig in artillery? A US invention?
I guess all those catapults etc were just blind luck.
when they stopped using levers and pulleys, in favor of gunpowder, they stopped "using" trig to guess the range of artillery, they depended on LOS to the target area, using the "scientific process" of trig allowed artillery to hit an area, with no direct line of sight. This also opened up a new can of worms in warfare, which ultimately led to the horrors of trench warfare, and no-mans-land's
again, guess weapons, more often than not, they would fire a ranging shot, and maneuver accordingly. There are no documents to even suggest that "math" played a role in their firing, they placed the gun, shot, if it hit, keep firing, if not, move and shoot again. So while, yes trigonometry was "used" it really wasnt, because no one was sitting down with a map, and figuring out the powder load, the range that could be achieved at different angles, etc.
wiki wrote:"The earliest battlefield use of indirect fire was probably at Paltzig in July 1759: the Russian artillery fired over the tops of trees."[12]
[12]# ^ Christopher Bellamy, Red God of War: Soviet Artillery and Rocket Forces, London, 1986, p.16, quoted in Knox, MacGregor; Murray, Williamson (2001). The Dynamics of Military Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 135. ISBN 052180079X.
wiki wrote:"The earliest battlefield use of indirect fire was probably at Paltzig in July 1759: the Russian artillery fired over the tops of trees."[12]
[12]# ^ Christopher Bellamy, Red God of War: Soviet Artillery and Rocket Forces, London, 1986, p.16, quoted in Knox, MacGregor; Murray, Williamson (2001). The Dynamics of Military Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 135. ISBN 052180079X.
Earlier than your chap?
I stand corrected. I must ask though, if this became a standard practice for them in this day, or if it was a "spontaneous" discovery.
Another thing that America has "given" the world: the use of Trigonometry in Artillery. Before the civil war, everyone was just lobbing cannon balls straight at each other. I forget the battle atm, and i forget the name of the confederate who devised the idea, but here's in a nutshell how things went down: The Union forces were camped, and heavily fortified on the blindside of the top of this hill.. the confederates were behind the hill, safe from Union cannons. This confederate Lieutenant (or junior officer of low grade), who was a school teacher before the war, came up with the idea of lobbing cannon shells over the hill, because he knew the relative distance to the Union forces (by way of infantrymen, and scouts, spotters, etc.), and he knew the height of the hill that he had to shoot over. They then angled the guns up near where he thought was the right angle, and presto!! launching cannon shells high up creates all sorts of nasty problems for the people on the receiving end.
I'm also iffy on this one. Most of the drill manuals used by the US in the Civil War were direct copies of French manuals under other names. The manual by an American (I'm trying to find his name in my notes as I can't remember it and I was literally just going through these manuals a few weeks ago) contained mass amounts of Trig and how it related to cannon fire. What I do not know, is if he actually wrote the manual or copied a French one.
This manual however was written in the 1850's. Before the Civil War.
EDIT: The Handbook of Artillery by Col. Joseph Roberts contains some trig for firing, but his is not the manual I'm thinking of as it was written to late in the war (1863).
EDIT EDIT: Found it buried in my bibliographies. The Artillerist's Manual, written by Major General John Gibbons (US Army) in 1859 during his tenure at West Point was the first to write a detailed account of the mathematics of firing artillery. Note it's a detailed account, I can't confirm if he was the first to have the idea. The Manual was used by both sides in the Civil War (typical as both sides used the same manuals in general cause they were effectively one army fighting itself).
We are all very keen to promote our differences... I think the issue here is the Question, 'Great Britain: The greatest nation the world has ever seen?' Firstly I think a nation can be defined as great quite easily, either through its contribution to global culture, the amount of land it took (quite an old fashioned mindset I know) and by its legacy.
However 'Greatest' is almost impossible to define, for instance all of nations achievements would have to be tallied and scored according to their effect on the world and their relativity to their specific time period. (It is hardly fair to put the moon landing, for instance and score everything relatively to that from all time periods, because nations such as Rome, Eygpt, Prussia, Great Britain and so forth could not have achieved this in their 'great period')
Then there are other factors to determine, can a 'great' nations 'ungreat' actions balance out their 'great' actions, for instance if they didn't, you could place Nazi Germany as a great nation, it conquered most of Europe, redefined warfare- especially the uses of Blitzkrieg, Tanks, U-boats and Aircraft. Almost removed unemployment in Germany, (Yes I realise the 'undesirables of Nazi Germany were not included on this list as of the Nuremberg Laws and also German Women who had taken government incentives to raise children) Nazi Germany under these conditions would look pretty'great', however if the negatives were weighed in; death, concentration and work camps, ghetto's, the S.S., treatment of P.O.W's and so on so forth Nazi Germany looks alot less favourable.
