Except she won't be.

Yep. Indonesia could attack us I suppose but then all the varied foods we eat would be 'racist'.

Take everything for granted and then act shocked and in disbelief when things go pear shaped.

nah yeh, sorry i mean yeh nah

Janes French things have been pear shaped for over 100 years already. Why do you think Australia gets involved in wars developed by other countries fighting an enemy with no face and concepts that keep changing but always referred to as terror ? World bankers fuck everything up and they haven't finished yet.

Also to add, the the Japanese invaded Papua New Guinea but never captured it due to the Australian presence and support from the remainder of the British and American forces. Also your map spells one of our largest cities wrong, "Sidney" Is meant to be spelt "Sydney"

Thing is That. is that citizens do not pledge allegiance to the British. Actually, citizens don't pledge allegiance to anyone.

British troops in Papua New Guinea? Really ?

All members of the Australian Parliament are required to make, before taking their seat in Parliament, an oath or affirmation of allegiance before the Governor-General of Australia. The requirement to take the oath is set out in section 42 of the Australian Constitution[1] and the wording of the oath and affirmation are set out in a schedule to the constitution.[1] The oath is: I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God! The affirmation is: I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. Do your research mate.

That Ninja Guy Yeah ok. But by definition being a politician is un-Australian.

+Godfrey Poon Superdry, VB tastes like arse!

+Astto Yeah, but you gotta thin paint somehow.

Godfrey Poon my dog won't even drink that horse piss.

To understand the mind set of a bogan you have to down half a carton of VB. but luckily Oz is bogans are a minority.

Extra dry for me ;)

Australians out volunteer the uk every time.

Completely agreed.

I agree with you when it comes to the British, the Americans not so much though, I can't imagine Aussies were so culturally tied to the US that we fought in Vietnam or the gulf war as we were when we fought at Gallipoli. When it comes to being involved in the USAs forever wars that's purely a strategic decision. And rightly so, if we expect the yanks to come running to our defence against an invading force (let's face it, most likely china) we need to have paid our dues so to speak. If it ever came down to it we would be asking the yanks to sacrifice a lot more defending us then we've sacrificed fighting in their regional wars

@@pissiole5654 As a American, you can rest assured we are always happy to help you guys. You helped us through thick and thin and put up with our BS (which we are sorry for) T_T. We will gladly fight and die to protect you guy, till the very end.

@@thewingedhussar4188 haha thanks buddy. Lets hope it never comes to that! Basically the whole so called anglosphere, US, UK, NZ, Australia and Canada are always gonna have each others backs

Tom Whittle theres a fucking huge difference

Huge enough of a difference you might even fight a war over it

Yes of sorts and the Westminster statutes in 1931 and the Australia act of 1986 confirmed this.

Yep, Australia has never really been independent.

Interesting concept....but taking your point ( a good one) a step further; in a globalised economy almost nobody is independent except places like Bhutan. The US is not, despite being a super power. The bulk of their GDP is derived from outside their shores, so if they were to practice economic isolation fully, their current economy would collapse to about a 1740s level.

Mate, if you want anyone to read your comment, use paragraphs.

I just skipped the whole thing when i saw that long wall of text

Tacit Dionysus yep and whats your point its global politics not a school ground fight If better security, trade and way of life was presented we would take it imagine if US went nuts and bomb UK. Canada and UN have allowed who would you back the country thats been your greatest friend or the country thats a major powerhouse that wont effect your current standing

it's easier for a Spaniard to get into the UK than a "family" member. Caspian Report is spot on. Nations don't have permanent friends, only permanent interests. The UK saw the EU as fitting their interests more so took up taxing and restricting their "friends" accordingly

Tacit Dionysus I don't know what you're talking about. I firmly believe most Americans over the age of forty years old, know what a great contribution Australia made in World War 2. I also am positive that the vast majority of Americans see Australia as a close and reliable friend and Ally, and value that friendship very much.

Exactly, i see many of "Australians" probably first generation immigrants saying we aren't...

True I arrived in the 60's in my mid-teens. To break away from Britain? A solution to a nonexisting problem. In politics better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

John Addison Cull Ireland

John Addison Cull i agree this guy was stupid

as an australian i can tell u the there is a bitter resentment for the poms here i dont know what your on about

The reality is that the majority of Australians don't give a flying F#@k about the Queen these days.

