|
|
Post by salvare7097 on Aug 2, 2021 10:54:51 GMT
If you haven’t been living under a rock for the last 70 years you probably know of the four policeman compact. Where after the end of the last world war the United States the USSR The republic of China and the United Kingdom split the globe into spheres of influence that remain to this day assuring in the current golden age in the “great peace“. OOC: basically the four policeman en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Policemen become a thing and remain a powerful prosperous institution into the modern day. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Aug 2, 2021 11:09:26 GMT
Without them and their role, we would have had a couple of nuclear wars by now.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 2, 2021 15:00:11 GMT
On the other hand look at the problems that have occurred with unrest in the Americas, ME and parts of Africa and East Asia. China and the USSR have been very brutal in suppressing attempts at independence by a number of countries and regions and ditto with some of the Muslim parts of Africa especially. Most especially what the Soviets did in Iran in 1953-55 and again in the 1970s and what the Chinese are still doing in Vietnam and the former DEIs.
True nuclear forces have stayed fairly low, although there are continued rumours about Soviet and Chinese breaches of limits but the military burden especially for Britain is heavy, maintaining a presence across such a vast area. Other than Spain western Europe has been fairly calm and the agreement with India for neighbouring areas of S Asia and also their use against unrest in African regions but its still a heavy social, political and economic burden. That Britain still has nearly a million men under arms in its army and India, Canada and Australia also help is a burden that there is growing hostility to across those powers.
America has had trouble as well in Columbia, Mexico, Cuba and Brazil and had to put down a coup in Argentina in 1977 after the resulting military government demanded control of the Falkland Islands from Britain. That they seek to restriction not just weapons but a lot of industrial activity to
Again there's resentment about some of the fuzzy borders. Even the US has seen frequent complaints about Canada and the Carribean countries being part of the British Commonwealth while China has resented the US's continued presence in the Philippines and that both the US and USSR maintain their occupation zones in Japan. Plus there is the continued flow of refugees from eastern Europe and the continued British presence in Iraq and Syria by Moscow which argued that Britain's role shouldn't go past Palestine. Its noted that even Moscow don't want to stick their head into that hornets nest.
[Bascially I don't think that the idea would be viable, especially for a Britain exhausted by the war and desiring massive social change. I know some of the wording does suggest a non-colonial status but given the desire to so greatly restrict the military of the powers outside the big 4 I can't see anything less than massive opposition which would only grow over time. Also I suspect that at least in some cases the power supplied would tempt corruption and abuse of that power.]
|
|
|
|
Post by salvare7097 on Aug 3, 2021 1:54:21 GMT
On the other hand look at the problems that have occurred with unrest in the Americas, ME and parts of Africa and East Asia. China and the USSR have been very brutal in suppressing attempts at independence by a number of countries and regions and ditto with some of the Muslim parts of Africa especially. Most especially what the Soviets did in Iran in 1953-55 and again in the 1970s and what the Chinese are still doing in Vietnam and the former DEIs.
True nuclear forces have stayed fairly low, although there are continued rumours about Soviet and Chinese breaches of limits but the military burden especially for Britain is heavy, maintaining a presence across such a vast area. Other than Spain western Europe has been fairly calm and the agreement with India for neighbouring areas of S Asia and also their use against unrest in African regions but its still a heavy social, political and economic burden. That Britain still has nearly a million men under arms in its army and India, Canada and Australia also help is a burden that there is growing hostility to across those powers.
America has had trouble as well in Columbia, Mexico, Cuba and Brazil and had to put down a coup in Argentina in 1977 after the resulting military government demanded control of the Falkland Islands from Britain. That they seek to restriction not just weapons but a lot of industrial activity to
Again there's resentment about some of the fuzzy borders. Even the US has seen frequent complaints about Canada and the Carribean countries being part of the British Commonwealth while China has resented the US's continued presence in the Philippines and that both the US and USSR maintain their occupation zones in Japan. Plus there is the continued flow of refugees from eastern Europe and the continued British presence in Iraq and Syria by Moscow which argued that Britain's role shouldn't go past Palestine. Its noted that even Moscow don't want to stick their head into that hornets nest.