Take the U.S.A. as another example, (not that I am comparing anyone to Nazi Germany) an American user in this thread commented on the amount of McDonalds all across the globe. The world does appreciate Burgers! However is the global spread of a fast food chain an achievement of greatness? Also the moon landings, should this achievement be considered less great because the U.S.S.R put the first man in space?
There are too many variables, concerning all nations to blindly brand one, especially your own, the 'Greatest of all time, so far' sorry for the rant....
People that LOVE their country too much are dicks aren't they? I mean, im convinced thats the case by reading the last 6 pages of this thread. Who is the guy who wrote out a list of "good" things?!
I don't understand the bizarre human fascination with trying to claim some sort of kudos for the efforts of other people who happened to be born in the same area of the globe? I really don't get it.. why?
If a guy you never met invented a cure for cancer, but he happened to live 50 miles away from your house, why does that make YOU feel awesome? What the feth did you contribute?
I think my generation is just full of dickless losers personally. Desperate to ride the coat tails of better men!
The British and the Americans are the worst for it too, i hate how kids go "WE won the war" what the feth did they do?
It perplexes me utterly.. and as Oscar said, Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
Oh and on a related note, I was rooting for Vladimir Klitschko on Saturday. Ill cheer for the man I like the best, not the one who happens to live closer to my house.
Matty, during your marine days you would have been proud of your regiment's achievements, even if you weren't one of those who stormed Gibralter back in the day. Unless of course your a time traveller
The same things goes for countiries. It's only human nature for people to be proud of their country's legacy. I love the UK, but I also really enjoy France, Germany, Canada, USA (when I go) and every other place I've been too. As long as you don't cross the line with jingoism, then there is nothing wrong with expressing such sentiments.
Anyway, thanks to all those who replied, some food for thought for my pupils. It was never my intention to open a can of worms
And on a final note, I think the USA wins every time in these kind of debates for the simple reason they produced Elisabeth Shue. Nuff said.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Matty, during your marine days you would have been proud of your regiment's achievements, even if you weren't one of those who stormed Gibralter back in the day. Unless of course your a time traveller
The same things goes for countiries. It's only human nature for people to be proud of their country's legacy. I love the UK, but I also really enjoy France, Germany, Canada, USA (when I go) and every other place I've been too. As long as you don't cross the line with jingoism, then there is nothing wrong with expressing such sentiments.
Anyway, thanks to all those who replied, some food for thought for my pupils. It was never my intention to open a can of worms
And on a final note, I think the USA wins every time in these kind of debates for the simple reason they produced Elisabeth Shue. Nuff said.
Yeah fairy nuff, you know another thing though? People are always "proud"
It doesnt matter what nation your from, people are always proud. Proud to be Nigerian, Mexican, Lithuanian, it doesn't matter what country it is, people love to be proud of it. I was getting leathered in a bar in Porto once and a guy was from like.. Uruguayan or something and he said to me "Uruguayans can drink more than anyone!" As I said, I just think were a stupid poorly evolved mammalian species and most of the things we do don't make any sense.
Gratz... i think...
Considering we have most of our basic needs covered many people are concerned with the higher needs. Pride is a component of it...
At any rate it does help in some ways even if it is to the detriment of a few other things...
I adore my country, but the current state of our nation sickens me.
I blame our gutless politicians and the bleeding-heart liberals. And the E.U of course, curse them...
Dont get me started on the Ills of modern Britain.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote:I adore my country, but the current state of our nation sickens me.
I blame our gutless politicians and the bleeding-heart liberals. And the E.U of course, curse them...
Dont get me started on the Ills of modern Britain.
That's a very long list and one I would easily rectify if I was (stupidly) given the power to rule.
OT: GB is one of the "greats" but not the greatest. Doubt there is a greatest yet; it'd be the one that pretty much unites Humanity under one flag (Go Home President of the EU... and you Blair) and get us into Galactic Conquest. Right now we've had nations ruling over the majority of countries but not a full worldwide conquest. Part of me thinks North Korea might do it... or China, or Russia. Sadly, not America. America isn't ready, not for a long while.
chaos0xomega wrote:You think North Korea or Russia is more likely to be able to conquer the world than the US? Okay, someone has been playing too many video games...
I'll give you China, just because they have a ridiculously large population.
I think he means more in terms of the will and resolve to take over the rest of the world. However, I think he is still wrong about NK - they are happy wallowing in their own little kingdom - invading somewhere else will expose their citizens to how much better the rest of the world is - not to mention their army isn't really well equipped.
chaos0xomega wrote:You think North Korea or Russia is more likely to be able to conquer the world than the US? Okay, someone has been playing too many video games...
