Britain's strategic buffer.

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by william walker, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many people think Britain's main strategic buffer is and was the waters around Britain, this is only partly the case. The English channel is not a real defensive barrier to cross, the problem is what meets the enemy on the other side and what happens as the enemy is preparing to cross, the weather also play's a part. Then you have the Irish sea, North Sea and Norwegian sea. The the Irish sea again it no real barrier to Invasion from Ireland, so Britain must control Ireland as a strategic buffer from invasion through the Irish sea. Ireland has been used to try and invade Britain by the Vikings, Spanish, France and Germans. So this idea that Britain was an imperialist power in Ireland is wrong, Ireland must be part of Britain for defensive strategic reasons, or under British control.

    Now the really important thing which I only just realised that Britain until the 1940 Norwegian campaign had a strategic buffer from Germany and Russia around the North Sea and Norwegian sea. This was the case since the Napoleonic wars when the British Royal Navy captured the Danish-Norwegian fleet in an act call there after Copenhagenization. Since then Denmark and Norway based their state and political system on that of Britain and basically became British protectorates. This meant Britain had a 3 sided strategic buffer so it was able to put all its resources into defending the South of England and Channel.

    So in my view the reason Britain losts its geopolitical power wasn't Dunkirk or Singapore, rather defeat in the Nowegian campaign and the loss of Denmark. The Suez Crisis was very important to the British elite, however the far more important defeat in the 1950's was the First Cod war, it meant Britain had lost all economic and political power over the North Sea and Norwegian sea to stop Iceland taking the action. This means Britain has lost its strategic depth and territorial integrity, so it is no longer strategically secure and able to independently project power in a meaningful and sustained manner.
     
  2. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If it was a nicer neighbour, it wouldn't need to project power.
     
  3. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well part of power projection is being nice and helping other countries, then using it to manipulate them politically.
     
  4. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Big fail for UK, then...........and UK's big fail is giving the world big problems.
     
  5. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm certain the world would have had big problems, probably a lot bigger ones, with or without the UK. Overall they've done very well considering the alternatives, just about anywhere they went. A few setbacks and bad political decisions here and there, but those were domestic problems.
     
  6. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How do you get Afghanistan and Iraq as domestic problems, though they have certainly resulted in domestic problems.....and problems in other countries? UK doesn't project power......it projects greed and and self-importance.....or at least the UK Government does. Continually trying to punch above your weight on the international stage tends to produce problems both at home and abroad. How could the world have bigger problems than it has now....much of which are a direct result, over the centuries, of the UK "projecting power" by use of the gun, in order to satisfy its greed?
     
  7. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Indeed it was not just the waters around, but the whole peninsula called Europe. Why did the English and Germans and French become so proudly ambitious over the centuries up until today? Because they had time to build up their morale and materials over ten centuries of nonaggression. In 10 centuries you English people had no wars with no one. No real casualties, no real enemies. You reached a military surplus that you sent to other continents only because you had the time for it. Your survival as a nation, as a culture, as a religion was never at stake. Time. TIME. That's what it's all about. You had plenty of time to do whatever needed, or not needed, that's why you hardly appreciate the value of time. The Arctic regions gave you plenty of time. So did the Atlantic. So did the impossible mountains of Scandinavia and so did the will of Spain, Italy, Greece, Romania, Poland to remain Christian. Time is universally the most valuable asset in the infinite universe and you aren't even aware of it whatsoever.

    I mean who the fack is going to come from Asia and be able to cross the Arctic in medieval times? If you look at the World map it all becomes so obvious. Where else do you have such a strip of land, such an isolated and protected strip of land like Northern Europe? Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. Africa is poor not because they are an inferior race but because the shape of the continent is roundish enough and because they are connected to the whole rest of the facking world. Africa itself is many times bigger than Europe.

    Doesn't sound like an unlikely coincidence that the 3 most developed empires in the world throughout the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Modernity (France, Germany and Britain) are all next to each other?

    But not anymore. Now technology, political and cultural principles make all the difference. Rockets can be dropped on any square meter of the world within minutes. It's all about who your allies are and what your connections are. Geographic positions are for the first few decades in history becoming irrelevant.

