Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest Western empire in history

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Anglo Empire? By that, do you mean the British Empire?
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • #47
      Its a term that has been in play for some time now. It generally includes Great Britain, USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand. Basically these are the English-speaking/colonized countries. I believe some empires of the past often had regions of considerable and prolonged autonomy. This list could be expanded further if you work with the criteria a bit.

      Comment


      • #48
        The military working group is termed ABCA (American, British, Canadian, Australian). New Zealand is included as part of Australia.

        The goal of the working group is to come up with a common set of Field Manuals with a second goal of interoperatility. 45 Cmdo Grp and 3 PPCLI BG with the 187 BCT, 101st Div (Air Assault) says its working.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          New Zealand is included as part of Australia.

          I am sure a lot of New Zealanders would wonder what they did to deserve such a fate :) Would the first A mean Australasia or am i just being too pedantic to be let near a keyboard?
          at

          Comment


          • #50
            ABCA is the child of WWII when collaboration between the world's three of the four strongest powers (US, UK, and Canada) to continue their successful alliance.

            Australia joined in the 1960s and soon followed by New Zealand. NZ could never hoped to match the might of the other four countries and thus came under the Australian banner.

            Thus, in the correct order, it's American, British, Canadian, Australian.

            Comment


            • #51
              Is there a formal treaty that formalizes this ABCA alliance? Or is it just a informal alliance but nonethless a very strong one?

              By the way, how did Americans and British resolve their differences? As I recall, America was mighty pissed with the British when they supported the Confederate. Did they begin to patch the relationship when US came onto the Allies side during WWI and realize what the camaderie with the French meant in reality?

              Comment


              • #52
                It's a Coalition, not an Alliance. ABCA is formalized by the various Secretary and Ministers of Defence but not by the govts. It has to, there are ABCA directorates in all members' Dept and Ministries of Defence.

                Budget allocation and mission statements are required for these directorates.

                The actual working groups are left to the branches (Army, Navy, Air Force) themselves to arrange cross-training and exercises as would fit their schedules. This usually mean that each unit has a sister unit in each of the other militaries. In the case of the Canadian 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry, its American sister unit is the 187 Brigade Combat Team, 101st Division (Air Assault).

                After the American Civil War, trade between Canada (a British Dominion) and the northern States began to go up. Therefore, it was unlikely not to redevelop a working relationship again.

                Also, Wilhem Kaiser was an idiot during WWI, trying to convince Mexico to goto war with the US should the US join the side of Allies. That document got the US involved in more ways than one.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Didn't the British intercept that telegraph and edit it up a bit?
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    That's my impression too but I could never find the original document.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I really think WWI was a war we should have stayed out of. Being duped into joining it, and all.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I don't know duped is the right word. There was a sense that the US was needed to replace Russia after the latter was knocked out by the Bolshevik Revolution.

                        There was a sense that if the US doesn't get involved, she would be left out of the world scene afterwards and who dictates who gets what spoils of war (ie colonies and therefore, trade).

                        There were certainly arguements for and against US involvement but you have to recall that they don't have the same kind of thinking nor as large as an overview that we do today. The New York Times, as good as it was, was no CNN. Therefore, the information and the intelligence available then was far, far less than what even the civies have access to, never mind at the Executive or Military leadership level.

                        Therefore, it would not be fair to say that they were duped but made the best judgement they can based upon the very limited information that they had.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I voted for the Roman, I would have for Alexander, but his empire really died with him. The British Empire was built on Colonys not conquering its neighbour, in that respect the Napoleonic Empire was probably greater, but again it collapsed with Napoleon's defeat. I think all in all the Roman and British Empires probably had the greatest impact on the world today.
                          Ain't No Rocket Scientists In The Firehall

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers


                            There was a sense that if the US doesn't get involved, she would be left out of the world scene afterwards and who dictates who gets what spoils of war (ie colonies and therefore, trade).
                            In retrospect the US had the right idea post war, but ofcourse it hadn't suffered as terribly, or as long as the other European nations had. But I get the feeling if Wilson's ideas had preveiled perhaps there would never have been a Hitler or a WWII.
                            Ain't No Rocket Scientists In The Firehall

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              You eman if the LEague of Nations had been stronger and the US and Germany had been members?
                              at

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                No, the treaty of Versailles would have not come to pass with those conditions that Germany had to follow. The reparations and the loss of land and economy and the result of high inflation paved the way for the rise of the Nazi party.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X