I'll give you China, just because they have a ridiculously large population.
I think he means more in terms of the will and resolve to take over the rest of the world. However, I think he is still wrong about NK - they are happy wallowing in their own little kingdom - invading somewhere else will expose their citizens to how much better the rest of the world is - not to mention their army isn't really well equipped.
I dunno the whole hostility over South Korea did shed a little light on what they're capable of so I don't write them off in that regard. China and Russia are easy to pick since both are relatively big and damn powerful.
And Chaos, saying I play too many video games is a shamble of an argument since i don't play many and I don't like modern shooters where Russia takes over the world, or at least tries. Those aren't proper storylines for a game.
... And I reside better jdugement to criticise your patriotism Chaos since that's pointless in itself.
What exactly are you referring to "hostility over South Korea"? The Korean War in the 50s (just pointing out that the majority of the hardware N. Korea has at its disposal was probably used during that war)? The Cheonan sinking (its still somewhat inconclusive as to what caused it and whether or not it was even the N. Koreans)? The Yeonpyeong bombardment (which did comparatively little damage for the number of shells fired)?
Russia is also a poor choice, they have a smaller military than the US, and for the most part its tech has severely lagged behind the rest of the Western world. Their Air Force is severely understaffed and in large part poorly trained, due to most of its pilots receiving only a fraction of the flight hours they should be getting, and especially so in relation to its western counterparts. Its aircraft inventory is extremely dilapidated, in 2009 200 out of some 300 MiG-29s were permanently grounded due to safety issues with the aircraft, this represents an almost 33% loss of total Russian fighters. The Russian Chief of the General Staff said (in 2009) the Russian bomber fleet was incapable of fulfilling its missions: "They can run bombing missions only in daytime with the sun shining, but they miss their targets anyway."
As I've said before in this thread, the Russian Navy is a rusting fleet in being, rather than an actual cohesive and effective fighting force. Even if it did manage to get all of its active ships into operational service (which would require large scale repairs of over 100 out of 223 vessels, as well as a doubling in personnel), you're still only looking at 1 aircraft carrier (non-nuclear, compare to 11 American nuclear aircraft), 4 cruisers and 1 'battlecruiser' (to 22 American cruisers), 14 destroyers (59 american), 5 frigates (29 american), 11 ballistic missile subs (14 american), 5 cruise missile subs (4 american), and 15 nuclear/17 conventional attack subs (53 american, all nuclear). A considerably smaller and less powerful force.
The ground forces are a similar situation to that, although they are better able to match the US for numbers of operational tanks, apcs, artillery pieces, etc. but a large number of those systems are older, lacking modernization upgrades, etc.
China doesn't have the 'rust' issues that Russia and N. Korea does, but it doesn't have the power projection capability of the US (or even that of Russia). It has no operational aircraft carriers (it is preparing to commission its first carrier soon, an old soviet design that is being refit for training purposes). Much of its Air Force operates outdated variants of Russian aircraft, though it has its own domestic force, the quantities of these aircraft available are rather small and untested. In any case, China is not currently positioning itself as a global military power, its R&D is all focused on making it a regional power. Its scariest/most advanced weapon systems are being built not to conquer others but to deny the west access to its territorial waters.
I would say they are big, I wouldn't say either of them are damn powerful.
Contrast this to the US, which again has a larger navy by tonnage than the next 13 largest navies combined, has the worlds most powerful and capable air force capable of delivering enough firepower to destroy any major city on any point on the globe, etc. etc. etc.
Give it 20 years and then we'll see what they stand, but currently neither of those 3 could realistically conquer the globe or start an interstellar empire.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The good news is that I've finally been able to find some gainful employment - I teach A Level history at night school.
One of the modules/seminars I teach is The British Empire in the 19th century.
Now, a lot has been said about the role of PC (political correctness) in modern society and I'm sure folks on this site have their own views on its rights or wrongs. But that is neither here nor there.
The main focus of the module is the rights and wrongs of imperialism. There are people in my class who are Asian/African, and so obviously their ancestors were probably being exploited and needless to say, they think the Empire was not a force for good. Now, being mixed race myself with a grandfather from Trinidad, I can sympathise.
But I'm their teacher, and I believe that an integral part of education is teaching people the skills of critical thinking, presenting all sides of an argument etc and ultimately making up their own minds.
Now, I've decided to do a devil's advocate style piece and present Great Britain as a force of good: cultural legacy, influence on the USA, world trade, law and justice, building railways in India, spread of the English language, taking on the Nazis etc
I'd interested (and appreciative) in lots of views from as many different people as possible, particualry non-brits, on the positives and negatives of the British Empire. Ignoring our current decline, is Great Britain the greatest nation the world has ever seen?