    Why would you need Ireland for strategic reasons in a time when satellites can launch nuclear charges from outer space?

    And whose fault is it that they were lost? Technology's fault. The Germans had the means to quickly cross into Scandinavia and sweep through Belgium and Denmark unlike in 1914-18.
     
  8. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
  9. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Britain has been invaded by Vikings, Danes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Normans, plus a large amount of in fighting. It wasn't united until 1707. No we reached an economic surplus from growing production the colonies and at home which we turned into military capabilities. Our culture hasn't been threatened because of the three sided strategic buffer and having a very capable military. I don't have a clue what you are taking about time for. Also the rest of what you said in the first paragraph, what are you taking about?

    We had enough threats from Muslim and European countries who also wouldn't be threated from Asia. Japan, Cuba, New Zealand, Madagascar all come to mind if you look at a map. As being somewhat like the British Isles. Again I don't understand the point you are trying to make about Africa.

    The 3 most developed Empires were Spain, Britain and Russia. Not France, Germany and Britain. If you are talking about other developments then France is Catholic, Germany and Britain Protestant. Britain have more open economy, France is more protectionist, Germany is mixed. Their achivement comes from different reasons from each other, not because they are next to each other.

    As Robert d Kaplan says technology isn't making geographical not matter, it is making geography more claustrophobic. It matters more than ever, as do strategic buffers.

    Because Ireland is the western side of the strategic buffer, has Atlantic power, some of the best land in Europe and can be used by otherside powers to weaken or invade Britain.

    No not technology, planning.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I have changed my views on Ireland. I now want as closer deeper relationship to move Ireland back into Britain's sphere without having to take it over by forces which in many case wouldn't work.
     
  10. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree currently the UK protecting power for no reason other than political greed and self-importance. It is a direct result of Britain projecting power and then pulling back after WW2.
     
  11. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    They were raids not real invasions. The Ottomans for example used to often invade the south-east of Europe with 200,000 - 300,000 troops, more than all the ones you mentioned put together. You don't get my point because you lose the big picture. The ones you listed are miniature enemies at best, related to you by blood. Try to put that next to the endless armies that came relentlessly from the vastness of Asia... Danes? Dutch? You're kidding. They are tiny places and are your brothers. They are Christians.

    Asia is not that tiny, you know... Look on the map. Plus you fought Christians. It is arguably a great difference between fighting people with the same principles as yourself and people who enslave their women and have harems. The south and east had to fight Muslims, and other so called pagans. That's the difference. You often ended a war by marrying a prince with a princess. But you can't do that with Muslims, can you? Imagine if Poland, Spain, Hungary, Romania, Greece or Southern Italy turned Muslim and became part of the Ottoman Empire at some point, as the Ottomans long tried. Imagine if these countries and populations fought against the rest of Europe, against the remaining Christians, along Ottomans, Asians, Africans etc... Denmark, Netherlands, Britain itself and so on would be part of the Middle East today. There would be no USA and no Western civilization.

    The question is how were you able to get to the point where you could create colonies? That's the point.

    Read above. Military tactics and resources are developed over time.

    When did Muslim armies set foot into England with the intent of converting it to Islam? When? Just tell me when. Doesn't matter what you fought on other sides of the earth. It's the development of a precursor cultural nerve center that could be preserved (the north-west) that made all the difference.

    Africans are many. Africa is so many times bigger than Europe. That means a lot more people invading and constantly destroying each other all the time from all directions.

    Where did you come up with that? Russia? Did Russia have colonies like Spain or England or even Germany?

    But they are still Christian, still in the same boat. Still with a more or less loose acceptation of Roman law and Greek principles of life. That's not the case with Asia, and the Middle East.

    Haha listen to yourself. It's not individual economic personality that matters here. It's the odds of 3 lottery winners being neighbors and living on the same street, with their houses next to one another. ;)
     
  12. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you think Britain merely projected power and built an empire through guns and greed then I have a bag of magic beans you might want to buy.The resr of your post is some sort of screed feigning some moral plane you don't exist on nor does any other country or people on the planet, just sophistry.

