Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Was Britain in its prime more Influential the current USA

Announcements Posted on
One quick question - from of our list, who would you most like to see on TSR doing a Q&A? 23-09-2014
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slk3)
    This point is valid but had globalisation due to technology occured at the time of Britain's imperial height there is no doubt the UK would have had a far greater cultural impact than the US has had in the past 100 years. I think in terms of influence, the military and trade muscle that Britain exerted over the world is much stronger than the US' today, in relative terms at least.
    Plus you underestimate the cultural impact that the commonwealth had; just look at all the systems of government in place in all the old dominions such as Egypt, India, etc., the spread of British products before WW1, the fact that proportionately far more foreign nationals have come to study in British universities, learning British values etc and returning home to be influential figures (I'm talking Gandhi, Ang San Su Kyi etc)
    While I see what you're saying I wouldnt say what you've said is strictly true because globalisation did happen because of technology, we caused it BUT our technology then isnt what I suppose you'd see as technology today. Electronics may be a bit more accurate.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GraviticWar)
    & the more important things that you state are reliant on the Soviets sucking up and eventually removing/destroying nearly all of the manpower/resources/production of the Third Reich ie. not Britain alone. Are you really trying to argue to me that Britain could have invaded, a Third Reich, that had ALL of the manpower and resources ready to be deployed against any potential ''D-day'' style invasion or European liberation campign, from which previously had been dedicated to Operation Barbarossa? Don't try and move away from the argument, which I was originally tackling you on, Britain fighting ALONE. I agree with some of your points in the context of the other external pressures being present, like that of which happened in reality, the Soviets[particularly the Soviets] and the Americans etc. Germany resources were stretched far to widely. This was because all the three Great Powers were fighting against it on multiple front and not just one of them on what would have been one front.
    Bear in mind though, that if it were just Britain and Germany, no D-day tactics would be required, as Germany wouldn't be occupying France. Also, It was majorly the italiens fighting the British in Northern Africa, i think ( May be wrong), so there's a bulk of British resources. Then there's the fact that the Royal Navy was far superior to the Germans Navy. Not sure about Air superiority.

    Correct me where wrong.

    EDIT: Much of the Eastern Colonies were under attack by Japan It seems, ie Hong Kong, Singapore, India. So, It's not as if Germany was the only one spread thinly. The battle of Britain failed for the Germans too, since I'm just throwing things out there now...
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexs2602)
    Do you realise how insultingly ignorant you are? You do realise that Britain still plays a very significant role in the global economy, politics etc and you'd do well not to forget that.
    Britain, as a part of europe, plays a significant role in the global economy. There are a lot of nations in the world that play just as much of significant role as england. You'd do well to not forget that.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacktri)
    If it has been a 1 vs 1 I think Germany could probably have overwhelmed London and the UK before the rest of the empire's resources and man power could be used against them and don't forget they were close to developing the atomic bomb if they had held on long enough we would have been screwed 1 vs 1
    Part of declassified files show we were actually the reason they didn't develop the bomb. They were at an advanced stage in a secret location (not in Germany, I can't remember where), and we found the location and coordinated a strike against it. We actually sent in soldiers we trained from the country they were using (I still can't remember damn it). All the research was destroyed, scientists taken etc. This was before the US even joined, without our efforts the war would have ended very differently.

    If Germany could have sneaked to the channel, with all the resources they needed, then I would agree they could have invaded at the beginning - but how likely would this have been in reality? So 1 on 1, I do think we could have won.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mabrookes)
    Part of declassified files show we were actually the reason they didn't develop the bomb. They were at an advanced stage in a secret location (not in Germany, I can't remember where), and we found the location and coordinated a strike against it. We actually sent in soldiers we trained from the country they were using (I still can't remember damn it). All the research was destroyed, scientists taken etc. This was before the US even joined, without our efforts the war would have ended very differently.

