Is There (Was There Ever) an Anglo American Dual World Power?

by BluesBrother 61 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Kensei01


    Thanks for posting this question as it's been bothering me for awhile as well. At the DC this summer the DO who gave the public talk said that"bible study shows that the Anglo American dual world power will still be ruling when armageddon comes". I looked at my wife with disbelief. What an ambitious statement. What that really says is: We feel the English speaking peoples will still run the show here on earth when armageddon comes". Zeitgeist at its best. They have known nothing else in their recollections and so nothing else could be possible.

    Great Britain and the United States while cooperating together after the war of 1812;the last shooting war between the two I believe;(correct me if I'm wrong), have NEVER ruled as a dual, matching, power. England's star was well on the decline at the start of WWI, and certainly by the close of WW2 there was only one nation that could effectively crush the economy of any nation in the world with its navy and of course its nuclear weapons program, and it wasn't Great Britain. With monumental effort Great Britain did wrest the Falklands from the Argentinians, but that would be the end. England did enjoy centuries worth of European diplomatic history and thus an advanced relationship with those powers, and the U.S. did not, yet that does not indicate that these two countries ruled the world together then nor now. Even though Great Britain did assist the U.S. in achieving some political and diplomatic legitimacy with the rest of Europe. Her foreign office connections due to its long history would have served the U.S. well in fleshing out its own fledgling State Department, and its intelligence apparatus could have assisted the U.S. as well, but not to the point of equality. The WTBS(BS is guess what?) has written revisionist history at best. They have used the same practises in assigning more than needed importance to the so called WWI, when evidence exists to indicate that there were other "world wars" prior to this.

    When Nato was formed in 1949 the U.S. took the primary role, not Great Britain, although later on England would be responsible for the northern army group area of West Germany. England is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council along with the U.S., France, Russia, and China, but again this does not assign her an equal role with the United States as a world power whether she has achieved nuclear weapon capability or not.

    I agree with the posts before that suggest that recent memory and not the facts are what the WTBS use to their advantage. Fred Franz was not a scholar and certainly did not use an investigative or scholarly approach to his theories and writings. He relied on his pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo to complicate his writing in a time when the availability of the works he and his writers quoted or mis quoted was not there. Now that is not the case, we can look at the raw data ourselves and can even communicate with the authors to get past the "maybeline". (Apologies to the ladies who use it). This is the source of their fear of higher education. This will undo their current doctrine and their fallacious so called logic.

    Thanks again for your post, and thanks to all for reading and most of all, thanks for being here.

    Have a great day!!

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    There is some truth to it. Historically, Americans were British citizens, not subjects. England just ignored its colony. Ireland was terrorized in contrast and always British subject, not citizens. With England not caring, Americans developed colonial legislatures, called General Assemblies, for governance. When England was in debt, it turned its eyes to its very prosperous colony. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Madison all wrote letters stating how blessed America was to be English and George III was superb. Parts of England had no representation in parliament. The Stamp Act triggered a change in thinking. Americans were willing to die to save their Britsh citizenship rights. England needed revenue. Reading the letters now, it seems that the oligarch change called the REvolution could have been averted. France helped us to hurt England.

    Many Americans felt indebted to France. When France and England had another war, most Americans wanted to declare war against England to help France. George Washington had a portrait of King Louis XVI in his private office. Washington imposed a neutrality act. It was the first big debate about foreign policy. Jefferson worked hard to overturn the declaration. The natural alliances with England continued. Both America and England repeatedly viewed themselves as closer than mere allies. The modern term was a "special relationship." Pearl Harbor was no accident. FDR felt we needed to aid Great Britain in a way we did not need to help the Danish, French, Polish.

    Tony Blair was perceived as George Bush's lap dog by many. The relationship between Presidents and Prime Ministers is very different than any other one. Many British feel the relationship should change. They are tired of being America's poodle.