    Re Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe Iraq was created by the West in the first place, as were all the other western powers after the fall of the Ottomans and later the post-colonial fallout after WW II. Former British colonies have obviously fared better than most others, which is an indication of how influential British administration was. But if you think the Brits ruled India by guns then you aren't really knowledge about history, nor are you aware of what would have ruled in Britain's place if they cared what some pseudo-intellectuals parlor 'Progressives' in the 21st Century thought about their Empirical successes. As for 'greed' you seem to have some weird idea that nobody else in the world has that problem.

    To get back to reality, it pretty much takes an Empire to keep from being eaten by other empires, and most of them far worse than Britain's was ever possible to be. Brits were positively benign in comparison. Most of their bad decisions were a result of internal politics, having to do with bad appointments and a leadership that was sometimes not very bright or downright incompetent, and out of touch of realities away from the home counties in large part.
     
  13. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So you believe the world has to have a policeman. The one that USA took over from in the 20th century? 'What would have ruled in Britain's place'... You tell me what.

    Not necessarily... The Roman Empire, The Byzantine Empire, The Chinese were not eaten by other empires but by the fact that they aged, didn't keep up with times and were taken down by small relentless attacks from all directions. In historic terms, an 'Empire' as you put it, is, if anything, going to grow enemies rather than keep them at bay, causing hate to smolder within rivals and vassals alike.
     
  14. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's worked well for a lot of smaller countries, despite all the sniveling to the contrary; well, unless you think those countries destabilized by the Soviets were great places afterwards, in which case you would be a sociopath and probably not a fan of anything that doesn't benefit you directly.

    Clarify this, as it doesn't make much sense. A Soviet or Nazi dominated Europe would be better in your view?

    Actually they were; they were overrun by migrations from the invasions of other empires in the Roman case re the western empire, and the eastern Roman empire was overrun by imperialist Islamic armies. The Chinese were invaded by the Mongols. They built that long wall for a reason.

    Empire far outlast enemies compared to small countries; the argument that 'create enemies' is kind of ridiculous given world history; since when did being small mean everybody was your 'friend'? They got ran over, and many peoples disappeared entirely. All you had to do to have enemies was exist, and that's all you need in most parts of the world today to have enemies.
     
  15. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This isn't what I wanted to talk about. I want to talking the the future and improving Britain's cultural stability, economic freedom and geopolitical power. You keep going back and taking about why Britain become powerful, I am interested in how Britain can regain some of its power.
     
  16. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Places formerly run by the Soviets were actually still better afterwards than were the colonies owned by the Englanders after they left. And the Soviets ruled over their constituent republics and satellites for just a few decades. The English elite ruled certain areas of the globe for centuries and still left them in misery in the 1950s and 1960s when the empire imploded.


    Ok so the role the British Empire had was to prevent the evil Germans from expanding? Are you saying that German = Nazi?


    Listen to that... The Roman Empire fell because of immigration. :roflol:

    Only after the western knights a.k.a. crusaders stabbed their Byzantine allies in the back in 1204 and destroyed the last civilized society in the medieval world.

    The true fall of the Chinese empire was concluded in the 18th and 19th century, much later than the Mongol invasion.


    I didn't say create I said grow. Grow existing ones.
     
  17. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    How it can get power back is a matter that involves a comparison of past and future world realities. Why it got power is essential in analyzing why it doesn't anymore.
     