    If Germany could have sneaked to the channel, with all the resources they needed, then I would agree they could have invaded at the beginning - but how likely would this have been in reality? So 1 on 1, I do think we could have won.
    it was norway i think or the Uranverein
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Britain, as a part of europe, plays a significant role in the global economy. There are a lot of nations in the world that play just as much of significant role as england. You'd do well to not forget that.
    Great Britain.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    im talking of britain alone vs germany, Germany would have been annihilated slowly softened by mass bombing and city destroying like dresden,and naval blockade. then either an invasion of somewhere like france or the germans would give up. its actually surprising they didnt give up in real life, but hitlers crazy ideology and propagana made them into pretty much suicide bombers.
    Well, I don't agree you can be so assumptive. Germany would have been in a far greater position to resist the airs raids and naval blockades, if it was just dedicating its manpower and resources to combating Britain alone - the Luftwaffe would have been much more flexible, for example. It was only really after the gradually mounting loses on the Eastern-front that the Luftwaffe began to become overwhelmed by the Allied aircraft before this it was technologically superior, even though the Battle of Britain offensive was a failure, its air superiority over Europe[Germany] would have been more effectively maintained, if it was not for a variety of detrimental factors that the Eastern-front brought. Like the fuel shortages from the loss of Romania were critical to the Luftwaffe become almost completely redundant. Basically, Germany would not have been stretched resource wise, which was an crucial reason for its annihilation, this was the three Great Powers combining and attacking on multiple fronts, as I have said. It was only within the years of 1943 on-wards, when the Allies actually begun to destroy Germans cities like Hamburg and the increasing effectiveness of this, was largely thanks to the Americans, who brought their significant air power to bare.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    Great Britain.
    england, britain, 'great' britain, uk are all pretty interchangeable tbh. Don't get a misplaced sense of importance. Europe is powerful as a whole, admittedly, but not so much independent gb.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ultimate mashup)
    I would say Britain as it actually directly ruled 25% of the earth surface and 'ruled the seas' with its unrivaled navy. The domination of the seas practically meant that Britain ruled the whole world! Although today, USA has much political influence over other countries, they do not actually rule them. Furthermore USA somewhat relies on other nations such as China for raw materials and good which can sometimes give China a political advantage. In the days of the British Imperialism Britain had no such problem as they seemed to able to get away with invading anyone, at their will.

    USA relies on other nations? We do. BUT Britain relied on ALL of it's overseas colonies, India, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa etc and when these countries gained independence, Britain crumpled. Britain relied on it's overseas colonies to create its power.

    Back to topic, I would say USA because of the influence of the media in today's world. However Britain runs up very close.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    American values, which has made it so successful, are the same or have evolved from British values seeing as the protagonists during the War of Independence and the people who wrote the new constitution were British using British ideas.

    British influence on the early USA was huge and that nation has grown up to become the world’s top dog, ‘the British’ are not responsible for this but Anglo-Saxon values and ideas are.

    Not that I think Britain should take any credit for American success, but to say the Americans forgot who they were and changed overnight after the war is nonsense.
    No it's not. Why do British people insist on this sometimes? I think we as Americans know how we feel not you guys lol.

    Patriots were American, not British, yes their great great great grandfather may have been British, it doesn't mean they were or saw themselves as such.

    The very fact they fought against the loyalists, the unjust is because they saw themselves as Americans not British, they didn't have to forget who they were, there was nothing to forget.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PolPotIsAnIdiot)
    Oh please, this has to be one of the most retarded posts I've read on TSR. Is the UK that pathetic today that it has to (falsely) rely on the success of other countries to think itself of any worth? :rolleyes:

    The US successfully rebelled and fought against the British and its values; how this can then constitute that the British are responsible for America's success (even loosely), given the US fought against what the British represented, is simply the ramblings of an idiot frankly.
    Thank you!
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digg93)
    The very fact they fought against the loyalists, the unjust is because they saw themselves as Americans not British, they didn't have to forget who they were, there was nothing to forget.
    wut? It was really considered a civil war by both sides until we were independent. It was the lofty british control that was the issue. I guess kinda like how some in scotland feel about england right now.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    wut? It was really considered a civil war by both sides until we were independent. It was the lofty british control that was the issue. I guess kinda like how some in scotland feel about england right now.
    Oh its you again.