Look at it this way: When it came to Africa independence was not an option (for all the non-Ethiopians) you WERE going to be colonised by a power no matter what you felt.
So the question is; if colonisation is inevitable, what's better? Go for the Brits or go for the Belgians? I think that one is self-explanatory.
You can try take the moral high ground by saying that Brits should've withdrawn from Imperialism, but someone else would've taken their place. Although the British weren't saints, their attitudes were a lot more enlightened than many of their contemporaries throughout the ages... So I'd say that if you're teaching the Empire and want to praise its strengths, compare it to its contemporaries throughout the three hundred odd years of its existence...
<text redacted; if you cannot express your opinions without insulting other users, you would do better to refrain from becoming involved in heated threads --Janthkin>
mattyrm wrote:
People that LOVE their country too much are dicks aren't they? I mean, im convinced thats the case by reading the last 6 pages of this thread. Who is the guy who wrote out a list of "good" things?!
I don't understand the bizarre human fascination with trying to claim some sort of kudos for the efforts of other people who happened to be born in the same area of the globe? I really don't get it.. why?
That's basically my opinion as well, particularly as the most intense nationalists I meet tend to have never left their country of origin.
mattyrm wrote:
I think my generation is just full of dickless losers personally. Desperate to ride the coat tails of better men!
Now just imagine what putting up with all the nationalism in the Victorian Age would have been like!
most (i try not to use superlatives) of the people here that are dissing on nationalists are just as bad in a different way. Yes, many hardcore nationalists can be a little...over the top, but what is wrong with feeling like you are a part of something, and being proud of your heritage. the nationalists believe in something and are willing to defend it. as much as the people who diss on nationalists tend to be (from my experience) anarchists who diss on governments, religions and anything else that the majority of people do like. So in their effort to not believe in anything, the anarchists do believe in something...and that is they believe in being against everything. and so for all of you against everything in the world, have fun being downtrodden and always angry at other people for being happy and faithful and believing in something, and just know that in the end, we dont give one flying feth about what anarchists think, because they are anarchists, and will be against the majority no matter what the current opinions they are for.
A quick point: Anarchism isn't believing in nothing, it is believing in self-governance. Nihilism is closer to believing in nothing, but that's a bit of an over simplification.
dajobe wrote:okay, i stand corrected, all of the nihilistic people i was talking to then
To be fair, I've come across a lot of people who call themselves anarchists but have no idea what the term means. I recall the protests made outside Oxford university not so long ago against the increase to the maximum size of tuition fees. In the crowds, there were a fair few students waving signs with the anarchy symbol on them. Protesting reduced government funding. By waving anarchy symbols. Idiots.
true, that does sound like a stupid thing, many college students that i have run into at school i have found to be completely unknowledgeable on anything they talk about and just spew gak all the time about crap they have no real idea about...
dajobe wrote:and so for all of you against everything in the world, have fun being downtrodden and always angry at other people for being happy and faithful and believing in something, and just know that in the end, we dont give one flying feth about what anarchists think, because they are anarchists, and will be against the majority no matter what the current opinions they are for.
The funny thing is that the wealthier, and more successful you are, the less nationalistic you tend to be.
that is a huge generalization that is impossible to support. my family is fairly wealthy and we know many wealthy families that are all very proud of their heritage and country.
dajobe wrote:and so for all of you against everything in the world, have fun being downtrodden and always angry at other people for being happy and faithful and believing in something, and just know that in the end, we dont give one flying feth about what anarchists think, because they are anarchists, and will be against the majority no matter what the current opinions they are for.
The funny thing is that the wealthier, and more successful you are, the less nationalistic you tend to be.
Prove that, it seems like a load of bull. Especially if you take the military into account. Fun fact, the majority of military members come from the middle class, followed by the 'upper class'. Only a very small portion is drawn from the 'lower class'. If we take military enlistments/commissions as a sign of how patriotic or nationalistic a group is, then it says that its a bell curve correlation to wealth, unless you take into account relative population (the upper class is significantly smaller than either the middle or lower classes), in which case it shows us that the more money you have the more nationalistic you tend to be.
Yeah, usually, although in some cases its the income of the people themselves (if they are an older enlistee in their late 20 or 30s), or if they are an OCS (officer candidate school) applicant.
$30,000 is not very much. I believe that only about 15 or 16% of the US population is on such a low income.
That probably explains the point that most military personnel are from middle classes. The middle class is defined as such a wide band that it encompasses nearly 90% of the eligible population.
Yeah, but then you have the 'upper class', probably another 15% of the population, that have a larger representation in the US military than the lower class.
dajobe wrote:that is a huge generalization that is impossible to support. my family is fairly wealthy and we know many wealthy families that are all very proud of their heritage and country.