@@SpoonDaddy2525 You missed the point. Regardless of what you think about the queen, the vast majority of Australians for the last two centuries most certainly did care about queen-and-country, and thought of Britain as their motherland.

Common wealth is dead, English is busy questioning the rights of the queen and some random Australian is busy pledging life to English queen, when the time is right your people won't mind to speaking Chinese I can almost certainly promise that.

@@nikhilprem7998 When the world does business it does so in English.. 5 eyes will crush China and Russia.

Very true. My maternal great-grandmother (born 1879 in the colony of New South Wales - i.e., pre-Federation) always referred to Britain as "home." Every year until her death in 1964, she tottered up the gangway to sail "home", staying with her sister and brother-in-law. To get a sense of the seamlessness in British-Australian identity during this period, my great-great uncle (by marriage) was an Australian-born barrister educated at Harrow and Cambridge who wrote books about Australian colonial history in his spare time. A personal friend of the Duke of York - later George VI - my great-great uncle played an important role in the formation of the Commonwealth of Nations (his papers are held at Cambridge University). Yet to the day he died, he remained passionately Australian. His papers include correspondence with Australian intellectuals (yeah nah yeah they exist) like Frederic Eggleston, Edmund Piesse and members of the "Round Table movement," who worked to promote Australian interests abroad, believing that this country's "time to shine" would be the 21st century. In the meantime, "Australia has a lot of growing up to do" (quoting my great-great uncle). He fervently believed this included ditching the White Australia Policy. Piesse in particular lobbied against it in the 1920s and 30s. I would encourage anyone interested in the history of Australian foreign and defence policy to read up on Piesse - the historian Neville Meaney has written extensively about him. But is that side of my family "British"? Their first ancestor arrived in Sydney in 1817 - a lieutenant in the 48th Regiment of Foot who served under Wellington in the Peninsular Wars. He never described himself as English or British. As far as he was concerned he was "Anglo-Irish", yet his family was descended from French Protestant refugees who fled to Ireland in the 17th century. It's all very mixed up - one great-great grandfather on the other side of the family fought in the US Civil War (Massachusetts Volunteers), but was from Nova Scotia (a "true Scot" quote) - he showed up Victoria in 1867. Another branch was in the British West Indies (Antigua) for 200 years before coming to Australia. They lost their British identity long before arriving in the 1840s. My father's family are from Alsace ... *SMH* So when people ask me about my ethnicity/family background, I say, "8th generation Australian mutt." I don't regard myself as "Anglo" because I am not. I am an Australian - my family has been here since 1817, both my grandfathers were ANZACs, over ten members of my family died fighting for this country in both world wars. I write "this country" because I know for a fact that each believed with all his heart that he was fighting for Australia - and his mates. Not the British Empire. Indeed both my grandfathers (1st AIF and 2nd AIF) returned from their respective wars with an implacable hatred of Britain. The "butchers bill" was too high, they lost brothers, they lost friends, they saw things no one should have to see. In the end it killed my maternal grandfather, who was a war crimes investigator in what was the Netherland East Indies (now Indonesia). He interrogated the perpetrators of the worst atrocities imaginable. His war didn't end until 1948, and after years of depression he checked himself out in the late 1960s. I can't relate to the idea of being an "Anglo" and deeply resent being described as such. As for war ... I cannot understand why, after the horrors of the 20th century, the human race still hasn't learned its fucking lesson.

@@verticalatmosphere8435 Thank You very much for your interesting family history & thoughts! It really sheds light on the topic!

I think what Caspian report is saying is if Britain set up Australia and then cut ties for whatever reason the British cultural legacy would have weakened a lot. But essentially I agree with your point.

The British being the global sea power and colonising Australia is directly correlated. You're looking at it in reverse. It's not that the alignment with the British happened because of their sea power, their sea power was the reason the UK was able to colonise Australia: literally half a world away. "So If Australia had been settled by an East Asian civilization do you think they would have aligned themselves with the British?" Almost certainly, via a secondary colonisation. As seen in the rest of South East Asia. And the proof of the reasoning is the immediate switch from the UK to the USA that happened after WWII. The alliance between Australia and the UK is now virtually defunct, whereas the alliance with the USA has directly led to Australian troops in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. All American wars. All committed to while citing the ANZUS treaty.

Tilter The alliances that the British Empire had with any other Southeast Asian country were nothing compared to her ties with Australia due to blood ties. Australian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan fight side by side with UK forces - definitely NOT a defunct relationship.