    There is a new movie out imminently about Margaret Thatcher, played by Meryl Streep. I just laughed so hard to think of the "Iron Lady" and then seeing the WT beast illustration. She is still alive. I bet who would make her week to see the illustration. No poodle that beast. I can't think of a British lap dog. Poodle is too French by far.

    All our civil rights and liberties are British in origin. The Irish were always treated poorly and viewed as the dangerous enemy. Americans were treated as children sent off to camp to grow up a bit. I read tons of Revolutionary and Federalist period history. We are taught huge lies in public school. The Americans could not comprehend why they were ever slightly demoted. The U.S. Cosnt'n embodies the great principles of the British const'n. We just thougth it wise to commit them to paper. Magna Carta was the key turning point.

  • Kensei01

    Band on the Run: I agree with you that American society was initially based on the British model; even more so here in Canada. However do you mean by your post that there is or was an actual Anglo American Dual World Power? I believe I see in your writing evidence of the "cultural" sources of the relationship between the U.S. and Great Britain, but not for ruling the world together as a united power? Care to comment? Just a friendly exchange between two students of history.

    Have a great day!!


  • nowwhat?

    this prophecy actually makes sense. us and england became the dual world power in 1914. [this is a new thought as opposed to 1776 or 1812]

    england played the major role at first then the us became dominant. no delusions on this one.

  • Bobcat

    Granted, the term Anglo-American Empire is relatively rare, but there are others, besides the Society, that recognize the existence of such an empire. Paul Craig Roberts and Richard Cook are examples.

    Perhaps one of the difficulties is that we live during the time of its existence and suffer somewhat of an 'inability to see the forest from the trees' type of effect. Also, this empire (for those who wish to call it that, and with respect to those that don't) has dominated during a period called "The Enlightenment," a fairly unique period in human ruling history. As such, it may not be as easy to make comparisons with previous empires.

    There have been rivals that have challenged during this time (France [18th cent, early 19th], Germany [Kaiser, Hitler], USSR), but up to now, they have been put down and/or fallen for one reason or another.

    Having survived all these challengers, it is interesting (historically speaking) to see this 'empire' threatened by its own cumulative economic policies. And many see the looming economic doomsday as an end also to George Washington's so-called "Great Experiment." (Capitalism + Democracy)

    I'm sure someone can come up with reasons for not seeing it as a combined empire. And for a fact Britain's heydey was not parallel with the USA. But then again, neither was the Medo-Persian empire. One was dominant during times when the other wasn't. But our distance from that empire in time makes it easier to refer to it as a combined empire. So maybe we lack the historian's perspective.

    This is not to argue, just some thoughts.

    Take Care

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I asked this question two weeks ago after reading some old literature. The Founding Fathers would not think so. As Benjamin Franklin quipped, "We must stick together or we will certainly hang apart." The number of American Revollutionary War dead compared to the general population was so high. We have distinct cultures and even language to a certain extent.

    We do have very close ties to Britian. During law school, I studied American Legal History. The American rebellion occurred b/c the American colonists believed sincerely that they were English citizens and had certain legal rights that were being infringed. Our laws, political theory, -

    It would have been easier to Britain if the US entered WWII earlier. Does the society still go on about this alliance in current Witness literature? I wonder if the thought was current among isolationists during WWI and WWII.

    The illustration angers me. Neither country is pure but I don't see how we are more evil than any other country.

    America became dominant after WWII b/c other industralized nations had been completely destroyed by WWII. The United States was not. We have great resources. FDR expanded the power of the federal government.

    I am American. We have flaws but we are no more evil than any world power in history that people said was that beast.

  • Gopher

    When I was growing up, there was a Franco American world power about once every week at our house.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Oh, I recall that Empire!

  • Vidqun

    An alliance the world can count on

    By Barack Obama and David Cameron, Tuesday, March 13, 2:01 AM

    Barack Obama is president of the United States. David Cameron is prime minister of Great Britain.

