Just wanna tell you you’ve improved a hell of a lot. You single handed reignited my interest in British history. Thanks a lot!

Been with you since 8k subs and despite a misplaced Guyana your content has been consistently excellent and some of the best history content on KZfaq hands down.

Beyond my appreciation of this series I also want to say I am so sorry to hear that Kate Middleton has cancer.

I definitely enjoyed it you pretty much prove that American hegemony over the world was pretty much guaranteed because we learned how to run a nation from Britain what's 400 years was the greatest power on the planet then once we realized we had enough land and people to even surpass the British empire which we did at the end of the 19th century like it was inevitable that Brentwood come to America with hat in hand like finance our wars this and that because Britain made the very poor decision to put its money on France which was a horrible decision I think of Britain would have tried its hand that actually securing a piece with Germany and actually working with Germany it would have definitely survived and we would be living in a totally different world

Love your content. Can you do something on Poland? Im curious about what you would have to say.

"British Byzantine empire" 😞 please don't

​@@kaiserfred9596Gonna be a lit empire Lit because they'll reinvent Greek fire or something idk

It was a traitorous betrayal of the Empire. It was treason and cowardice and by saying it did he make it true.

"British byzantine empire" lol sure buddy

Its the irish

*You did not, the video just was released 6 minutes ago dumbass*

Totally unrelatable yepp

Same! This is far more fascinating and helps connect the pieces on historical actions and motivations concerning of variety of topics.

@@robertortiz-wilson1588really what I’m learning is that the world wars and the resulting financial crunch Britain was under from them truly sank them as a global power. Other factors of course.

@nathansyoutubeaccount Yes, I know those factors to be well accepted.

THE US should of sided with Britain we would of had a much more peaceful free world than today

same

He's arguably the worst POTUS in history.

Wilson was a puppet put into place by the roundtable.

Wilson comes off as a massive jerk in so much of his policy, absolutely overrated president

@@supereero9 Dude was also a super racist that screened Birth of a Nation at the White House and funded a lot of those Civil War statues that everyone was making a fuss about (i.e. they were build in the 20s, not right after the CW).

@@careyfreeman5056Don't forget he segregated the US federal civil service

"cause the people are close enough to our own time that they are very relatable and understandable" I feel that: my paternal grandfather was born in 1869 (his father had been wounded in the Corn Field at Antietam [1862]), and my father was born in 1912. Plus, for those of us alive in 1970, we are shaken now to realize that this year, 2024 is as far from 1970 as 1970 was from 1916. (My paternal-line family, as founding members of the Virginia Company, came from London to Jamestown in 1610.)

1970 is equidistant between 1916 and 2024. So of course it’s as far. What were you expecting, time to stand still?

Not anymore😂 thats why theres civil wars and disorder these days lol

*I will wait for some 10 minutes, since in the meanwhile I plan to entertain myself with this so called "gay pornography" that my friend has just told me about, as I can't wait more to see if that would be an interesting experience, do you know something about that "gay pornography", Sir?*

Closest thing the US has to a "brotherly relationship" (or more accurately big brother to little brother relationship) is with Canada. Canada has never been a geopolitical threat and most of it is culturally identical to the populated New England area of the US. And Canada punches above its weight economically and diplomatically (very high GDP and founding member of NATO) The US also has a special relationship with Israel though that's more of a parent-child relationship where the parent can't say no to the child. No offense to Israel but the US always interacts with Israel through noticeably softer gloves compared to other countries. I don't think any other US relationship comes close to these two.

i’m sure india was happy too see it happen

Us Americans learned it all from you Brits.

Sad. My family is from three of the countries of the UK and my impression has always been that you Brits are our kith and kin; and that the only real animus between our countries stems from what was a continuation of the English Civil; and that this time Cromwell’s victory was permanent - at least on this side of the Atlantic.

The irony of all this is that Americas founding values were essentially British and we had far more in common than not. To this day most Americans draw their ancestry from England. I suppose we just couldn't end our quasi-cold war so long as Britain remained an empire and thus an existential threat

Patrons have voted for a British Empire series in the near future so it will inevitably be covered in that.

@@OldBritanniaa British empire series would be amazing!

The new age Rome really is a spitting image of its father and grandfather 🥰

Like father, like son 😂

No. Its existed long before Russia and Britain. Its a game of thrones.

Wouldn't call it the original. The Great game between Britain and Russia was post-napoleonic hence by a small margin making the US-British great game the original

Yes.