Town Curmudgeon "Australian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan fight side by side with UK forces" Only incidentally. If the UK didn't go to Afghanistan it wouldn't have impacted the Australian contribution whatsoever. Australia joined the War on Terror for the USA, not the UK. The blood ties were obviously a factor. Many of the Australians in 1914 were British. But there's hundred of examples of blood tied colonies casting off their motherland overnight. Including a dozen countries in South America alone. Australia encouraged national ties with the UK because of its one geopolitical imperative: Maintaining the sea lanes. "definitely NOT a defunct relationship." It is, as I clearly demonstrated. We haven't been involved in any of the British conflicts since WWII. Whereas we've been involved in a half dozen American ones that have little to do with us.

Tilter Australian and UK forces routinely perform training maneuvers and took action against piracy. UK is the second largest investor in Australia. Again, clearly NOT a defunct relationship.

Town Curmudgeon lol alright mate. If you think the military alliance with the UK stands comparable to that of the USA, you're veritably wrong. We have American bases in Australia for crying out loud.

I'm pleased i saw someone in the comments have this response as well. This whole video sort of gives the implication that, while Australia is very close to England, she doesn't, for lack of a better word, "want" to be. The whole "having to rely on British trade networks, having to fight for Britain for maritime security assurance" ect all just misses the mark. Australia was and still is extremely close to mother England. When the British marched off to war, Australian arms weren't twisted into war with a "fight for us or your economy will collapse" mindset. Australians rallied with fervour to fight for their queen and their mother nation.

Seems reasonable as a reaction to this misinformed CaspianReport. Australia is becoming politically diverse, culturally diverse, and in terms of wealth ... more split than ever. Don't discount the Australian Republican (anti-monarchy) movement, even our clown-PM Malcolm is a champion of it. Unlike his predecessor Tony ... the dude who gave the Queen's husband a Sir Phillip of Buckingham award. We are drifting away from Her Majesty and towards a token President (for International PR) and a business-as-usual Prime Minister to bugger up every decision and leave us cynical-as-usual.

Even if Australia became a republic it won't lose its alliance to the UK (likewise how the UK and America are still extremely close to one another (and have only become closer) security wise, geopolitically, politically, culturally etc). Australia and the UK are so connected, it's actually rather scary. Easily two of the most close nations to one another in the world (along with NZ to make the trio), yet they're on the complete opposite sides of the world (the literal opposite global position of the UK is New Zealand). The Anglosphere nations in general have become extremely connected over the past few decades and are so heavily intertwined security / intelligence / politically / investment wise etc that it will be extremely difficult to untangle them (I don't expect it to ever happen for example unless one of those nations is conquered by a hostile nation and a completely new government / ideological system is installed etc, i.e. a near 0% chance of happening).

You forget my friend that many of the first wave of Australians i.e. convicts and settlers were in fact Irish (rebels) and wanted nothing to do with the English and many fought England in an independence war/revolt in 1778 and lost and thats why they ended up/(were transported in chains) in Australia. Then again in Australia they rebelled against the English at Vinegar Hill. Many Irish where involved in the Eureka stockade rebellion pushing for rights and this led to voting rights in Australia for men and some Irish stock and decendents entered parliament.These "wild colonial boys" (e.g Ned Kelly) and decendents regarded themselves as Australian NOT English and many continued Irish etc. traditions.The English at first denied them religious freedom and the ability to speak their own language but the Irish still prevailed. The English viewed Australia as their dumping ground of unwanted persons including many "troublesome" Irish so they could take over more land in Ireland.The English then used the colony for their exports and made Austrlaia buy all English products and took our wool to be manufactured in their factories and then sold the products back to us.This blood ties business is rubbish. Many English emigrated to get away from England its harsh povery and unequal unfair class structure. The early governement administration and church of Australia was dominated predominantly by Anglicans and Englishmen (of not very good quality, with a few exceptions) As a colony we were forced to bend to Britains will and had to send troops to fight her wars in the Boer war in Africa and WW1 nothing to do with us. By contributing troops and as a colony we always thought england would protect us but this proved to be very wrong in WW2 when England demanded we send troops to fight in Egypt etc(andf what they did to our troops/citizens in Singapore was disgusting) and when they demanded more troops to defend the mother country one of the more sensible prime ministers said NO we need to defend ourselves against the Japanese. England not impressed and refused to help us defend our own country they ran away. The Americans finally saved us plus with our own efforts. The sooner we seperate from bootlicking the irrelevant sideshow of outdated English aristocrats who only ever want stuff from us and become a republic the better.They still treat us like second class citizens to Britian anyway and look down on us as inferior colonials.

