World Police Discussion

[Free-Stater 101]

Is it weird that I kind of wished that the British Empire was still a thing? I mean, excepting the US, of course.

No my good sir! Because we mooched off them in the same way other countries are mooching off our generosity as I speak. 🧐

 

[GoldRanger]

Any place

Till 1945 there were no such thing like world policeman.Not even Europe policeman - becouse England from 18th century was making coalition to defeat any country which try that.
And you knew - world not ended.In many regards,people -even occupied - lived better then after 1945.

So,why not come back to that natural state ?

In any place where a power withdraws, a new power takes its place. A world without some great power tampering with it is fundamentally impossible, not at our tech level.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Is it weird that I kind of wished that the British Empire was still a thing? I mean, excepting the US, of course.

As long as you're not on the receiving end of it.

 

[Captain X]

I mean, I dislike that the US did a lot of the shit that they did to the Natives, but I would still rather have indoor plumbing and other such modern conveniences. 🤷‍♂️

 

[Terthna]

I mean, I dislike that the US did a lot of the shit that they did to the Natives, but I would still rather have indoor plumbing and other such modern conveniences. 🤷‍♂️

Keep in mind, those Natives often did shit to each other; which is only of the things we exploited to ultimately conquer them. Had they fought us off together, instead of tried to use us to destroy their rivals, they might have won.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I mean, claiming the British were world policemen in a manner to what we are does seem a bit silly. Unless your just saying colonialism is world policing. In which case, Britian never reached that level of dominance. The French, Americans, and others were other rival naval powers.

What point do you consider England to have been world policeman? Are you only really considering it so post Nepoleonic War? In that case then, who was the world policeman before then?

It's as @GoldRanger says. The world's normal state is either a Great Power playing world policeman or several powers jockeying for that position until one comes out on top. I'm not concerned with extreme exactitudes here since World Policeman isn't that rigorously defined anyway. I don't feel like having to argue why every little thing doesn't count because this one detail's slightly different, of course details are different. But let's check the Wikipedia page:

Global policeman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So first off the term was applied to the UK by people long before the US filled the role, as I said. Additionally the US was recognized as world policeman around 1945, when the USSR was absolutely a rival naval power so having rivals is not exclusionary.

Before the great age of sail made it possible for ships to travel all over the world obviously there was no world policeman because, as we'd use the term there, the world didn't exist yet. There was no interconnection to speak of to police, oftentimes nations hadn't even heard of each other at the distances we police today. However everywhere you found clusters of countries and trade to regulate, a policeman would pop up for that area.

When the map of the western world was effectively a map of the Mediterranean and lands next to it, we had the Egyptians acting in the capacity of Mediterranean Policeman and controlling the trade in bronze, up until around the bronze age collapse, after which the Phoenicians became the Mediterranean Policeman, then the Greeks and so forth.

 

[ATP]

So now we're entering that weird area where your come up with increasingly narrow definitions to try to salvage your position, and claim this doesn't count because X and that doesn't count because Y? India doesn't count because the British exported British culture to it and made it British, and China doesn't count because the British didn't?

And are you honestly hinging your argument on the idea that I can't find historical events where the British exported Christianity, Parlimentary Procedure, and the like to other nations? Because I can prove they did, really, really easily.

India was part of british empire - so changing law there is not being world policeman.They send missionaries to other countries - But exactly the same did France and Italy.They change law in their colonies,and send missionaries to other countries,too.

But those colonials empires do not try change other countries by force,which soviets and USA after 1945 did.That is why USA and soviets was world policemans,and England,France or Italy not.

 

[Bear Ribs]

India was part of british empire - so changing law there is not being world policeman.They send missionaries to other countries - But exactly the same did France and Italy.They change law in their colonies,and send missionaries to other countries,too.

But those colonials empires do not try change other countries by force,which soviets and USA after 1945 did.That is why USA and soviets was world policemans,and England,France or Italy not.

You're arguing it doesn't count because of this specific nitpick definition you just made up that nobody else has every felt was part of "world policeman." You're also arguing from a position of complete falsehood in the first place, claiming that the Empire never tried to change another nation by force. And it's frankly rather bizarre to claim India didn't count as the British changing a country because they eventually became part of the empire, why do you think they became part of it? Because they were changed, by force.

I refer you back to the post I made above yours, and suggest you read the first sentence in it. Actually I'll just quote it for you here.

Global policeman is an informal term for a state which seeks or claims global hegemony. It has been used, firstly for the United Kingdom and, since 1945, of the United States.

Scroll down to the bottom paragraph and what do we find?

The UK made efforts to end the Slave trade through the West Africa Squadron In 1827, Britain, jointly with France and Russia, intervened on the side of Greek independence, destroying the Turkish fleet at the Battle of Navarino. In 1854, Britain, jointly with France, prevented Russia from destroying the Ottoman Empire. Russia had to withdraw from Moldavia and Wallachia, and Sevastopol was besieged in the Crimean war.

Man, that's a lot of interfering with other nations considering you just based your argument on the lie that they didn't ever try to change other countries by force (and India and China just didn't count because... I still don't actually comprehend what your reasoning was for claiming those weren't efforts to influence other nations by force.)

We can also look at the Economy of the British Empire page

Economy of the British Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815), the British Empire emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century. Unchallenged at sea, British dominance was later described as Pax Britannica ("British Peace"), a period of relative peace in Europe and the world (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon and adopted the role of global policeman.

It's literally an accepted fact that the British Empire was world policeman before the US. You may be looking for the Hot Take thread a few posts over.

 

[GoldRanger]

India was part of british empire - so changing law there is not being world policeman.They send missionaries to other countries - But exactly the same did France and Italy.They change law in their colonies,and send missionaries to other countries,too.