Tendencies aren't generalizations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:What defines the "upper class" in the US population?
Regardless of income, there is a trend in the United State to identify as "middle class".
This can either mean that the upper class, and lower class are relatively small groups, or that people are unable to properly judge their purchasing power relative to that of others. Well, that, or a combination of the two.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Prove that, it seems like a load of bull. Especially if you take the military into account. Fun fact, the majority of military members come from the middle class, followed by the 'upper class'.
Military membership isn't the same thing as nationalism. I know plenty of non-nationalist military personnel. They wanted money, in terms of pay and collegiate funding, so they joined the military; it wasn't a matter of national pride.
Either way, military membership follows the same basic bell curve as nationalism. Basically, the poor are unlikely to be members, and the rich are unlikely to be members.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Only a very small portion is drawn from the 'lower class'. If we take military enlistments/commissions as a sign of how patriotic or nationalistic a group is, then it says that its a bell curve correlation to wealth, unless you take into account relative population (the upper class is significantly smaller than either the middle or lower classes), in which case it shows us that the more money you have the more nationalistic you tend to be.
Your first mistake, as mentioned above, is presuming that nationalism tends to escalate in accordance with military membership. Your second mistake is to assume that there is a reliable definition of "middle class". There are plenty of arguments that suggest the US middle class is in fact the lower end of the income spectrum. For example, many studies identify the middle class as poverty line to 250k per anum income, which is an absurdly large range.
I should have said that nationalism is a bell curve, with the very poor being relatively lacking in it and the very rich being relatively lacking in it, but the honest truth is that the poor aren't relevant to anything other than voting behavior. They know this of course, and that is in large part why they aren't very nationalistic. Compare this to the wealthy who lack nationalism because they can simply leave the country and let it burn, provided they weren't oppressors, or have some value to other wealthy people.
Wait, because British servicemen/women were captured by the Iranians, then released completely unharmed about a fortnight later, Britain has 'slipped' as a great nation?
Hmm. OK, so the fact that the UK is one of the world's largest economies, most powerful militaries, has a permanent seat on the UN Security council, great infrastructure, an incredibly rich history, a unique cultural 'reach' and wields significant global influence.... all that is irrelevant, yes?
Britain is still a 'great nation' by any measurement. You just have a chip on your shoulder the size of Ireland's sovereign debt.
Albatross wrote:Wait, because British servicemen/women were captured by the Iranians, then released completely unharmed about a fortnight later, Britain has 'slipped' as a great nation?
Hmm. OK, so the fact that the UK is one of the world's largest economies, most powerful militaries, has a permanent seat on the UN Security council, great infrastructure, an incredibly rich history, a unique cultural 'reach' and wields significant global influence.... all that is irrelevant, yes?
Britain is still a 'great nation' by any measurement. You just have a chip on your shoulder the size of Ireland's sovereign debt.
we actually havent been since 1776, i think the first hamburger was made in the late 1800's when a guy asked for a quick meal so a chef put some cooked beef on 2 toasted pieces of bread.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's called a sandwich and it was invented in the UK.
Or India.
Hamburgers are separate than sanwiches however.
Hamburgers were invented by Rolf "Ralph" Shmidtz, who later went on to win the Prussian game of Conquer France in a Week during the 1878 hunting season.
Well a hamburger is classified as a sandwich, the concept of the beef patte that makes the hamburger supposedly unique is not a single invention created by one single person.
iproxtaco wrote:Well a hamburger is classified as a sandwich, the concept of the beef patte that makes the hamburger supposedly unique is not a single invention created by one single person.
Only a Brit would think that. You're just jealous the Ralph Shmidtz came here and not there. Little known fact, in addition to winning Lets Conquer France week and inventing the hamburger, he later went on to develop the first water slide for Schlitterbahn in New Braunfels, the Munchkinwasserlaunchen (water driven child launcher). Indeed it was rumored he was destined for great things. Unfortunately the sister ride, the Dachshundwasserlaunchen suffered a critical error when one of his pet wiener dogs wandered over and peed on the gears, thus starting the mechanism and shooting him over the barn and into the river, which, unfortunately was bone dry due to a drought at the time.
Here's a colorized picture of said wiener dog, next to the launcher shortly before the accident. Almost the sptting image of TBone. mmm...
NO DOGS??? how do you live? i love my dogs! its like a rueben is technically a sandwhich, just because other types of sandwhiches were around before it does not mean that whoever invented the first sandwhich invented the rueben. BAM
Haggis? Ah nae me wee rrrrapsakallian, Haggis wis a wee lital creeture roonin aboot wee wun leg shairter than the uther, betterrr fair roonin roond the hells wee.
