North America vs. Europe/Asia

timshatz · 12-30-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

timshatz, what are the English Isles? You mean British Isles.

My bad, British Isles. Or UK? Dunno which is used more and means what. Clarification please?

If I am not mistaken, the US and Britain sat down and hammered out a bunch of problems they had with each other around the turn of the last century. All little stuff. Before that, Britian was not seen as particularly for or against the US. At least by the general populace. The people that knew what was going on understood that while American Clipper ships may traverse the waves, if something bad happened to a couple of them, it was more likely a British warship that would come over the horizon than an American one (Pacific Island disputes exempted). Both nations needed each other's merchant traffic.

The US had a plan to fight the Commonwealth but it was pretty much allowed to lapse by the late 20s/early 30s. I think it was Plan Red and a war with Canada was Plan Crimmson with other colors associated with other dominions (India was Ruby, Australia was Purple- little vague on that last one). I am unsure as to what would happen regarding the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, ect. But do know the plan called for the US to invade Canada in about 5 different columns starting in Maine and ending in Vancouver. There were no real details to the plan and it sounded for all the world like something a couple of staff officers dreamed up over drinks at the Army/Navy Club in Washington.

Canada also had a plan to invade the US. It consisted of 4 or 5 flying columns going south (in almost the exact mirror opposite of Plan Crimmson), seizing cities like Seattle, Albany, ect. and holding them until the Brits showed up. The plan was later rejected as being, and I think this is a direct quote, "Unfeasable". If that meant the Colonel who thought it up oughta have his head examined or the Candaians figured they'd never invaded the US before so why bother now, is unclear. But, it was dropped shortly after being proposed. I think the plan was called Defense Plan 1 (I'd hate to hear what Defense Plan 2 was).

Nonskimmer · 12-30-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timshatz

Canada also had a plan to invade the US.

Ha!

Sorry, that statement just made me chuckle. Carry on please.

sct · 12-30-2006, 04:37 PM

As late as the l920s, US still had a naval war plan against UK. There was a lot of frictions, mostly unnoticed by the general public, created by the naval races. As for Canada siding with US or EU, although US-bashing seems to be the flavour of the month (or the year) here recently, good whiners nver make good warriors I guess. Most Candians have more in common with Americans than Eurpeans. And, purely for arugement's sake, with 95% (ok, I'm guessing here) of the population located with a couple of kms from the border, it wouldn't be much of a contest.

Nonskimmer · 12-30-2006, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sct

...with 95% (ok, I'm guessing here) of the population located with a couple of kms from the border...

Would you wanna live much further north? You know what the folks living up there are like. Wacky.

All the moose meat I guess.

plan_D · 12-30-2006, 04:48 PM

Great Britain wanted to split the U.S.A during the the American Civil War. Had the Confederates achieved a victory at Gettysburg, it has been said that Britain and France would go over to negociate the peace and splitting of the U.S. This does not mean that Britain were enemies of the U.S, but it was an oppurtunity not to be missed. To relations between the two nations after the war had been brought to an end shows that there wasn't a lot of animosity between the two nations.

For our American friends that don't quite understand the terminology for Great Britain. I will give a little explanation;

The British Isles refers to the islands which are now owned by Eire, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom of Great Britain (Great Britain or United Kingdom for short) refers to the nations under the control of England (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).

During the Dark Ages, the British Isles were made of many different tribes and kingdoms. The Picts in the north (Scottish Highlands), Irish of Ireland in the west (Ireland and south-west Scotland; known as Scots), the Mercian kingdom of the Midlands, and Dalriada kingdom which was a collection of a few tribes around Northhumberland, the vikings of the east and also Britons of the west. We also had the kingdom of Wessex, and Wales. But I'd be here for days trying to explain the complicated society of the day. Even after the invasion of William I England wasn't united; let alone what became Britain.

Anyway, what a lot of people don't realise is that the English of the east were exactly like the Danish and Swedish Vikings that began ravaging the coasts a century later. They shared the same Gods, legends, kingship systems and even spoke practically the same language. Even those of Brittany (north France) were connected with the Britsh Isles cultures. The cultures were all either Christian or Pagan, Romanized or non-Romanized. But I can't remember who was what - I remeber those in the east were non-Romanized because the Romans were held on the Danube by Arminius in 9 A.D when he slaugthered 15 000 Romans in the Teutoburg Forest.

But anyway, I'm getting too deep into it.

sct · 12-30-2006, 04:58 PM

Well living in winnipeg for the last 4 years, it's already "north". But thank god for "globadl warming" this winter.