But those colonials empires do not try change other countries by force,which soviets and USA after 1945 did.That is why USA and soviets was world policemans,and England,France or Italy not.

What does it matter? This whole stupid argument started because you insisted that if the US stopped acting in the "world police" role "the world wouldn't end." Except at all points in history there was either a great empire or a world policeman of some sort. It doesn't matter which. The point is that if the US withdraws, China would take its place and would certainly start fucking with the US from the stronger position it will then hold. Which historical act counts as "world policing" and which doesn't is wholly irrelevant here.

 

[Terthna]

What does it matter? This whole stupid argument started because you insisted that if the US stopped acting in the "world police" role "the world wouldn't end." Except at all points in history there was either a great empire or a world policeman of some sort. It doesn't matter which. The point is that if the US withdraws, China would take its place and would certainly start fucking with the US from the stronger position it will then hold. Which historical act counts as "world policing" and which doesn't is wholly irrelevant here.

China would try to take our place; they'd quickly find, however, that they are not up to the task. Put bluntly, their economy is not only hanging by a thread, it requires American support to even function. If we withdrew from being the world's police, they'd collapse long before they could secure the resources needed to project power beyond their boarders without our help.

To be honest, I think America will continue being the world's police, in spite of its best efforts; it's just that what constitutes "the world" is about to get a lot more restrictive. Assuming of course, things happen as they naturally should; I have no doubt the establishment will want to maintain the status quo.

 

[absenceofmalice]

Most of the world is ungrateful and spiteful for the gold and blood we've given in their wars its time to let them do to themselves what they've been trying to do for over a hundred years.

 

[ATP]

What does it matter? This whole stupid argument started because you insisted that if the US stopped acting in the "world police" role "the world wouldn't end." Except at all points in history there was either a great empire or a world policeman of some sort. It doesn't matter which. The point is that if the US withdraws, China would take its place and would certainly start fucking with the US from the stronger position it will then hold. Which historical act counts as "world policing" and which doesn't is wholly irrelevant here.

Yes,China want be next world policeman,and Biden decided,that USA should cease to be.I do not deny that.
I simply stated,that before 1945 there was no world policeman,only bigger and smaller states fighting for their interests.

And world do not ended.If China do not manage become world policeman now,we would come back to that situation.Where all states would fight for their interests,and nobody could police entire world.
And,unless Jesus decide otherwise,world would still not end.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Yes,China want be next world policeman,and Biden decided,that USA should cease to be.I do not deny that.
I simply stated,that before 1945 there was no world policeman,only bigger and smaller states fighting for their interests.

And world do not ended.If China do not manage become world policeman now,we would come back to that situation.Where all states would fight for their interests,and nobody could police entire world.
And,unless Jesus decide otherwise,world would still not end.

But as we've seen in this thread, before 1945 people called the UK the world's policeman (Or, language having drifted since then, the Global Policeman) and they filled the same role. So that statement is provably untrue.

 

[ATP]

But as we've seen in this thread, before 1945 people called the UK the world's policeman (Or, language having drifted since then, the Global Policeman) and they filled the same role. So that statement is provably untrue.

People called UK many things.But it would be world policeman only if it tried to turn other countries into their image,just like soviets and USA did.
England usually cared only about its merchants and weakening any strong country in Europe.

Opium wars which you mentioned was started to made chineese accept opium instead of silver.If they were world policeman,they would made China use british standarts - and since England do not used opium as money,it is not true.

 

[Abhorsen]

People called UK many things.But it would be world policeman only if it tried to turn other countries into their image,just like soviets and USA did.

They did. They forced other countries to stop dealing in slaves. That's being world police.

 

[GoldRanger]

Was there a single hegemon in history that was "hands off"? I really, really doubt it. The British Empire was even more interventionist and exported its culture more aggressively than the USA.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Was there a single hegemon in history that was "hands off"? I really, really doubt it. The British Empire was even more interventionist and exported its culture more aggressively than the USA.

Belgian hegemony in the Congo was pretty hands off.








I'm sorry...

 

[Cherico]

Was there a single hegemon in history that was "hands off"? I really, really doubt it. The British Empire was even more interventionist and exported its culture more aggressively than the USA.

You really cant be a hegemon and be completely hands off because you will always have some idiot who wants to burn everything to the ground. The most hands off hedgemony the world has probally ever seen was the US for the last 30 years and people still bitched and complained about that like it was bloody murder. Dispite all of the benifits.

 

[Captain X]

Keep in mind, those Natives often did shit to each other; which is only of the things we exploited to ultimately conquer them. Had they fought us off together, instead of tried to use us to destroy their rivals, they might have won.

As a Lakota, I know full well that the Lakota could be frankly just dicks to the other tribes, even to ones that were otherwise friendly to us, let alone to ones we took a particular dislike to, like say the Crow. Which, speaking of, those differences we had with each other were the reason the tribes could never unite any more than the Scottish clans ever really managed to - there was blood between them. It also didn't help that some of the tribes cozied up to the US government/army and actually helped them out by being scouts and trackers to help them track down the tribes and bands that were attacking the army, probably at least in part to these old grudges. Hell, people from the different tribes still tend to give each other shit from time to time, even if it usually doesn't really mean anything.

As for their chances of victory, I kind of find that doubtful just because of the disparity between technology, and the fact that the army caught on to the fact that slaughtering the bison was an effective method of attrition, which didn't even require engaging militarily with any of the Natives, and basically made it no longer viable for any of them to be off of the reservations to hide or attack, because that was where the only food was at.

 

[ATP]

They did. They forced other countries to stop dealing in slaves. That's being world police.

Indeed.But they do not made them slavery illegal in their countries,or changed into lesser Englands.
And that was what soviets and USA tried - change other countries into lesser soviet/USA