Categorically, yes. Capital G Capital G, 'Great Game', is about Great Britain VS Russia in between roughly the mid 1830's and 1900 ish. Even then, there are complications (e.g. by the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, technically, the Russians and British were allies, alongside the other nations involved in that including Japan and the USA) However, Britain was still technically strategically at odds with Russia, not wanting Russia to gain a warm water port on the Indian Ocean or in the Western Pacific. They had fought wars in Afghanistan to prevent the very possibility (however unlikely) of the Russians paying of Afghan chiefs to gain passage to British India via the Khyber Pass) The British signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance Treaty of 1902, because Japan was a (then) useful ally to counter Russian Imperial expansionism in Asia. Britain and Japan had a very good relationship since the 1880's if not earlier, and formally speaking, from 1902 to the mid 1920's. When Japan began to get a bit too big for her boots in Korea and Manchuria, as well as challenging the naval balance of power as agreed in London and Washington, American and British politicians began to get annoyed with Japan and the USA outright enforced a trade embargo. Britain and Japan parted ways as friends in the 1930's and by 1941 Japan attacked Britain. After that point, the British and Russians were ironically allied against the Japanese again, technically (although the Russians would not do much regarding Japan until a massive invasion into Japanese occupied Manchuria in 1945, the last campaign of WWII; and there, the enormous Soviet armies outnumbered a million man Kwantung Army defending the Japanese colony, over three to one; they were heavily defeated and the Russians had much more battle-hardened soldiers, as, for years, the Japanese military had siphoned off the best soldiers from the Kwantung Army garrisons to fight elsewhere against the Americans, British, Nepalese Gurkhas and Australians etc, only to find themselves denuding the strength of the Kwantung Army, which was largely left in a pre-war state of quality and equipment; and much of their aircraft and light tanks had been taken from them to fight elsewhere as well; meaning their squadrons and tanks were thinly dispersed and absolutely no match for the thousands of tanks and aircraft the Soviets hurled at Manchuria; it was very one-sided, including witnessing Japanese banzai charges against Russian tank formations on occasion; they stood no chance) But simply looking at the 19th century, the British and Russia rivalry was very much the Cold War of it's time. It sometimes went hot though, in a world where Nuclear weapons thankfully did not yet exist. The Crimean War, witnessed the British and French fight the Russians hard in gruelling battles on the Crimean Peninsula. The British infantry at battles like Inkerman, fought tenaciously against superior Russian numbers and showed they were not afraid of Russia. It was common for the French and British to put the glory of the action in front of the tactical wisdom of the action, and to hurl themselves into Russian ranks. At Inkerman, they fought in fog, which meant the British defending their positions there, were not fully-aware of how massive the Russian forces attacking them really were; belligerently screaming and bayonet charging into the mist, seemingly with reckless abandon) The Battle of Inkerman is often called 'the Soldier's Battle', because the visual hindrances aka the dense fog, and the smoke of battle, meant that the fighting often came down to individual soldiers fighting for their lives in the melee in the mists, and they were fighting bayonet to bayonet, with their enemies appearing at very close range out of the dense fog, meaning they were right on top of each other and fighting desperately, in small struggles for survival; where the wider tactical situation was not really perceptible a lot of the time. The rivalry between Britain and Russia looked very antiquated by 1917, when the Bolsheviks destroyed (and murdered) the Russian Romanov Dynasty. Britain's entire purpose for controlling the Khyber Pass in Eastern Afghanistan, which it had since before 1880, and the Second Anglo-Afghan War (which, contrary to misconceptions abound regarding Afghanistan in general, Britain did genuinely win as far as she was concerned regarding her own reasons for being there; she had previously lost the First Anglo-Afghan War, decades earlier, in between 1838 and 1842) The idea of the Bolsheviks asking the Afghans for a way through the Hindu Kush to attack the British Raj, was even sillier than the idea of the Russian Imperials doing the same earlier on (with even worse logistical capabilities) Britain had basically overestimated the Tsarist Russian Empire's ability, in the mid-late 19th century, to send large armies through Afghanistan. They'd have needed a very large army, over 100,000 men, likely much more, to even remotely challenge the British control of India and realistically by 1900 that would be even more laughable. The British strategists being paranoid about Russia, may have been right trough in the long run (just, jumping the gun by an entire 140 years) In 1980, the Soviet Russians _did_ invade Afghanistan. But they never got through the Khyber Pass nor were they trying to. Britain had left India in 1947 upon it's independence.

No the original great game, was between Ancient Babylon and Egypt. The world’s first two great empires.

It is fascinating to see both disagree on the intention and beliefs of Canning. Civilis said that the Monroe doctrine was “planned by Canning who genuinely expected such a decision to go the way it did” vs here it’s stated as “Canning somewhat happened into it, and had different reasons”.

Sucks to Suck USA 🇺🇲 USA 🇺🇲 USA 🇺🇲

What enemy are you referring to? The Americans or Communists?