Sorry to derail the thread from the Haggis Appreciation society...
Chaos, can I please ask you not to use the US military and Navy as a benchmark for greatness. Why?
Because the US Navy was founded by a Scotsman, John Jones, and the breechloading rifle invented by another Scotsman, Capt Patrick (whos first name escapes me).
AndrewC wrote:Sorry to derail the thread from the Haggis Appreciation society...
Chaos, can I please ask you not to use the US military and Navy as a benchmark for greatness. Why?
Because the US Navy was founded by a Scotsman, John Jones, and the breechloading rifle invented by another Scotsman, Capt Patrick (whos first name escapes me).
Cheers
Andrew
that is pefectly fine, but to say that just because they were founded by outsiders makes them not great is foolish. I do not believe that the credit for the achievements of those organizations can go to the scottish just because one of them helped to found the organization. That would be like saying the greatest US company ever had a CEO from (country) and because of that, the credit for the american company goes to (country)?
Weel, thas becuze we needed anootherrr shootin steck tae hoont the Haggis wee, and beeterrr boats tae hoont the aquatic Haggis whae dwelt in thi Lochs o' thi glens.
dajobe wrote:that is pefectly fine, but to say that just because they were founded by outsiders makes them not great is foolish. I do not believe that the credit for the achievements of those organizations can go to the scottish just because one of them helped to found the organization. That would be like saying the greatest US company ever had a CEO from (country) and because of that, the credit for the american company goes to (country)?
But when that CEO creates the structure around which the company then grows....
As the topic is about the contribution to the worlds society, then the founders become important.
AndrewC wrote:Sorry to derail the thread from the Haggis Appreciation society...
Chaos, can I please ask you not to use the US military and Navy as a benchmark for greatness. Why?
Because the US Navy was founded by a Scotsman, John Jones, and the breechloading rifle invented by another Scotsman, Capt Patrick (whos first name escapes me).
Cheers
Andrew
Its John Paul Jones to you boyo!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AndrewC wrote:
dajobe wrote:that is pefectly fine, but to say that just because they were founded by outsiders makes them not great is foolish. I do not believe that the credit for the achievements of those organizations can go to the scottish just because one of them helped to found the organization. That would be like saying the greatest US company ever had a CEO from (country) and because of that, the credit for the american company goes to (country)?
But when that CEO creates the structure around which the company then grows....
As the topic is about the contribution to the worlds society, then the founders become important.
Cheers
Andrew
of course gunpowder was invented by the Chinese, so your argument doesn't hold. Evidently the British army and navy were founded on Chinese greatness after all.
also, going by your logic, William of Normandy invaded England in 1066 and ruled...so all of England's achievements are really FRANCE'S. And France was taken over by the Romans, who moved to italy From Turkey, who migrated there from East Africa a long time ago. So I declare...SOMALIA the greatest nation ever(by your reasoning AndrewC).
And many humans, I believe it was about a fifth, can trace their origins back to other strains of proto-human, including Neanderthals, with another fifth being able to trace their origins back to south america.
Albatross wrote:Wait, because British servicemen/women were captured by the Iranians, then released completely unharmed about a fortnight later, Britain has 'slipped' as a great nation?
Were captured? Now a rewrite without the passive voice: they were craven and they surrendered. A far cry from the men who won Trafalgar!
Yes, but apparently research into the genetic ancestry of many Europeans found what was described as Neanderthal DNA components, suggesting that Neanderthals were not completely out classed and in fact, interbred with Homo-sapiens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
olympia wrote:
Albatross wrote:Wait, because British servicemen/women were captured by the Iranians, then released completely unharmed about a fortnight later, Britain has 'slipped' as a great nation?
Were captured? Now a rewrite without the passive voice: they were craven and they surrendered. A far cry from the men who won Trafalgar!
Who numbered in the thousands, were at war with the enemy, were facing an enemy with similar technology and numbers to their own, and had no international relations to worry about, and were glad to throw down their lives in a conflict that they actually wanted. A tad different to a few marines and service personnel in a patrol boat caught by a superior force with no hope of fighting their way out, who weren't at war and needed specific orders to open fire on an approaching ship.
You're trolling but hey, it's all in good spirits.
Be aware though, that the findings of the project are widely disputed due to a lack of archaeological evidence. That's not exactly a case to disprove possible interbreeding.
Albatross wrote:Wait, because British servicemen/women were captured by the Iranians, then released completely unharmed about a fortnight later, Britain has 'slipped' as a great nation?
Were captured? Now a rewrite without the passive voice: they were craven and they surrendered. A far cry from the men who won Trafalgar!
Our British comrades should not associate this poster's opinions with the views of all Americans, in contrast to mine posts, which represent the correct views of all good red blooded Patriotic Neaderthal-Americans.
