CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 413
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:40 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
A formalized Anglosphere without American participation would be pointless anyway. It'd be like the British Commonwealth against Hitler circa November 1941 all over again. Strong enough to hold the line but still too weak by themselves to ever achieve an overall victory without American contribution.


That's rubbish. I'm on the side of those many historians who believe Britain (and her Empire) could have won WWII without American involvement.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:40 am
 


Batsy Batsy:
Thanos Thanos:
A formalized Anglosphere without American participation would be pointless anyway. It'd be like the British Commonwealth against Hitler circa November 1941 all over again. Strong enough to hold the line but still too weak by themselves to ever achieve an overall victory without American contribution.


That's rubbish. I'm on the side of those many historians who believe Britain (and her Empire) could have won WWII without American involvement.


While it's a nice thought to have it would also be wrong. There is no way in hell the UK/British Empire would have defeated the Germans without any US contribution.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23058
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:50 am
 


2Cdo 2Cdo:
Batsy Batsy:
Thanos Thanos:
A formalized Anglosphere without American participation would be pointless anyway. It'd be like the British Commonwealth against Hitler circa November 1941 all over again. Strong enough to hold the line but still too weak by themselves to ever achieve an overall victory without American contribution.


That's rubbish. I'm on the side of those many historians who believe Britain (and her Empire) could have won WWII without American involvement.


While it's a nice thought to have it would also be wrong. There is no way in hell the UK/British Empire would have defeated the Germans without any US contribution.


Sad but true.

Oh, I think the Commonwealth could have defeated the Germans in places like Africa, maybe even Norway, given Germany's limited naval capability, but on the continent, I have to agree with Thanos and 2Cdo, there was no way we could have forced our way onto the continent BEFORE the Soviets enslaved most of it.

We had more industrial might, but we simply didn't have the manpower (short of the conscripting everybody in India) to win a war of attrition in Europe.

I have no doubt we would have gotten a foothold once Hitler pulled most of his armies out of western Europe to fight Stalin, but we would have been lucky to liberate part of France and maybe part of the Low Countries. The Cold War would have been very different...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35242
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:25 am
 


Even if the Americans continue to Lend-Lease, the British would have been effectively relegated to a support role for the Soviets but between them, the allies would have no doubt been successful in Europe. Because of Japan, Asia would have been far more complex.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:54 am
 


Batsy Batsy:
Thanos Thanos:
A formalized Anglosphere without American participation would be pointless anyway. It'd be like the British Commonwealth against Hitler circa November 1941 all over again. Strong enough to hold the line but still too weak by themselves to ever achieve an overall victory without American contribution.


That's rubbish. I'm on the side of those many historians who believe Britain (and her Empire) could have won WWII without American involvement.


And which historians would these be?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:29 pm
 


How conveniently we forget our other WWII ally, the nation that did more than all others combined to defeat the Nazis.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:43 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
How conveniently we forget our other WWII ally, the nation that did more than all others combined to defeat the Nazis.


You talking about the Soviets? Who weren't much better than the Nazis in the end anyway and caused the western world decades of aggravation?

Those guys?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:16 am
 


saturn_656 saturn_656:
Lemmy Lemmy:
How conveniently we forget our other WWII ally, the nation that did more than all others combined to defeat the Nazis.


You talking about the Soviets? Who weren't much better than the Nazis in the end anyway and caused the western world decades of aggravation?

Those guys?


If you follow history, the soviets had no reason to trust any of the western allies in WWII. We asssisted the white russians (monarchists) when they were fighting the red russians (soviets) in their civil war, and subsequently barred and shit all over pretty much all forms of communist activity thereafter. If you were in the soviet shoes, you can't say you wouldn't have seen us as the aggressors prior to WWII in the same way as we see them as the agressors after WWII.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:55 pm
 


Hey, I fell down an internet blackhole and somehow ended up at a blog that mentioned the idea of CANZUK which I'd never heard of before. I googled the term and read this thread. I just completed a drive from Texas to Virginia and had too much time to think. I don't know if anybody is going to read this, but . . .

Obviously this union has about a 0.0000001% chance of happening, but here's a proposal that would have the best chance of passing.

1. Free trade, obviously. Constituent countries retain the ability to set trade parameters with other nations outside the federation.
2. Free movement of native born citizens between each constituent country. Each country can set it's own policies regarding immigration from outside the federation and immigration of naturalized citizens from other constituent countries.
3. Combined naval / marine corps command. Each country makes a binding commitment to fund a combined navy at a certain % of GDP. This navy can be used at the request of any constituent country subject to a veto in which all three other countries unanimously oppose action. Each nation can keep a small independent navy if wanted. The breakdown could be something like 3/4ths of total current naval spending of constituent nations goes to the federation navy while 1/4th is used to build independent navies. Each government would appoint civilian naval secretaries to oversee the force. The structure would be something like a more unified NATO.
4. Each country retains separate armies and air forces, but technology and training is standardized for easy combined or independent use. Create a permanent skeleton federation command structure so integration can be quick in the event of a combined declaration of war from all constituent countries.
5. The flag . . .
This is the current British Naval flag
Image
Fill in the upper right and lower left corners of the flag with a blue background. Place the red southern cross (for NZ's flag) and the white southern cross (from Australia's flag) in those quadrants. Put the red maple leave in the lower right quadrant. This can be on a blue background or on the current white background as with the Canadian flag. This would be the naval flag and could be hung at a level below the national flag and the regional flags (Scotland, Alberta, ets) throughout the federation. This would emphasize that the constituent countries are the top level of authority and prevent federal creep.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:21 pm
 


YankeeDoddle YankeeDoddle:
This would emphasize that the constituent countries are the top level of authority and prevent federal creep.


Nothing prevents federal creep. Look at the EU with those f*ckers in Brussels micromanaging everything from what you can call a cheese to what color you can paint your house.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:02 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
YankeeDoddle YankeeDoddle:
This would emphasize that the constituent countries are the top level of authority and prevent federal creep.


Nothing prevents federal creep. Look at the EU with those f*ckers in Brussels micromanaging everything from what you can call a cheese to what color you can paint your house.

Of course any bureaucracy will always develop self interest and seek to grow. The EU has a parliament and civil servants and courts and whatever else goes with that group. My post mentioned what amounts to a common passport and naval command, which does not create any bureaucracy.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9914
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:15 am
 


We have no need for any further unnecessary or wanted influence from either south of our border or from across the pond. We get more than enough of that now without some new BS agreement that isn't in our best interest.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:17 am
 


QBC QBC:
We have no need for any further unnecessary or wanted influence from either south of our border or from across the pond. We get more than enough of that now without some new BS agreement that isn't in our best interest.


[BB]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11666
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:48 am
 


Silly idea that keeps rearing its head - and its based on the assumptions Canada can't stand on it's own and only a federation or EU like structure can save it.
We always did, do and will cooperate militarily with the US, UK, NZ and Oz. So what's the point in that regard?
But I for one can never understand why there was no Commonwealth Free Trade Agreement. Seems crazy we never did one with the UK, Aus, NZ.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15595
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:59 am
 


herbie herbie:
Silly idea that keeps rearing its head - and its based on the assumptions Canada can't stand on it's own and only a federation or EU like structure can save it.
We always did, do and will cooperate militarily with the US, UK, NZ and Oz. So what's the point in that regard?
But I for one can never understand why there was no Commonwealth Free Trade Agreement. Seems crazy we never did one with the UK, Aus, NZ.

That's a good point. I don't think it's ever been considered. :?:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.