In article
<1148212793.652303.135670@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
black_on_white@... (Derrick) wrote:
> Successive British governments followed
> a policy of appeasement when confronted with the ambitions of
> state-makers in the US.
Britain's main concern was economic trade with South America,
this was never threatened by the US. The other point of
irritation was US "Open Door" policy in China.
> I don't understand what you mean. French power was a real
> threat, though not an actual harm. That's why British >
governments went to pains to settle disputes with French >
governments.
About the only colonial incident that came close to war was
Fashoda, in that case the French backed down when Britain
threatened war. The main reason for the British attitude was that
it was becoming clear that "Splendid Isolation" was becoming
impossible and a continental ally was going to be needed.
> You've got it backwards. The _British_ fleet posed a threat to
> _Germany_.
How? A naval invasion of Germany was never a rational plan. Even
the Baltic Plan would have required Russian troops. By the way
Look up what Tirpitz said about "Risk Fleet". On the other hand
British planners were worried about a German invasion as they had
nothing but the BEF.
You might also want to consider this. All British imports
arrive by sea. Most of German imports arrive by land routes.
Ken Young |