Not a great nation, just extremely lucky:
1. The Normans conquered the island in 1066 and thereby saved it from squalid isolation (c.g. Ireland).
2. Blessed with coal which allowed it to industrialize without sacrificing arable land to grow timber for fuel (c.g. China, Japan).
Albatross wrote:Wait, because British servicemen/women were captured by the Iranians, then released completely unharmed about a fortnight later, Britain has 'slipped' as a great nation?
Were captured? Now a rewrite without the passive voice: they were craven and they surrendered. A far cry from the men who won Trafalgar!
Craven!?
Deciding to allow yourself to be captured depends entirely on the circumstances.
Before I got to Sierra Leone, 11 Irish guards were captured. We rescued them, but we had to obliterate a village (I forget, but i think we killed about 110 rebels) we also lost a SF trooper in the assault, and the lads had enjoyed a jolly good raping at the hands of their chums in the WSB.
After this, everyone was briefed fully, that the all important ROE was to be relaxed, and that if you were ever in fear for your life or at risk of capture you were cleared to go full auto on the mother fethers. Capture was absolutely not an option.
Funny thing, nobody got captured again.
Now, in this situation, being as I know a few of the lads involved, one was a Captain, another was a high ranking Naval officer. And the lads underneath him had served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few might have even been over zapping the lads you probably look up to in the IRA. The reason they allowed themselves to be taken, will have been simply that it was the correct decision to make on the ground. It's happened a few times, the Iranians use it for propaganda purposes, nobody gets hurt, everyone gets home and they even buy you a new suit. No issues, no sizeable diplomatic problems.
If the Green Berets decide to brass up an Iranian patrol boat, successful or not, it would cause needless death on both sides, a diplomatic shitstorm of epic proportions, and will no doubt affect our efforts in other theatres and have sizeable ramifications.
The men will have been instinctively leaning towards their triggers, that's what happens during these circumstances, its a natural human response. But pros don't let adrenalin make any decisions for them, they are well trained, they do what they are told for a reason.
In short, the men did the correct thing, and followed orders. And they WILL have been orders. You don't go on patrol "willy nilly" and grab a bag of grenades then nip out for a sail like on some sort of nautical version of Gears of fething war. You sort your gak out because you are a professional.
Its well known what went on to anyone who has a clue, you clearly get your knowledge of war from Black Library books and video games.
I can forgive this, I can forgive ignorance and stupid posts on the internet, but I cant forgive someone as clueless and crass calling your betters "Craven"
Captain Chris Air RM was captured that day, I bet he can run faster, shoot better and bench more than you ever will be able to. He's clearly much smarter as well, passing a gruelling year long selection course with a huge training bleed and rising to the rank of Captain in one of the worlds most elite regiments, the same one that gave the very same green berets to the fine well motivated chaps of the US special forces back in WW2.
Dont worry though, Ill get his email address and you can write him a grovelling apology for daring to criticize a man that could no doubt punch your face off with consummate ease.
Good post, mattyrm, but at this point you're just feeding a troll. olympia's clearly got a serious distaste for Britain and a very strong opinion about it too. I wouldn't be surprised if he is just posting these things to rile people up. Neither would I be surprised if he truly believed them. Either way, his posting style makes it clear he's not ready to listen to reason.
olympia wrote:Not a great nation, just extremely lucky:
1. The Normans conquered the island in 1066 and thereby saved it from squalid isolation (c.g. Ireland).
2. Blessed with coal which allowed it to industrialize without sacrificing arable land to grow timber for fuel (c.g. China, Japan).
Should I apply similar reasoning to the area of land that would become the US?
Discovered and settled by European powers, thereby saving it from squalid isolation. (c.g. Most countries in South America).
Blessed with industrial techniques first pioneered by Britain, thus making it the incredible power it is today.
I don't care how "lucky" certain things are, it's what we did with them that lead to Britannia conquering the largest empire yet seen.
dajobe wrote:also, going by your logic, William of Normandy invaded England in 1066 and ruled...so all of England's achievements are really FRANCE'S. And France was taken over by the Romans, who moved to italy From Turkey, who migrated there from East Africa a long time ago. So I declare...SOMALIA the greatest nation ever(by your reasoning AndrewC)
No, because I'm not claiming the successes of those two individuals as Great Britains, I'm just asking that Chaos stops using them as an illustration of the USAs greatness.
In my opinion the greatest nation seen by the world is the Egyptian. Will people still be talking about the British Empire 2000 years from now? I think not.
I dont know, i bet that in 2000 years people will talk about the British Empire, it had a huge impact on the world with all of its colonies and many countries would be very different places without their interaction with the British during their colonial times.