The UK was on ration books until 1953 while the USA demanded high interest rates on top of war debts Churchill casually thought might be waved. People in the UK were eating worse rations in 1950-1953, in terms of calorific intake and nutrition, than they were at the height of the Blitz (in which, the USA stood by and watched 61,000 Britons die, and barely lift a finger in the grand scheme of things, in spite of Roosevelt's actions and genuine sympathies) The sad reality was, that Britons were having a very difficult time post-war while the USA was literally booming (the US boomers living it up in the surging success of Americana in general, culturally and economically) The Rustbelt was not rusty yet, and the Mid West was still a powerhouse of industry for the time being. Britain thought, quite rightly, it deserved better than to be treated this way by the US government, but sadly, it was not a healthy relationship. The USA was outright using the UN to go after British and French Imperialism while simultaneously countering Communist Russia and China. And the Americans were more polite to the Russians and Chinese, which is saying something, than they were to the British and French. See Suez 1956. @@chibble3591

@@chibble3591 the American state. Americans spilt blood so the Europe would be free. Their patriotism and goodwill was exploited by the infant Military Industrial Complex. The Colonial world was left in tatters. Britain, France and the minor Colonial powers were not given the proper timeframe to decolonise. This is what resulted in the rampant corruption, war, and death experienced in Africa, including up to today. The American state is the largest propagator of evil in all of human history.

The UN has been disastrous by and large.@@eagle_and_the_dragon

It ended in 1956

"Officially" ended with the 1956 Suez Crisis but I'd say Johnson basically bullying Wilson over Wilson opposing the Vietnam War is like the dark epilogue.

Virginia joined the Confederacy, at that time West Virginia did not exist and was part of Virginia. It seceded from Virginia during the war and was not admitted as a State until 1863.

So in other words, it did not want to be part of the Confederacy. This part of the state was loyal to the Union. After a couple years of the war the region officially became a State of the Union. @@Ras_al_Gore

@@davidmajer3652 it doesn’t matter, it was a part of the Confederacy because it was part of Virginia, which joined the Confederacy. Whether it wanted to be or not is irrelevant, the map is accurate.

What the West Virginians wanted does matter, and by your own Addisson West Virgina was a state in the Union for half the war. @@Ras_al_Gore

@@davidmajer3652 no it doesn’t. You’re the one who had a problem with the map. WV was part of the confederacy, so the map is accurate. It doesn’t matter if it also joined the Union later. The map would be accurate either way.

Didnt the US have a secret invasion plan for Canada and a blockade of Britain in the 1930’s, but it was discarded due to the rise of Germany? Lol i think we’re friends out of necessity rather than real good chums, no matter how our leaders act and what they say. Thats just my opinion im entitled to it😂

It's "win" in the War of 1812? You can't be serious... Great Britain dropped all demands for a Native buffer state, ended all support for Tecumseh's Confederacy, paid the US in damages, had all of its invasion attempts defeated, and even relinquished ownership of several islands along the St Lawrence and Great Lakes, while giving up any territory it captured on its own. The war is remembered by both sides, as a stalemate.

Yeah...

US foreign policy still seems underdeveloped and immature. I think America's historic hatred and contempt of European empires has left it ignorant of the methods the British empire used that were a net positive. The current state of America's former colonies (Liberia and the Philippines) shows how America's reckless enthusiasm to relinquish its colonies has had severely negative consequences. It's especially ironic given how prosperous the US territories are

the brain and the brawn muscle man

​@@HouthiandtheblowfishChamberlain and Churchill

Your special

About the same time they stopped seeing Canada as a direct extension of the UK's will.

1811, when they voted not to deal with or annex Ontario, but rather the vast, unpopulated western North American lands. The attacks made in 1812-1815 were designed to force Great Britain to negotiate fairly on grievances Madison listed in his speech to Congress. Of course, war hawks within Congress also saw it as an opportunity to remove British influence from North America once and for all.

Britain was prudent not to help the Confederacy. Even if the Confederacy eventually won, the Union would have taken it back in a separate war before the atomic age with superior manpower and industry, and the Union likely would have done it as an enemy of Britain and her allies during the world wars (meaning no loans/Lend Lease). It also probably would have guaranteed the loss of Canada if such a thing happened.

The Confederacy is no US in anything. Helping it just ensures the US be stuck in an irredentist streak...

You could also look at it like the USA screwed over Britain whenever it possibly could. The USA loves to do that, still today

If britain gave in the everything than all of Canada would have been conquered by the USA. Also rhe Caribbean and Central America would have been USA colonies much earlier than the early 20th century. This happened over a long period of time and the usa gradually grew more powerful than britain. The conflict also was around the borders of the usa not britain. It's not like britain gave in to usa demands around the borders of britain or India during pax Britannica period.

