Gopher, go back a few hundred years. Then Britain ruled the world and America was a colony. Now it is the other way round. As above article brings out, the World Wars, especially W.W. II made them blood brothers.
Is There (Was There Ever) an Anglo American Dual World Power?
Well, fancy seeing my old posting resurrected.... My point was , and still is that although the USA and UK are close allies neither one would claim to be a "dual world power" with the other. Just look at the world as we know it to be.
The U K is part of the European Economic Community and has developed close liks with "Our European partners" we are bound a lot of the time by laws made in Brussells . The USA is separate . It is a bit of an insult to say that it shares its world position with U K .
An objective mind just does not see a two headed beast dominating the world
Except when there is a war to be fought for self-interest. The is US to go in and the UK follows close at his heels. And interestingly, one power block would oppose them, with Russia and China taking the lead. Just follow the decisions of the Security Council of the UN. Whatever you want to call it, they stand together in times of war.
I should have made my point clearer. We are separate countries. B/c we were a British colony, the United States will always have closer ties to England than France or Germany. Geo. Washington avoided a war with France shortly after American independence when most people felt we had a moral duty to defend France against England. Next, we fought England. When you read details of these events, the British-American tie is dominant despite the war of independence.
There is no Anglo-American empire. As I stated before, I think this is a very old belief of isolationists during WWI and WWII.
Also, after Blair supported the Iraq War and angered the British public, it will be very difficult for British prime ministers to support the US in the same manner.
France refused to support us in Iraq and Afghanistan. I read many British newspapers and mags criticizing the "special relationship."
I find the idea of an American-Anglo empire to be comical. The world is always in flux. If you read documents from the MIddle Ages, people believed the Holy Roman Emperor and other key figures were the characters in Revelation. America was not even "discovered" yet.
I must agree with Blues Brother. The crux here is that did or did not an actual "Anglo American DUAL world power exist? I believe the evidence shows it did not. Britains hegemony had an begining and an end; America's began with the end of WW II. Mr Roberts article; as mentioned by Bobcat; does mention an Anglo American "Empire", however the article focuses on the US making the same mistakes that Great Britain did. It does not give evidence for a co ruling power with the United States. America cooperated with England when America was the weaker power, and now England does with the US now that it is the weaker power. This cooperation does not suggest equal coexisting rulership of the world. As Vidqun mentions: "...the UK follows closely at its(the US's) heels. The have a common purpose; on the surface; they have a "special relationship"; as Churchill said; but the are not now nor have ever been two powers ruling "equally" in a dual nature together.
Just my two cents worth. I must say that this discussion is terrific and I welcome and enjoy all of your views, and as Bobcat says" not to argue". Let's keep it going. Btw a great website for perspective is the History News Network..
Have a great day everyone
And the UK has had an alliance with Portugal since the late 1300s. For a few hundred years Portugal was a world empire, so why does that not count or gain an animal in Daniel ? SHouldnt it be the Anglo-Portuguese-American-French-Australian power ?
America cooperated with England when America was the weaker power, and now England does with the US now that it is the weaker power. This cooperation does not suggest equal coexisting rulership of the world.
I am of the opinion that GB-USA do form a historical co-power. But at the same time, I also agree with this point that they have never had an equal partnership. First one, then the other was dominant. So if the definition of "dual world power" requires that they be always equal, then, by that definition they were not.
On the other hand, much of the discussion focuses on military power. Right now, and for some decades there has been a clear distinction between the military power of the two. But I think economic/banking power - not just how much each has, but how much economic controlling power they have - the lines are a bit more blurred.
Also, as mentioned, they have similar ruling/economic philosophies, historical ties, and have together (not equally, of course) presided over a unique time period (call it what you will - "the enlightenment," or "the industrial revolution" - or both). Like the Medes and Persians who were also not always an equal pairing, imo hsitory has a niche carved out for them together.
But I'm like you, its not worth arguing about. But I do appreciate the different perspectives.
btw England != UK, its a component. One is a small country within, the other was the head of the empire, quite different things. Most of the British empire wasnt British, English or even European, so calling it an Anglo power is plain wrong, because Anglo = England which as i have shown is something completely different.
Bobcat: you have a point regarding the Medo-Persian empire. The Persians certainly dominated the two of the group, yet the Medes did play their role as well. Certainly food for thought, and your comment regarding lines being blurred when we take in the global nature of our economy we do see a more comprehensive role for Britain their partnership. Thank you for sharing. I love studying history but have never had any formal training other than high school, though I have read many many books. Have a great day!!
what about the chinese?