    Seven decades ago, as our forces began to turn the tide of World War II, Prime Minister Winston Churchill traveled to Washington to coordinate our joint efforts. Our victories on the battlefield proved “what can be achieved by British and Americans working together heart and hand,” he said. “In fact, one might almost feel that if they could keep it up, there is hardly anything they could not do, either in the field of war or in the not less tangled problems of peace.”

    Keep it up we have — not only winning that war for our survival but also building the institutions that undergird international peace and security. The alliance between the United States and Great Britain is a partnership of the heart, bound by the history, traditions and values we share. But what makes our relationship special — a unique and essential asset — is that we join hands across so many endeavors. Put simply, we count on each other and the world counts on our alliance.

    As leading world economies, we are coordinating closely with our G-8 and G-20 partners to put people back to work, sustain the global recovery, stand with our European friends as they resolve their debt crisis and curb the reckless financial practices that have cost our taxpayers dearly. We’re committed to expanding the trade and investment that support millions of jobs in our two countries.

    As the two largest contributors to the international mission in Afghanistan, we’re proud of the progress our troops have made in dismantling al-Qaeda, breaking the Taliban’s momentum and training Afghan forces. But as recent events underscore, this remains a difficult mission. We honor the profound sacrifices of our forces, and in their name we’ll carry on the mission.

    Over the next few days, we will consult about preparations for the NATO summit in Chicago, where our alliance will determine the next phase of the transition that we agreed to in Lisbon. This includes shifting to a support role in advance of Afghans taking full responsibility for security in 2014 and ensuring that NATO maintains an enduring commitment so that Afghanistan is never again a haven for al-Qaeda to launch attacks against our citizens.

    As members of the international community, we have been united in imposing tough sanctions on the Iranian regime for failing to meet its international obligations. We believe there is time and space to pursue a diplomatic solution, and we are coordinating our diplomatic approach with China, France, Germany and Russia, our P5+1 partners. Meanwhile, as the United States imposes its strongest sanctions to date and the European Union prepares to impose an embargo on Iranian oil, the choice for Tehran will be sharpened — meet your international obligations or face the consequences.

    As two nations that support the human rights and dignity of all people, we continue to stand with those brave citizens across the Middle East and North Africa who are demanding their universal rights. Having joined in the mission to protect the Libyan people last year, we support Libyan efforts to build democratic institutions and hold free and fair elections this year. We condemn the Syrian regime’s horrific violence against innocent civilians, and we are focused on the urgent humanitarian task of getting food and medicine to those in need. With our international partners, we’ll continue to tighten the noose around Bashar al-Assad and his cohorts, and we’ll work with the opposition and the United Nations-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan to plan for the transition that will follow Assad’s departure from power.

    As two of the world’s wealthiest nations, we embrace our responsibility as leaders in the development that enables people to live in dignity, health and prosperity. Even as we redouble our efforts to save lives in Somalia, we’re investing in agriculture to promote food security across the developing world. We’re working to improve maternal health and end preventable deaths of children. With a renewed commitment to the lifesaving work of the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria, we see the beginning of the end of the AIDS pandemic. Through our Open Government Partner Partnership, we’re striving to make governments more transparent and accountable.

    Finally, as two peoples who live free because of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, we’re working together like never before to care for them when they come home. With new long-term collaborations to help our wounded warriors recover, assist in veterans’ transition back to civilian life and support military families, we recognize that our obligations to troops and veterans endure long after today’s battles end.

    Our troops and citizens have long shown what can be achieved when British and Americans work together, heart and hand, and why this remains an essential relationship — to our nations and the world. So like generations before us, we’re going to keep it up. Because with confidence in our cause and faith in each other, we still believe that there is hardly anything we cannot do.

  • Gopher

    Sure, Britain and America have an alliance. Britain even sends some troops in support of some of America's military adventures.

    To portray Britain as a world power, part of a Dual power with America, is just plain wrong and has been for a long time. America is currently the sole military superpower in the world. Militarily, they outspend the next 10 countries combined.

Share this