We still have our british queen on our money!

+Jess Shanahan exactly. union jack is still on the flag. queen is still on the currency. queen can still sack the government, and has to approve every new law.

The British Empire died in 1997 when they were forced to give back Hong Kong to the Chinese.

+Jess Shanahan No, the video is correct. "Australia became an independent nation on 1 January 1901 when the British Parliament passed legislation allowing the six Australian colonies to govern in their own right as part of the Commonwealth of Australia." www.australia.gov.au/about-government/how-government-works/federation

+superkiwistar the queen is on all the currency and can do all those things because she's the Queen of Australia, nothing to do with the U.K. As a country they have no bearing on Aus.

+Mark Dev Australia became a self-governing nation in 1901. But most would consider independence to mean that another nation does not hold power over it. Considering that the Queen of England still has power over Australia, we're still not a truly independent country!

thx fam. we aint too different even after afew 100 years

the united states are not even majority british

Most of americans actually have german ancestors.

@@spqr1945 True, but we all speak and think in English, and we consider Aussies family. Canadians and the Brits, too. Well, the Brits stretch it sometimes, but so does family. I have a very German surname.

Ah like during the American Canadian wars?

+sophrapsune yes and not to mention the head of the Australian state is the queen of England, that she is the leader of Australia´s armed forces etc etc...

+Nathan Claypole True, but didn't affect American policy during their War of Independence. It is perhaps more accurate to say that there are genuine "soft" power bonds of history, identity, culture and affection at play: all of the soft considerations that bind a nation together also bind like nations in common cause. The principle weakness of this Caspian Report is that it denies the importance of those "soft" yet powerful effects.

+sophrapsune I believe that ALL former colonies have a "love/hate" relationship with their former colonizers. I have found this to be the case in many countries. Americans (especially on the east coast) have always been secret Anglophiles loving anything British (PBS, movie villains with British accents), just as in India, and formerly British Africa. In the French Caribbean and French West Africa you will find a love for all things French, even though they will boast of their break from France (full disclosure, I am Haitian-American). No need to even mention Latin America and Spain, no matter how much they might protest. So "cultural affinity" is a phenomenon that persists because it has (for good or bad) shaped the origins of the identity of a people.

+sophrapsune I also wondered about this assumption that national policy is automatically in the national interest - what about corruption and human factors?

you are talking about the peasants but the video is about geopolitics. If there's a conflict in the national interests, their media can easily make their people hate their former coloniser country. We will see more and more friendly news in Australian media to make their people ready to welcome the US interest in the next decade. The Britain is becoming something interesting for housewives and club boys of Australia these days.

The UK didn't fight in Vietnam. Australia did. As a result of its relationship with the United States

I believe Australia gained independence in affairs with the Australia Act of 1986 so that appeals could not go to the Privy Council in the UK

Because of ANZACs being used liked tissue paper at Gallipoli? Or something else?

It sold the idea to the general public easier yes, but there is never really a good and bad side in any conflict, just differing interests. When you act against your national interest then you can cry sentiment.

+Tafadzwa Shepherd Sorta... But I think it must play some role. He just kinda asserted that it didn't play a role, yet, if we use that viewpoint, we see it doesn't always have predictive power. Wouldn't australia have begun to distance it'self from britain post WW!, and begun to ally itself with Japan and the USA immediately. USing the argument from ideology, it whould explain this, as Australia's close ties to Britain are more than just a business arrangement, they continued to stick to it, even when the situation was less than Ideal.

+picsordidnthappen It was interesting that Australia was the first nation to open relations with communist China under Gough Whitlam, and China would continue to send representatives to his birthday every year to show their respect until Goughs death a couple of years ago. Prime minister Paul Keating said Australias future was in Asia, and the close relations he fostered with China underpinned Australias prosperity in subsequent decades. Conservative John Howard reoriented back to the USA, but mandarin speaking Kevin Rudd focused again on China (although he was occasionally rebuffed for involving himself in Chinese internal politics and also once for getting too friendly), though the conservatives have again realigned against the Chinese militarily by inviting the US to found a military base in Darwin.