[Bascially I don't think that the idea would be viable, especially for a Britain exhausted by the war and desiring massive social change. I know some of the wording does suggest a non-colonial status but given the desire to so greatly restrict the military of the powers outside the big 4 I can't see anything less than massive opposition which would only grow over time. Also I suspect that at least in some cases the power supplied would tempt corruption and abuse of that power.]
Yes the immediate post Division era that was hard on everyone. But since about 1991 everything has settled down. I don’t think there’s been a real incident since about 2011. Everything has been really integrated into the spheres quite well. personally I think it was the sabotaging of all the infrastructure projects in the mid to late 80s that really turned the local populous against independence movements. For example you Can’t really be fighting for the Egyptian People if you’re blowing up Egyptian schools hospitals and water treatment plants just because were built by the British. Besides Britain Really turn around in the early 50s and by the 60s it’s really booming. SAS combat medic saving Gandhi really turned their image around in India. A lot of the problems were solved with the Guam compromises. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 3, 2021 3:33:59 GMT
I don’t think that there would be, as some of the Neo-Burgundian School have suggested, that we would have seen any sort of reconciliation between France and Germany, let alone a broader European confederation. Imagine that - Italy not being the strongest of the Continental states (!).
Perhaps we might have seen some states stick around rather than move together, although I once again can’t see that extending to a non United Netherlands.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Aug 4, 2021 20:59:20 GMT
On the other hand look at the problems that have occurred with unrest in the Americas, ME and parts of Africa and East Asia. China and the USSR have been very brutal in suppressing attempts at independence by a number of countries and regions and ditto with some of the Muslim parts of Africa especially. Most especially what the Soviets did in Iran in 1953-55 and again in the 1970s and what the Chinese are still doing in Vietnam and the former DEIs.
True nuclear forces have stayed fairly low, although there are continued rumours about Soviet and Chinese breaches of limits but the military burden especially for Britain is heavy, maintaining a presence across such a vast area. Other than Spain western Europe has been fairly calm and the agreement with India for neighbouring areas of S Asia and also their use against unrest in African regions but its still a heavy social, political and economic burden. That Britain still has nearly a million men under arms in its army and India, Canada and Australia also help is a burden that there is growing hostility to across those powers.
America has had trouble as well in Columbia, Mexico, Cuba and Brazil and had to put down a coup in Argentina in 1977 after the resulting military government demanded control of the Falkland Islands from Britain. That they seek to restriction not just weapons but a lot of industrial activity to
Again there's resentment about some of the fuzzy borders. Even the US has seen frequent complaints about Canada and the Carribean countries being part of the British Commonwealth while China has resented the US's continued presence in the Philippines and that both the US and USSR maintain their occupation zones in Japan. Plus there is the continued flow of refugees from eastern Europe and the continued British presence in Iraq and Syria by Moscow which argued that Britain's role shouldn't go past Palestine. Its noted that even Moscow don't want to stick their head into that hornets nest.
[Bascially I don't think that the idea would be viable, especially for a Britain exhausted by the war and desiring massive social change. I know some of the wording does suggest a non-colonial status but given the desire to so greatly restrict the military of the powers outside the big 4 I can't see anything less than massive opposition which would only grow over time. Also I suspect that at least in some cases the power supplied would tempt corruption and abuse of that power.]
Yes the immediate post Division era that was hard on everyone. But since about 1991 everything has settled down. I don’t think there’s been a real incident since about 2011. Everything has been really integrated into the spheres quite well. personally I think it was the sabotaging of all the infrastructure projects in the mid to late 80s that really turned the local populous against independence movements. For example you Can’t really be fighting for the Egyptian People if you’re blowing up Egyptian schools hospitals and water treatment plants just because were built by the British. Besides Britain Really turn around in the early 50s and by the 60s it’s really booming. SAS combat medic saving Gandhi really turned their image around in India. A lot of the problems were solved with the Guam compromises. Well sure no incident since 2011 but more because they have been now categorizated as 'crime related' or 'accident' instead of terrorist attack, as the PR department thinks it make the situation more manageable (even if basically nobody believe that) and if by integrated you mean that the big corporation own everything and it's basically colonialism under a new name...oh well you are right. Sure saving Gandhi helped for a while, except that all was wasted 5 minutes laters with the hamfisted attempt of separate India in different states...what this? the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Kashmir and Bengal occupation?