    Yawn
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digg93)
    USA relies on other nations? We do. BUT Britain relied on ALL of it's overseas colonies, India, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa etc and when these countries gained independence, Britain crumpled. Britain relied on it's overseas colonies to create its power.

    Back to topic, I would say USA because of the influence of the media in today's world. However Britain runs up very close.
    Yes we do now, but back in the days of British Imperialism Britain actually owned the countries it relied on which gave it a clear advantage over the the present day power of the USA! I think it would be fair to say that Britain 'owned' the world in those days, the USA today is obviously the world's most powerful country and it does have the ability to project its power across the globe, but at the same time it has to work with other countries and other worldly organisations which can in some respects cause weakness. The abundance and availability of the media can also limit their power as the pressure of the media may force the government to take certain decisions that it may not want to because they know that government policy is constantly being scrutinised. This was not an issue in the days of British imperialism where they could get away with almost anything.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I would say "nowadays", the Unites states has the greatest effect on world policies... but 80 or so years ago, that little island to the north of france, would be the absolutely most dominant force in the world... the british empire was the largest ever witnessed by humans.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digg93)
    No it's not. Why do British people insist on this sometimes? I think we as Americans know how we feel not you guys lol.

    Patriots were American, not British, yes their great great great grandfather may have been British, it doesn't mean they were or saw themselves as such.

    The very fact they fought against the loyalists, the unjust is because they saw themselves as Americans not British, they didn't have to forget who they were, there was nothing to forget.


    george washington was british citizen. the founders of the united states were british citizens who wanted to create a new society free from tyrants like george the 3rd.

    the foundations of american society are british. why are you ashamed of that?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomato_Soup1992)
    Bear in mind though, that if it were just Britain and Germany, no D-day tactics would be required, as Germany wouldn't be occupying France.
    Why not? Neither the Soviets or Americans declared war on Germany because of the battle of France. The other two Great Powers declaring war on Germany was not related to the invasion of France, if I'm not mistaken!

    (Original post by Tomato_Soup1992)
    Then there's the fact that the Royal Navy was far superior to the Germans Navy.
    True but that's not going to be all that important in an solely British enacted and what would have had to been of-course an eventual land based continental European liberation force that would have to combat an unstressed or stretched Wehrmacht army, seeing as we are talking 1 on 1 here ie. there would be no Wehrmacht majorly resource draining Operation Barbarossa.

    (Original post by Tomato_Soup1992)
    Not sure about Air superiority.
    I mentioned allot about the Luftwaffe and how its situation could have changed if it was not for the Eastern-front in my one of my previous posts. Very hypothetical, as are all these arguments.

    That's me done with are WW2 counter-factual and hypothetical arguments on a UK politics thread now though!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Considering we invented the USA and the language they speak I'd reckon so.x
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Britain, as a part of europe, plays a significant role in the global economy. There are a lot of nations in the world that play just as much of significant role as england. You'd do well to not forget that.
    By a lot do you mean only 2 [other countries] in Europe and less than 10 globally? Because if you do then maybe you ought to rethink your phrasing. Economically at least that is though I think we can assume politically and with regards to military too. Also Britain rather than England.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    Definitely. Britain's legacy has been more important than America's current influence. Also America used to be a colony (well the thirteen colonies were) so anything they achieve can be loosely seen as a product of British influence.
    You seem to make it sound like a good thing.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 15, 2011
New on TSR

TSR Freshers' blogs 2014

Read what TSR's freshers have to say as they head off to uni

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.