***** So... like, you shouldn't just discount entire schools of international relations theory and history in explaining foreign policies of a country.

***** Sarcastic comment. I was actually complimenting your post because I think it was very cogent and made sense. I was pointing out how you *did not* do that. Unlike the maker of the video (though I'm not saying his analysis is wrong, I just think ideology plays some role in relations, it must).

Most of us don't give a shit about monarchy though. We're really biding our time to become a republic.

ADerpyReality most in England don't give a shit about the monarchy mate lol

You act as though the British colonisers who literally established this country were our oppressors and not our brothers.

Like it was a choice ? It's like saying I'm gonna choose who my mother is for my self!

Ah, yes, the Great Emu War. Where the hyper-intelligent crafty animals, the Emus, defeated a modern nation. The Emus proved Sun-Tzu's adage - never underestimate your enemy.

You're stopping at the first stage of analysis. You're saying there's an emotional link. The author of the video would agree with you. But he's continuing with: "Why is there an emotional link between the two countries?" There's a lot of countries that have had the queen as a monarch or figurehead. Many of them don't have any particular emotional investment. Why did the Australian government encourage the link between the UK and Australia? Cultural factors, sure. But also the major point: Collective security. At the time the UK had significant South East Asian holdings and a history of successful expeditionary wars. Australia couldn't guarantee its own security, but by maintaining a strong link with the UK we could. The proof of this was the immediate switch from national support of the UK pre-WWII to the USA post-WWII. Our cultural link the the UK ended and the link to the USA began. As did our military support. Australia didn't help in Northern Ireland or the Falklands. But Australia helped in Vietnam and Iraq. Australia is strategically promiscuous when it needs to be. It will follow the maritime power. Even the rise of China is being carefully watched by Australia who isn't burning any bridges. They're continuing to maintain a very friendly posture to China and also the USA.

nah im not saying its an emotional link at all.. Im saying its a colonial mind set that he doesn't quite understand...The nation didnt even exist until federation 1909 and then it only became a 'nation' of sorts after ww2. We never boomed like usa because there was nobody here until recently.

1901...

Caboose Mobeilel was told the same thing

Indonesia was the success story of the covert operations. The leftist Soekarno was replaced by the rightist but at least as corrupt Suharto. Before that, the Indonesian expansionist policies were addressed in Malaysia and its veterans paid a contribution to the involvement in Vietnam. The army accredited itself well and was mostly left alone by the NVA and the Vietcong. The South Vietnamese were the Achilles heel in that war. Once the politics had changed and the responsibilities had passed on South Vietnam was lost.

Caboose Mobeile

It's a multicultural state on the threshold of Asia. The British colonial past is fading.

Read your history books Lola

Good to see someone expressing some common sense.

Australia was aligned with UK and will join in on its wars(most of them actually, if not Australian contractors were there already). However we're not idiots so when we see that maybe UK isn't the best protector... We make a whole pile of stuff and trade with nearby countries and US.

I'm an Aussie too in the true sense of the word. This means being a larrikin and thumbing our noses at the wowsers.

My parents were Italian and they worked like dogs ...... my mum is 72 and still works 10 hours a day 6 days a week for the fun of it ........... but yes your right about the latest wave of immigrants

+Dru Taylor I think that it was more that he would have been trying to keep the video concise.

Right, but the information wasn't concise. Like, I said in the original comment, bar a couple of basic statistics and mentioning the fall of Singapore all that was really said was that the country used to rely on the UK and now relys on the US.

Yes agree, this clip is particularLu lack of substance compare to many other his work, a step back in terms of quality.

+Dru Taylor I agree, didn't even touch our relationship with China. Also could've talked about our role in the south pacific. The most interesting thing though is the fact we are between two worlds, East and West which is show in our trade partners, also could've mention the potenial of becoming a Euro-Asian country. This felt really... underwhelming.

