Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "The Infographics Show"
channel.
-
33
-
32
-
30
-
29
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
Global power is not just about hard power, it's about soft power too. For example, if you need to get China to do something, who is more likely to get them to do it?
The UK is a global power because it influences you when you do something together, it influences the EU (for now) when the EU decides on something and it influences a multitude of countries when it engages in talks with the G20 and such and because it generally has good relationships with countries that make those countries sympathetic to the UK's cause. The UK is a global power because its voice is heard everywhere and because it influences everyone in some way, and of course its vast number of alliances.
Ask yourself, if things ever escalate between the UK and US, who will be more likely to build a big alliance? The UK will almost certainly have the entire EU backing it (in or out doesn't even matter much), if China had to choose between the US and EU they'd more likely pick the EU at this point, if Russia had to choose they'd more likely side with Europe, if all of the African countries had to choose they'd more likely side with the one who gave them by far the most foreign aid (EU), etc. etc. etc.
And what countries could the US count on? South Korea and Japan? Even Canada is questionable at best
The ability to build a strong alliance through soft power beats hard power. In a US vs the world scenario your hard power is useless. Hell, in an EU + Russia scenario alone your hard power is already useless. Hard power is something that needs to be combined with soft power if you want to be a true global power.
Another example is Russia vs US. One on one you might say Russia's military is so powerful that they even have a chance against the US, but if you take soft power into account... the EU is highly likely to side with the US (at this point it's already RIP Russia), China is a lot more likely to side with the economies it's become dependent on than Russia, etc. etc. etc.
And what does Russia have? Belarus and maybe a few countries like Kazachstan?
Comparing power is not about hard power only. Hard power probably is even less important than the ability to draw countries to your side to form one big block of hard power. There is an official list of countries with the most soft power and countries like France and the UK are always on top. Why? They have a very strong diplomatic network and a lot of countries that would love to help them if they ever need to get something done. The US obviously also is strong on this list, but not above those two. Think of any possible country attacking the UK that is capable of surviving the following alliance of countries that is likely to side with the UK; there is none. It's always pretty much the world vs that one country
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
I'm not British, I'm Dutch. But it makes sense for me to mention soft power's importance because it's the EU's main focus. Anyway, soft power is hugely important and shouldn't be forgotten. Especially in everyday situations, soft power is a lot more useful. This is no longer a world of empires that use hard power to expand their influence, this is the world of using soft power to get others to do what you want them to and to get others to follow your agenda.
Let's look at the Iran deal, for example. Why is it that when talks came to a conclusion, the big news was announced in a joint press conference by the EU's foreign minister and Iran's foreign minister despite the US and other major powers being part of the talks? Why is it that this year, it was the EU's foreign minister and Iran's foreign minister that were nominated for a nobel prize for their role in the Iran deal and not anyone from the US? Because the EU shaped that deal. The EU got iran, Russia, China and the US to agree on that deal. The EU acted as a mediator between the world and Iran. Even the US was influenced into doing what the EU wanted them to do in that deal, even though Iran is just about their arch enemy. That is real power, not having a bunch of tanks that you can't realistically use against anything other than some 3rd world country.
Even Syria's soft power could counter America's attempts at regime change by bringing in Russia. America's hard power has been made useless by Syria's soft power. As soon as Russia was present in Syria, the US using hard power against Syria was already no option anymore.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+AC.507 N True. For like 80% of the war, the US was either not present or a minor contribution to the war effort in Europe. North Africa saw 36.000 dead British (not even Commonwealth, just UK), 16.000 dead French resistance and 2.700 dead Americans for example. Even a resistance force did more than the US professional army in North Africa, significantly more. In Italy, US forces made up a little more than one fourth of the total forces. British Commonwealth forces made up roughly three fourth, the Poles were there too as well as other Europeans. Poland alone was about half the size of the US presence, despite being just a resistance force at that point. The truth is that until D-day, America was one of the minor armies that supported the British Commonwealth, comparable to Poland.
After D-day, the Americans came in numbers and were part of the main force. They had roughly 3 million men all over Europe in april 1945, the British Commonwealth roughly 1.1 million in North-West Europe only. In Italy there were roughly 1.3 million men by then, of which the grand majority were British Commonwealth. So let's say about 3.4-3.5 million Americans overall and 2 million British overall. This includes Americans stationed in Britain btw (doing nothing), but excludes British military stationed in Britain (also doing nothing). So 3.4 million Americans stationed in Europe, fighting or not fighting. 2 million British Commonwealth fighting at the front. Not the huge difference people like to imply it was, even if we assume 100% of the stationed Americans actually fought (which they didn't). And if you count the French, which had 1 million men fighitng again in 1945... The British military alone did WAY more fighting in Europe than the US, let alone all European allies combined. The US, in turn, did more in the Pacific
3
-
3
-
3
-
+GamingLegendary Hurr durr, when America does something positive it's Americans and when it does something negative the European settlers did it. Part of the reason for the revolution was to expand westwards, which the British did not want to do.... Europeans never genocided native populations like the US did AFTER the revolution. Europeans set up trading stations and conquered part of the land and traded with native populations. Yes, with a lot of violence and cruelty, but no not with all out genocide. Later on, Europeans took control of full countries too and ruled over native populations, but again not with genocide. What America did was murder all of them and replace them as the main inhabitant of that land.
The ONLY European territory where settling could arguably be called genocidal is Canada, and generally people do NOT refer to what happened there as genocide. What the Canadians did was force native children into education so they would grow up as part of western civilisation. Some call this cultural genocide (they educated the children, but in doing so also caused their own culture to die out). This is the closest any European territory came to genocide. YOU wiped the native Americans out, not "European settlers". YOU wanted to expand westwards and even fought against your European leadership to be able to do so. Britain wanted to keep the coastal areas trade with inland natives, YOU wanted absolute destruction and full control.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2