The reality is that Britain gave in only because it never made any sense to resist, you seem to underestimate the difficulty is waging war against a near pear power on the other side of the globe especially in those days. The only reason Britain ever put up even a token of resistance against America is because it was mathematically guaranteed to overtake their position on the world stage, being derived of the same culture and stock having access to the same technologies and institutional knowledge and near unchallenged command over 1-2 whole continents. More or less the only thing that could have definitively prevented such an outcome would have been the successful expulsion of the early Anglo settlers by the Indians. Frankly it's quite a scary thought for anyone of the time with any modest talent for foresight.

WW1 was the true death of it. Britain went from the worlds largest creditor to the worlds largest debtor keeping its allies in the black and a lot of that was with US money. Then after that and with a lot of economic growth in the 30s WW2 happened and basically broke the back of Europe as the leading continent and home of the world powers. We killed the continent for literally nothing

Question: what is in it for Germany or Russia to ally against the US? You have to explain to the folks in Berlin and St. Petersburg why should they care about opposing the rise of a country they have no geopolitical conflict with...

@@theotherohlourdespadua1131perhaps more importantly, why would Britain tie themselves to the continent in exchange for the goodwill of a land empire, whose support couldn’t be that important due to the Atlantic separating those European powers, already pinned down due to European squabbling?

Well yes, in the terms of the Cold War in general, the falklands war oversaw little change in Anglo-American relations. Additionally, the series largely cuts off at Suez, as it would have needlessly lengthened the video at little gain in terms of information in the history of American rise to the western global leader.

​@@thegoodwillseventyseventhis

With regards to the Falklands War/Conflict, the reality was, Argentina's military junta was Nationalist. This suited the USA previously, because the whole point of a US backed junta in Argentina, was to avoid having a _Communist_ one there instead. The USA just didn't expect Leopoldo Galtieri to actually go full R...tard and attack the British Falklands. This left the USA in a sort of awkward situation because, they had to maintain face to both the British and the Argentinians, and make no mistake, the USA was much closer to Britain than to Argentina, culturally and linguistically of course. Though the Argentines were technically, 'fellow Americans' (just, from South America), the historical ties with the British meant that the USA was obviously not going to get near being hostile to the UK in this situation. Compounding that fact, for Argentina, was that the UN near unilaterally voted against Argentina and condemned the attack as illegal. The UK was clever about it as well, because instead of having Britain's claim left to the fate of the indecisive and annoying UN and letting them (and Russia, especially) potentially veto British retaliation, Britain did not ask for it to be taken to the highest level and to be dealt with independently. Britain could avoid calling it a war and simply see it as restoring sovereign control, from the interlopers whom had illegally overthrown the local government in Port Stanley. The British would have some support from the USA (e.g. they sold Britain sidewinder missiles) All the same, the British would be the ones fighting the war/conflict. And they wouldn't need UN approval to do so. It was a domestic affair and it was handled as such. And the minor assistance the USA offered, was countered with US platitudes towards Argentina to try and keep them sweet. The USA had to smile on both sides of it's face at two different 'friends'. Ronald Reagan was far closer to Margaret Thatcher (to the point satirists and comedians called them lovers, on both sides of the pond) and the two were strong allies, but he was in a situation where he could neither just insult Argentina. He had to pretend as though the USA hadn't backed the junta there, but he could not condone what Galtieri had cynically just done. Invading the Falklands was reckless and stupid. A miscalculation, based upon having been slyly watching Britain decommissioning warships and weakening her overseas power projection capabilities. Argentina opportunistically thought that Britain was now too weak to stop them. They were mistaken, and that was the end of that.

I was referring to Britain's 1833 expulsion of the Argentine delegation in the context of Monroe's doctrine and the relations between the US and Britain. It's also important to consider Britain's involvement in the creation of Uruguay in the 1820s. The Rio de la Plata region was strategically important to Britain throughout most of the 19th century, a fact that is often overlooked in today's historical narratives @@thegoodwillseventyseven

​@ThePalaeontologist the British recieved far more than sidewinder missiles from the United States. When the first ships reached Ascension, they were literally running on empty. Because British fuel bladders were left in disrepair and empty, the US had to refuel the British task force. The US also offered to loan carriers to the UK, should they lose theirs. The US provided a soy satellite, stinger missiles, numerous stores of ammo, and even gave the SAS cold weather gear for their mission in Patagonia. Not to mention the US took over most of Britain's Nato duties in Europe in order to free up forces for the Falklands campaign.

idk i see his moves as a W by like 75% good

1:23:56

same