Dru Taylor, glad you mentioned PNG and East Timor. And what about Antarctica! Australia owns more than 2/3 of Antarctica, right? Also, AUSTRALASIA as a region of Oceania with all islands in the Pacific Ocean together with PNG and New Zealand - with AU being a leader in sustainability and overlooking and managing many developmental projects in the region - can't be missed in any serious geopolitical talks. Australian National Curriculum has few cross-curriculum priorities - among *Asia and Australia's engagement with Asia* in middle and secondary school, and *Asian Literacy* in the lower school is one of them. No one mentioned ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). For Australia, WW1 was a sovereignty statement and proof of independence and autonomy which was demonstrated through the call of duty to fight a just war. For me, this vid is a good try only; great effort and, re-submit your work again; a general comment would be on more active and applied knowledge through suggestions and recommendations, call for future action based on known evidences, references and resources. According to Australian National marking and grading system: Subject: Humanities and Social Sciences Knowledge and understanding: Making a better world Year level: YR 9 Mark: 36% Grade: D (causing concern) Marking key criterions: A) Skills: Chronology terms and concepts, Historical questions and research, Analysis and use of sources, Perspectives and interpretations, Explanation and communication; B) Content and key concepts: evidence, continuity and change, cause and effect, perspectives, empathy, significance and contestability C) Strands: Knowledge and Understanding and Historical Skills are interrelated and should be demonstrated in an integrated way; and in ways that are appropriate to specific local contexts D) Key inquiry questions: through the use and interpretation of sources; the key inquiry questions at this year level are: What were the changing features of the movements of people in this period? How did new ideas and technological developments contribute to change? What was the origin, development, significance and long-term impact of -ism in this period? What was the significance of World War I? Cheers and G'day!

That would be awesome

That would be awesome

Hunter Sterling ok

+Bruno Franco Brazil Mindset: huehuehuehue

+Bruno Franco Brazil sucks

+rich763690 Your comment made my day : )

Donald Duck Trump!

Brainwashing children to gender roles and liberal ideas? Is it thought?!

THE HIGH GROUND

money

I don't think this was made for you

Man, Jared, the way you phrased your comment is a tad offensive to our bros on their continent. You make it sound as if it’s wholly a business transaction. Everything I’ve read (and the fact that the Aussies voted to remain in the Commonwealth) and learned in speaking with them (and yes, I understand what they are saying 80ish percent of the time) presents as more complex than a mere transaction. What I hear are “shared values,” loyalty to the UK for familial reasons (after all they understand each other’s accents), cultural history and loyalty. Sure the US Navy offered support during WWII. Because that’s what Allies DO. And through no fault of our own, we Americans happened to be in the ‘hood at that time. Would you have had us ignore Churchill and the Aussies? And BTW, we hopefully didn’t wear out our welcome. After much reflection we elected NOT to name it Roosevelt Continent and got the hell out of dodge (other than that set of eyes we left behind..in trade for the Australian eyes left in the USA). So c’mon. Give your Mates there a bit-hell a SMIDGE-of respect in their motivations. They are correct in pursuing what is right for their country. But what I see isn’t based solely on a mere transaction.

@@kathycaldwell7126 You say it like transaction is a bad thing. Transaction is pure, clear, unambiguous. Only people who deal with their hearts get heartbroken.

If this guy can't get Australia right, how is he going to do the Moors or Barbary pirates?

@@williambrooks2930 Fair enough . . . .

What does 'guns and germs' mean? You've used scare quotes to suggest the term means something other than what it appears. How about just writing what you mean so that it's clear to the reader!?

Micangetric Mah we are pretty much fully autonomous however.

no

+kalamaron i China ?

Australian Empire?

Japan

***** Well the problem is that even if China establishes control over the south China seas trade routes, they will be in no position to guarantee trade in the Atlantic, so Australia will never be able to rely purely on China.

+kalamaron i Nowadays, most of Australia's maritime trade goes to China, Japan, and South Korea. Meaning, China would only need a navy strong enough to dominate the region (not the globe or the Atlantic). If such a scenario would ever happen then Australia would switch alliances.

I'm with it

+alcanod if youre in london or in sydney you are in the same country

+Nicholas Butterfly yes you are take a look at your bills

+Jay Theyme so true. i was disappointed with the quality of this video. australia, canada, united kingdom, united states and new zealand are like family. it is the anglosphere. the maker of this video doesn't seem to understand this.

+superkiwistar Nor does he understand the qualities of the anglosphere that attracts fidelity to the people and the qualities in that sphere.

+Ben de Keijzer Sorry. The writer is not Ben de Keijzer. Don't know how that happened.

Yes he taught you a crock of sh.....

Still not a serious move to build a blue water navy; which would necessarily involve at least 1 aircraft carrier. I'm not complaining, more wondering what the reasoning is behind choosing not to do that.