Plus i do believe that the US military and Navy are an illustration of our greatness. No other country can truthfully claim to have such miliatry branches. Yes, china may have more people, but US is much more technologically advanced on the whole. Now in 20 years, i dont know, possibly not, but that is not the issue.
I'm as loyal as the next Brit but really. No-one can look at the incident Olympia mentioned with the slightest bit of objective logic and argue that the previous 500 years of British national history have any significance in comparison.
dajobe wrote:I dont know, i bet that in 2000 years people will talk about the British Empire, it had a huge impact on the world with all of its colonies and many countries would be very different places without their interaction with the British during their colonial times.
Plus i do believe that the US military and Navy are an illustration of our greatness. No other country can truthfully claim to have such miliatry branches. Yes, china may have more people, but US is much more technologically advanced on the whole. Now in 20 years, i dont know, possibly not, but that is not the issue.
I believe that the technological advances and equipment used by the US military are a huge argument for the 'greatness' of the USA, I just don't think that the navy, definately, and the army, perhaps, should be used because the base is another countries success. Would the American Navy be in this form without Mr Jones? I don't think so, it could be vastly more successful, but more to the point it was successful then. Had the fledgeling navy been wiped out at the start then the USA would not exist in the form it does today.
Both those services were born as a result of conflict in which failure would have condemned the USA to history as a 'dream that never happened'. But that wasn't the case, the armed services prevailed and I would like to think that that was a reflection on the abilities of the founders, rather than just because they had them.
At one point the UK was the premiere nation. That honour now goes to the US. But I still think that the greatest nation the world has ever seen, please note the past tense, is the Egyptian. But then again I always wanted to be an archeologist.
I am sure it would have been a very different organization without Mr. Jones. but to take the credit from the whole organization just because the founder wasnt american would be as if you said that the greatness of the pharoahs of egypt could not be attributed to egypt because of ptolemy(a greek who became pharoah after alexander died)
dajobe wrote:also, going by your logic, William of Normandy invaded England in 1066 and ruled...so all of England's achievements are really FRANCE'S. And France was taken over by the Romans, who moved to italy From Turkey, who migrated there from East Africa a long time ago. So I declare...SOMALIA the greatest nation ever(by your reasoning AndrewC)
No, because I'm not claiming the successes of those two individuals as Great Britains, I'm just asking that Chaos stops using them as an illustration of the USAs greatness.
I'm sorry but this is the most flawed logic I have ever seen. You're asking me to stop using the American Navy as an example of American exceptionalism because the founder, who has been dead for over 200 years was Scottish? Are you trying to argue the point that the Scotts should get credit for the US Navy's greatness? That is the weakest argument ever, the US Navy was little more than an overglorified coast guard until the latter half of the 19th century, a lot of people were involved in making that possible, Mahan included, but John Paul Jones wasn't one of them.
BTW, another interesting point of history, the Continental Navy was disbanded after the American Revolution. Technically, the Navy we have now is a completely seperate entity and organization from the one founded by John Paul Jones, seeing as how it was refounded some 10 years later, so I will continue using it as an example of American greatness.
That I didn't know, so I will retract my statement. But would ask a different question, who should receive more credit, the creator or the creation or equal?
Its an interesting question, but how do you define creator, and at which point is his national identity establshed?
BTW, I should point out that John Paul Jones didn't actually create the Navy, the Continental Congress did. Really I'm not sure if John Paul Jones had anything to do with its creation at all, he was a war hero, other than that I'm not certain, nothing I could find online indicates that to be the case. Anyway, back to my point, JPJ became an american citizen at a point prior to his naval service. Do we count him as a Scotsman still, or do we consider him an American from that point on?
I'm not sure anyone can really definitively say who gets credit unless its a case by case basis. Certainly nobody gives Germany or Hungary credit for the Atom Bomb, despite Einstein and Szilards roles in its development, but then again, the Manhattan Project was largely funded and lead by Americans.
Everybodys viewpoint is based largely on a national viewpoint. Here in Scotland, Mr Jones is recognised as the founder of the modern American Navy, but from your point of view his inclusion is important but not essential. If you were to take all his knowledge and experience that led him to that point, then he should be credited as Scottish, but if you were only to take his actions then he should be credited as American.
It's because of that dubiety I asked that your example not be used, not because I wanted to pull the rug from under you, but because I felt that it was a misleading premise.
But as you have pointed out, the navy today is a seperate entity from the one created then. However even then his tomb is guarded 24/365 by a Midshipman at the US Naval Academy and is credited as the Father of the US Navy. A charge which is commonly leveled at the US is "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story". However in this case you can truthfully level that at me.
Good thing I can fall back on the excuse that I'm not a naval or foreign policy historian 