Nonskimmer · 12-30-2006, 05:00 PM

Right.

Arctic ice shelf collapse poses risk: expert

And Winnipeg may get mighty cold, but it ain't "north".

sct · 12-30-2006, 05:05 PM

Yeah, at least I haven't had to shoot any polar bear cubs at my front door.

Nonskimmer · 12-30-2006, 05:07 PM

My point exactly.

sct · 12-30-2006, 05:12 PM

But my labmate from Yellowknife told us, it's actually colder in Winnipeg. I think 2 years ago, January, it got down to around -50 for a week or 2. Thank god, I'm moving back to Vancouver next month. Oppps, it seems I'm making this a thread for whining about weathers.

pbfoot · 12-30-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sct

But my labmate from Yellowknife told us, it's actually colder in Winnipeg. I think 2 years ago, January, it got down to around -50 for a week or 2. Thank god, I'm moving back to Vancouver next month. Oppps, it seems I'm making this a thread for whining about weathers.

Gotta call you on that minus 50 not unless you include the wind but straight temp no way.

sct · 12-31-2006, 12:29 AM

Yeah that was with windchill, around -51 0r 2, but the temp without windchill was probably around -35. Actually the difference of everything below -25 was just academic, you really can't tell the difference. Not that I suggest you to try anyway.

mkloby · 12-31-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

During the Dark Ages, the British Isles were made of many different tribes and kingdoms. The Picts in the north (Scottish Highlands), Irish of Ireland in the west (Ireland and south-west Scotland; known as Scots), the Mercian kingdom of the Midlands, and Dalriada kingdom which was a collection of a few tribes around Northhumberland, the vikings of the east and also Britons of the west. We also had the kingdom of Wessex, and Wales. But I'd be here for days trying to explain the complicated society of the day. Even after the invasion of William I England wasn't united; let alone what became Britain.

Anyway, what a lot of people don't realise is that the English of the east were exactly like the Danish and Swedish Vikings that began ravaging the coasts a century later. They shared the same Gods, legends, kingship systems and even spoke practically the same language. Even those of Brittany (north France) were connected with the Britsh Isles cultures. The cultures were all either Christian or Pagan, Romanized or non-Romanized. But I can't remember who was what - I remeber those in the east were non-Romanized because the Romans were held on the Danube by Arminius in 9 A.D when he slaugthered 15 000 Romans in the Teutoburg Forest.

pd - excellent post. One of my favorite reads was A History of Britain Vol 1 300BC -1603AD by Simon Schama. I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting to know the history of the Isles.

One thing though - I thought that in the centuries after the Romans left Britannia, the Dál Riata (Scots) controlled what is now northeastern Eire, and also a small part of western Scotland, while the Picts did dominate the majority of today's Scotland.
Another group - the Irish tribes w/ a loose power base at Connacht, controlled the rest of Eire (which was the majority of the island).

I enjoyed reading that book so much that it made me wish I was from over there instead of just having Irish-Scottish heritage!

loomaluftwaffe · 12-31-2006, 12:55 PM

ok, if you guys have war with china, and the US amasses it's military in Asia including here, I'd be screwed cause I look Chinese, and as tall as it's average soldier... damn

plan_D · 12-31-2006, 04:40 PM

I did make a mistake, mkloby. Thank you for pointing that out.

When I said Dalriada were around Northhumberland, I meant the Deira. The Dalriada were the kinsman of the Irish of Ireland, which were made up of many kingdoms. I know the Dalriada controlled the west coast of Scotland, but I'm sure your knowledge of the Irish kingdoms is more precise. All I know is that they were romanized and Christian Celtics. There were also the Britons of Wales, Cornwall, Strathclyde, Galloway and Cumbria, as well as emigrants in Brittany connected by the Irish Sea.

I meant the Deira and Bernicia which made up the kingdom of Northhumbria, sorry. They were converted from paganism to Christianity by Irish missionaries from the Dalriada kingdom, so maybe that's where my mind became muddled. Or maybe that the Northhumberian kingdom conquered the west coast of Scotland, Isle of Man and Anglesey in the 7th Century.

A friend of mine has that book, mkloby, although I've never read it. Most of my knowledge is from "Safeguard of the Seas - A Naval History of Britain 650 - 1649". Which is excellent. It's not the history of the Royal Navy, that didn't exist yet. But it's the history of the British Isles from a naval point of view. I recently got the second in the series "The Command of the Ocean - A Naval History of Britain - 1649 - 1815" both by N.A.M Rodger.