+digitalbrentable Yh im wondering why aswell, as caspian says most of Australia's trade is now with china japan region so china only needs to dominate that region to cause Australia to switch alliances but then wouldn't it mean all Australia has to do was build a navy large enough to oppose chinese dominance in that region?

+superkiwistar Firstly im from the UK, secondly I don't think you understood what I said or what this video said. Try going over it again.

I'm a US Army vet, and have conducted training exercises with Aussie and NZ counterparts. I wouldn't worry too much about your military-Australians and NZ are a very well prepared fighting force. Maybe the most underrated military of 20th and 21st century

+digitalbrentable I don't mean any disrespect by this. An aircraft carrier acts within a carrier battle group. The costs associated with operating one means the USN are quite literally the only operators. France, India, Russia and China may run 'an' aircraft carrier, but to suggest these platforms would survive 'first day of war' against a peer is fantasy. They don't have the auxiliary platforms to protect 'her'. Australia will operate a limited blue water navy with the introduction of the Hobart Class, but in order to be effective it needs to be able to police Malacca - as it's done since the 1970's - the current Collins Class in their current config do the job well, if the next gen boats deliver as promised they may be somewhat of a game changer. Cheers. (And check out Vigilaire)

thing is national interest cannot be run by emotional factors. You have to understand it that way; although what you say is true for the people: cultural ties makes it easier to follow some diplomatic strategies.

+Adam Beswick The biggest concern for Australia is that the US, in pursuit of their own interests, neglects Canberra's needs. Thereby, the US unwillingly damages the interests of Australia (won't be the first time). For example, if the disputes in the South China Sea escalate and the US imposes a naval blockade on China (this is Washington's greatest card against Beijng). As China is the primary trading partner of Australia, such an American action would undermine the economy of Australia. Living standards would drop, etc. As for the naval spending. I will do another report on the geopolitics of Australia, in which I will explain how naval patrols are conducted and the threat of piracy or terrorists who would seek to exploit the Indonesian straits. Interesting stuff..

+CaspianReport On the short term, yes, Australia's standard of living will drop. But on the long term, it will increase; as the action would re-direct trade to other countries like India, Mexico, etc. In the long run, Australia will benefit of not funding it's own enemies and still have access to trade. A US blockade on China would represent an opportunity for other countries to fill the hole in trade and will stabilize the region in favor of Australia. Economic dependency on China is not a good thing for the long term.

+CaspianReport Remember that a cut in trade for China would lead to less spending in navy. And that means less naval spending for Australia = increase of standard of living, as it's economy adapts in diversifying trade from countries other than China.

+CaspianReport But great video btw. It's a really good basic 101 explanation for those who don't understand geopolitics. Unfortunately, most people and even most politicians today don't get it at all. And most people don't get that every country in the world benefits from an allegiance with the US, as the US has the greatest navy in the world and it's the only country that can geographically sustain such navy.

+CaspianReport Canada is also ramping up naval spending and building a new fleet. I suspect this is largely the threat from Russia in the Arctic as the polar ice cap retreats with global warming. Canada too fought in many of the British Empire's wars as a sort of Marshall strategy but with the direct hop across the Atlantic- trade and supplying raw resources would also have been a big factor in the British-Canadian relationships. And there's the USA, right next door.

Can't really lump America in with the rest of those countries, it's a melting pot of diverse ethnicities, not just Anglo-Saxon. Celts, Mexican, Africans, etc.

+Ajay Krishna Both have small populations (and Canada spends only 1% of its GDP on defense). Canada is almost like an island, as it borders only one (much more powerful) country.

You don't see Canada participating in American wars overseas in exchange for American naval protection because Canada doesn't need naval protection. Canada is not an island. It shares a land border with its largest trading partner, which just happens to be the world's largest economy, the US. Due to the land border, Canadian-American trade requires no naval protection. Canada is geographically bound with the US and that gives Canada security at no cost. Nevertheless, Canada is a dependency of the US. That means that it never dares do anything to upset the US.

+Libohove90 Canada does have to worry about Putin buzzing around the northeastern part of Canada. The USA really should demand that Canada meet its NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defense.

SilvanaDil​ Except that Russia borders Alaska, a US state. Thus, Canada has American protection even up there. Canada is a lucky country. It doesn't really have to do anything for its security. It's geographically bound with the US and therefore they share the same fate. I don't think the US is particularly interested in Canada increasing its military spending simply because the cost of defending Canada is very low. What the US would like to see is far-away allies beef up their military spending since the cost of US protection for them is much higher due to sheer distance.

