The Warmasters' reply cometh.
And its enormous (That's what she said)
HOLY SHIT!
WAIT, I HAVE ONE MORE RESOURCE:
BLAZING MODE UNLEASHED.......!!!
Ok, now serious...
You'll find that even though Commonwealth countries are ran as democracies, the Queen still has ultimate power over each and every single one of those territories, the same as in Britain. She can waltz into Australia, sack each and every single person and take over any time she chooses.
Hence why it is still an Empire.
No.
Actually, I checked both Spanish Wikipedia and English Wikipedia: The Queen
does not has absolute power on all these countries.
From the Spanish Wikipedia (translated by me):
"[The Commonwealth's] primary objective is international cooperation, in both political and economical branches, and, since 1950, belonging to it does not involves any submission to the British Crown"
From English Wikipedia, and I
Qoute copy-paste:
"The Queen is the head of state of 16 member states, known as the Commonwealth realms, while 32 other members are republics and five others have different monarchs".
Full (english) article on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
Which means, majority of the Commonwealth are independant nations. Guess that destroys your queen's "aboslute power" idea, doesn't it
?
Anyone looking to use facts rather than opinion. If you wish to definitively define something, you need a definition. And the best places for definitions are dictionaries.
So yeah, I'll being a dictionary to a debate. And any other reputable source material to back up my words, that's kinda the idea.
Noble ideals, but once again, what your dictionary brings is a linguistic definition. Not a sociopolitical and economic definition.
That's what we're debating here.
WWII. The first world war was ruinous to many European countries, but apart from enormous casualties (900,000), Britain and the Empire had been largely spared the fighting and actually expanded post-war. It wasn't until the rise of fascism and the Empire of the Rising Sun that Britain discovered it wasn't invincible and couldn't hold its territories on the other side of the world (the Blitz and fall of the previously considered impregnable fortress at Singapore drove that point home).
WWI, First World War.
I said on my previous post that although Britain still had more territory, the rising economical and political Empire was the United States of America.
On the sea? Yes, Britain's naval superiority remained uncontested until the beginning of the WW2... and maybe later. But in terms of influence, or
sphere of influence, which is the modern term for
colonies, the US had already influenced the whole world, and it was clear it was going to be the true Empire for a while. Even Britain was in debt with America.
Granted, the US was a monetary powerhouse and the Wall Street Crash of '29 effected the entire planet, but that didn't make it an Empire.
If anything, it was doing everything it could not to interfere with global politics, the Isolationist era.
They were isolating themselves from Europe, not from the rest of the world. They just didn't want to get involved in another European war. Basically, they were trying to make the Europeans kill each other, as they, smoothly, conquer the world. Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine, signed in 1823?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
"
America for the Americans"?
"European nations, don't involve with America or you shall deal with us"? (This last thing wasn't explicitly written but that was the intention of the document).
What I mean is that the during the whole 1900's, 1910's, 1920's and 1930's the US was well involved in practically all Latin American nation's governments, and I dare to say, its sphere of influence or colonies engulfed the whole Latin America.
There are many examples of there expansionism, the wars with Mexico, the two military interventions in Cuba, the murder of General Sandino in Nicaragua...
So, they're isolationism only applied for European affairs, they're politics towards the rest of the continent were the typical of a rising empire, only that a little more subtle, a little more smooth than Japan in Asia and Germany in Europe, but still is the same goal: expand its sphere of influence.
So, no. I don't think the US was isolated from global politics.
Harbor...
Armor...
Color...
Truck...
A small Joke. Now back to the debate.
Also, the US doesn't control NATO or the UN. Both organisations are organised as a democracy, all members have a vote and the 'permanent' members have the veto as well. The US can't force the UN into doing something, it can ask it, or vice versa but it's more than capable of saying no.
And why a permanent membership in the first place? I know, they won WW2, defeating the fascism, and saving the free world, that's all true, but, does this nation is always in position to defend the world, or is it more concerned about its own benefit?
I don't think this role of "Police Force of the World" the US has given to itself is well based.
C'mon. If what you want is a document saying "The US is in control of all of this", of course you're not gonna find it. Politics aren't that obvious.
Still, although, technically yes, the UN is perfectly capable of saying no, you'll find that many countries follow and vote for the US, because (one more time) of its enormous political, economical and military power.
External debt, military bases... those are reasons to make a government vote for the US, no matter if they are right or not.
