Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am fully aware of John Perkins. The USA creates an economic empire, well the Brits did that first and the USA expanded on the idea. This option is not available to Russia.
The British were not expansionist at all. They got an empire without hardly firing a shot. They were great traders and manufacturers. They had a lot to offer the rest of the world. They only took land from natives as protection against other European colonial expansion. Rhodesia is the prime example in protecting South Africa from German expansion. The British got India by default and never really wanted the place. They only wanted to trade. In those days having to protect the trading ports was vital.
But saying we need to take territory XYZ so someone else does not get it, pretty much leads the door wide open as an excuse for everyone to take everything. Which is pretty much what happened during the age of Imperialism.
It depends who got it. The Germans were belligerent. Later they cause two world wars. A group of people not to be trusted.
And dem French can be trusted even less, right? ( Because Germans were really not big on colonial expansions - the French and the Spaniards ( plus Portuguese) were.
I'd say this is rather a long list of British colonies, that were taken because "Germans" ( or anyone else for this matter) couldn't be trusted.
Only Great Britain and Great Britain only could take care of those lands ( and its natives ) in the best possible manner.
I'd say looking at the list that is rather long, and keeping in mind that some of the natives were simply wiped out from those lands, while being replaced with "the settlers" to say that "British were not expansionists at all" is rather strange. ( And I will not even touch the subject of India, which they supposedly "never wanted.")
So of course they were expansionists, but it should be noted that in many ways they became the original engine for the modern world, establishing the rules and the word of law ( good or bad - it's already a different question, but the "order of things" was undeniably established, which in my eyes was a good thing. You can't see what's going right or wrong, until you establish some set of rules that you adhere to at the first place. The improvements can take place gradually, as long as the initial rules are upheld.)
Quote:
The USA creates an economic empire, well the Brits did that first and the USA expanded on the idea. This option is not available to Russia.
No, Russia was never an "initial force" ( there are too many inner controversies which would never allow Russia to become the "locomotive" for the rest of the world. Her role is ( and always has been) rather of the counter-balancing nature. A rather important role never the less, that shouldn't be challenged.
It depends who got it. The Germans were belligerent. Later they cause two world wars. A group of people not to be trusted.
No, I was not talking about all countries not just Germany. Taking territory from other countries because it is strategic or needed for as a buffer territory is wrong. It does not matter if it was the USA taking over Panama for the Panama Canal or France wanting Morocco or Japan wanting Korea or Russia wanting the Baltic States or Germany wanting Poland. All are wrong.
As for Britain - they had their fair share of controversies. I would not dismiss it so easily.
It depends on who is moving next to you. If Belgium move next to British colonies the British would not be concerned.
Was Portugal a major threat to the British Empire in 1890? War was threatened on little Portugal if the Portuguese did not leave certain lands in southern Africa that the British wanted.
So you see its not just the Germans that act imperialistically or sometimes grabbed other nation's territory. All countries, especially the larger major powers have a share of the blame.
Finns were ready to give us 3 (or 4?) islands, but not all we wanted, and to move the border from the Northern Capital, but not as far away as we wanted... So there were the opportunities for a compromise...
Was Portugal a major threat to the British Empire in 1890? War was threatened on little Portugal if the Portuguese did not leave certain lands in southern Africa that the British wanted.
So you see its not just the Germans that act imperialistically or sometimes grabbed other nation's territory. All countries, especially the larger major powers have a share of the blame.
"Although the Ultimatum required that Portugal should cease from its activities in the disputed areas, there was no similar restriction on further British efforts to establish occupation there."
When the Germans were sniffing around, the British occupied territory.
Finns were ready to give us 3 (or 4?) islands, but not all we wanted,
They were not Russia's to have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) in the best possible manner. 