+Libohove90 True, we do want all NATO members to meet their obligations. Alaska is the reason that I focused on northeastern Canada (as has Putin). We wouldn't mind Canada being a free rider so much if they would ease up on criticizing us.

+Isaac Schmitt Operation Barbarossa made sense from Nazi Germany's perspective. European leaders, dating back to the 18th century, had (correctly) predicted the long-term dominance of Russia in Europe. The German's didn't want to wait for the Soviet Union to get its act together and hit first.

+CaspianReport I need to split the vote here. Obviously trusting Stalin would not be pragmatic, but neither was releasing the pause button on WWI. Russia would need to be faced, and sooner than later would increase the odds of success - but simply re-opening the two front stalemate of the Great War was a terrible idea and seems to have been driven by a very small circle who had personal axes to grind.

Heather Spoonheim Right... I feel like you can make the geopolitical argument for almost everything, legitimately or not. It doesn't really explain why irrational stuff goes down when it does. I think you have to factor in ideology, short term circumstance, and the views of leaders.

From a strategic point of view, invading Russia seemed like a good idea based on the intelligence available to Hitler and his generals. However, intelligence services of Deutschland were subpar evidenced by their propensity to be completely ignorant of very important developments. Soon after the initial outrageously successful offensives (Stalin's biggest folly was ignoring his own intelligence which was sound and accurate even to the date of the commencement of Barbarossa), army group center was parked neatly right outside Moscow believing they would be home by Xmas. They were shocked when armies of veterans lead by extremely capable Zhukov appeared out thing air. Somehow, german strategists and intelligence officers simply did not account for this turn of events. And these troops were seasoned and confident having gained important experience in their recent and highly successful operation against the Japanese army in Manchuria which completely dissuaded the Japanese from considering any further proposals for eastward expansion. Germans either did not know of these armies existence or did not understand the effectiveness of Russian intelligence gathering expertise which allowed Zhukov to recommit all his forces to the european front having promptly discovered that the Japanese were decisively repositioning for war in the west. Hitler's generals greatly underestimated Russian logistical ability (ghost armies popping up where they thought there would be no more resistance, smashed armies' survivors somehow regrouping and recombining into new armies and divisions). They also underestimated the level of resistance and the willingness to fight against what seemed to be an invincible German war machine despite horrific loss of life and hardware that should have severely reduced USSR's ability to continue the fight according to the projections of war planners around the world. But most of all, Hitler and the rest of the Nazi high command had a huge blindspot when it came to Russian military engineering potential coupled with massive industry relocation to the Urals efforts. They suffered from an ideological bias that hindered objective efforts to know their enemy - something the soviets did due diligence on without fail. This myopic and misguided bias allowed Russians to enjoy benefits of the ability to surprise Germans with technology and weapons that were often unmatched and unaccounted for, sending German designers to the drawing boards and forcing consistently unexpected need for reevaluation of the strategic balance of power. A good example of technological surprise is the venerable T-34. As far as etalons of military design and engineering go, T-34 definitely fit the bill with an elegant balance of performance, robustness, producibility by often relatively unskilled workforce (a very important constraint at the time as many workers were women and children as men were needed at the front), and, very importantly, maintainability/servicability under actual war conditions that were present. The latter was often a severely neglected constraint in German engineering marvels, which resulted in many German tanks never even seeing action as they would break down on the way and often have to be abandoned before the specialized parts could be obtained to make them operational again. So, to sum up, invading German armies were delivered a series of surprises while completely failing to hide anything of importance from the soviet intelligence services. This forced them to react in effect taking away their initiative which is an extremely important dynamic to anyone desiring to win a war. In fact, had they done due diligence in the first place with anything close to meticulousness of approach and professionalism characteristic of most other facets of this otherwise ungodly effective fighting force, they would be making the decision on a closer approximation of reality than the quite incomplete and often misinformed model that they were ignorantly accepting to their ultimate and well-deserved peril.

I heard that Hitler basically demanded that operation barbarossa happen, which is why it did. When stupid things happen in history, it's because certain conditions are laid out to create a system in which logic is entirely ignored.

Australians don't drink fosters. its like telling a mexican to drink corona

so you say...

Kiwis are better in Rugby :))