  18. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No current and future realities, the past doesn't really matter other than showing what a country did in the past. It might seem I have got this three sided strategic buffer idea from history. However current realities are which it comes into being an effective strategy. The UK's power came from the North Atlantic and Mediterranean historically, so the obvious strategy from history would be Britain trying to assert control and domination of both once again. In reality though Britain with a strategic buffer or not can't challenge US, French, Russian, Italian, Spanish and Turkish interests in the North Atlantic or Mediterranean. However it can challenge lesser powers and one or two over the nations I just listed. In this case Russia and Spain or the major Spanish speaking power in the future, which I think will be Argentina. The key point is don't create a threat to American interests if at all possible. I do believe Britain with a strategic buffer could challenge US domination of the North Atlantic however it would require a naval buildup which Britain couldn't sustain for more than 15-20 years and the buildup would only result in the US and Britain sharing control, for the effort on the part of Britain it would have to dominate the North Atlantic. Britain would have to defeat the US in a war which isn't impossible, but it also isn't likely. I have myself planned 3 different navies for three different possible strategy's and an onward progression from the first plan to the second to the third with the best option being that only the first plan is needed. In a perfect world the UK would leave the EU on favourable or nutural terms, it would have economic, political and military improvement, at which time the UK would leave NATO having builtup the economic size and political will to sustain a good enough military force to defend its interests from threatening countries like Russia, Germany and France with US help. In doing so Britain will have remove the levers the Irish state has used to keep itself independent, Norway and Denmark threatened by Russia and Germany will look for help from Britain unsure about the US. Britain will then have the power to manipulate these three countries into its sphere of influence and eventual control. This in turn will leave Iceland, Greenland and Faroe Islands with no other choice than to accept British domination and join the British sphere and even house British bases. If this happens and the UK hasn't taken any territory then the US will tolerate it as it limits the Russians and Germany, but they could try and limit the UK using France, Holland or Sweden.

    Why a country gains power and why it loses power are different things for different reasons. Britain gained power, lost power, gained power and lost it again all within 250 years. Now it has no power, this is a serious change which can't be put against the past to plot the future.
     
  19. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If I were you I'd worry about Scotland and the 'strategic de-buffering' rather than a teoretical war against the United States. :rolleyes:
     
  20. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Scotland leaving the Union isn't in Scotland's strategic interests as Scotland isn't really a country. It has a core of the Highlands, Glasgow and Edinburgh, however the Lowlands need England as much as they need the core of Scotland. The Western Isles and Islands to the North and West are their own regions with different cultural, economic and therefore political interests than the core so even if Scotland leaves the Union its options are limited, it will no be able to be model social democratic country like Norway. It will likely endup being Socialist or Nationalist to keep it together, or even change between the two. Also Scotland leaving the Union wouldn't have a strategic de-duffering it would be the end of the nation of Britain on which I base the strategic on. The British Isles would revert back to the old geopolitics before the Union of Crown and Union of Parliaments. By this I mean England will to try and take Scotland back through manipulating its non-core regions and there could be conflict because of it.

    The war against the US is not something I want, however it could happen if Britain does as I expect and leaves the EU, it will be forced to create this strategic buffer around itself, if this doesn't cause conflict with the EU, it could cause conflict with the US.
     
  21. allegoricalfact

    allegoricalfact Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Female

    It is the direct result of WWII - a War which should have never been fought and certainly not for so long - Churchill and co' lost us our Empire as well as spilling the blood of millions - indeed all Empires fell in WWII and where scoop up by whom? ----$$$$$$$$$
     
  22. allegoricalfact

    allegoricalfact Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Female

    the Invasions he talks about were not all simply raids but integrations - Why oh why do 'we' all think there was always fightin' fightin' and more fightin' lol - as with the changes of Political Parties of today most peoples lives did not change much - unlike the political parties of today, 'invaders' bought new skills and objects and thoughts with them -
     
  23. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Integrations are one thing, obliteration and replacement are another. Certain parts of Europe had to repel Muslims for centuries in order to avoid being obliterated.
     
  24. allegoricalfact

    allegoricalfact Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Female
    I know - Sorry, I thought we were talking about Britain and the invasions of - it was just as an aside :)
     
  25. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Well, yes we were. :smoking: The topic of the thread is the strategic allies of England. All I was trying to say to william walker is that his theory may include some wrong explanations in the sense that the 'strategic buffer' he talks about were some stones in a larger Christian construction that held together nicely because of the broadly identical beliefs. In other words the 'strategic buffer' of Britain and Northern Europe especially was in fact Europe itself. It's about the Christian-Christian compatibility that allowed different military, political, cultural fabrics to blend into each other easily throughout N and W Europe especially.

    All I was trying to say is that Scandinavia being 'dominated' by Britain was not a domination in the uttermost sense. Christians can not dominate Christians beyond a certain point. Had the Scandinavians been under Mongols or Muslims, the story of them being the 'strategic buffer' of Mongols or Muslims would not have been realistic, wouldn't you agree? But again, correct me if I'm going too much off topic.
     

Share This Page