Well maybe and i realize it's a big maybe, without that idiotic agreement the current world situation will not be so...complicated. The United Kingdom had basically bankrupted itself trying to hold his sphere fighting insurgency everywhere and we all know that by now 'special relationship' mean that the British Empire is a whole owned subsidiary of the United States.
And honestly the other three are not in the great shape themselfs after decades of banana/colonial wars, hell in the USA it seem that there is a terrorist or at least an attempted attack every week or two...oopps sorry i mean criminal endevour done by foreign people.
I agree that no four policemen a more united european continent will be on the table, especially because i will not see the big four crushing jugoslavia and France for daring attempting to go on their own; hell Italy had needed his little nuclear weapon secret project to be accepted as a neutral nation and keep his little sphere of influence in the mediterrean
|
|
|
|
Post by salvare7097 on Aug 5, 2021 21:51:08 GMT
Yes the immediate post Division era that was hard on everyone. But since about 1991 everything has settled down. I don’t think there’s been a real incident since about 2011. Everything has been really integrated into the spheres quite well. personally I think it was the sabotaging of all the infrastructure projects in the mid to late 80s that really turned the local populous against independence movements. For example you Can’t really be fighting for the Egyptian People if you’re blowing up Egyptian schools hospitals and water treatment plants just because were built by the British. Besides Britain Really turn around in the early 50s and by the 60s it’s really booming. SAS combat medic saving Gandhi really turned their image around in India. A lot of the problems were solved with the Guam compromises. Well sure no incident since 2011 but more because they have been now categorizated as 'crime related' or 'accident' instead of terrorist attack, as the PR department thinks it make the situation more manageable (even if basically nobody believe that) and if by integrated you mean that the big corporation own everything and it's basically colonialism under a new name...oh well you are right. Sure saving Gandhi helped for a while, except that all was wasted 5 minutes laters with the hamfisted attempt of separate India in different states...what this? the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Kashmir and Bengal occupation?
Well maybe and i realize it's a big maybe, without that idiotic agreement the current world situation will not be so...complicated. The United Kingdom had basically bankrupted itself trying to hold his sphere fighting insurgency everywhere and we all know that by now 'special relationship' mean that the British Empire is a whole owned subsidiary of the United States.
And honestly the other three are not in the great shape themselfs after decades of banana/colonial wars, hell in the USA it seem that there is a terrorist or at least an attempted attack every week or two...oopps sorry i mean criminal endevour done by foreign people.
I agree that no four policemen a more united european continent will be on the table, especially because i will not see the big four crushing jugoslavia and France for daring attempting to go on their own; hell Italy had needed his little nuclear weapon secret project to be accepted as a neutral nation and keep his little sphere of influence in the mediterrean
OOC: no dystopia non-canon |
|
|
|
Post by salvare7097 on Aug 5, 2021 22:36:24 GMT
I don’t think that there would be, as some of the Neo-Burgundian School have suggested, that we would have seen any sort of reconciliation between France and Germany, let alone a broader European confederation. Imagine that - Italy not being the strongest of the Continental states (!). Perhaps we might have seen some states stick around rather than move together, although I once again can’t see that extending to a non United Netherlands. Especially after Hitler started Burning down every provincial capital and capital City the in occupied territories to try and get rid of the resistance. Destroying the Louvre pretty much earned than the permanent hatred the French the only reason the Eiffel tower wasn’t scrapped was because The third army got there in 43. That however did not save all the Old Churches of Europe from being destroyed or Hitler from taking down the arc de Triomphe. There’s a reason Germany was broken up into its constituent kingdoms. And that France went through with a Franco British union in 45. They pretty much destroyed in all the countries they were occupying. The British were really genius in using that to really boost their economy on top of the Marshall plan aid. |
|
