Britain has always been, at its best, a diplomatic superpower more than a military one. While hard power plays a significant role, we need to reclaim the legacy of Palmerston and Pitt - flexibility, coalition building, forward thinking, and a maritime focused doctrine
Was the ending of the slave trade through military might - The West Africa Squadron - Shameful? Was forcing other European countries to sign up to end slavery shameful?
"Have almost always been" Mr Mouth and Trousers, I can't understand why you aren't reading the words in detail before imagining I am saying things I am not. I agree that the ending of slavery was good, and the use of coercive power in that case was extensive. It is one of the reasons I said "almost always been" rather than "always been"
My original comment, that Britain has "always, at its best, been a diplomatic superpower" may have been mildly overstated - it is also a short comment, not a long essay diving into the detail. If you want to see that, feel free to read my article about why the UK should have voted no in the UN proposition "The Atlantic Slave Trade Was The Worst Crime In History" rather than abstaining - as we did.
Alternatively, feel free to read my 9000 word essay on the history of English constitutionalism and institution building - which is explicit about the use of force being a staging platform for consensual diplomatic solution building from Alfred the Great to Elizabeth I.
I'm not a dove, but I think we a) severely over-estimate what we can achieve with hard power at present, b) severely under-estimate what we can achieve with soft power/diplomacy, c) have forgotten how to be a diplomatically flexible sovereign nation, and d) have forgotten how much of our past success came from diplomacy over force.
My comment above is a corrective, not a universalist statement. There are always exceptions, but our present course seems, to me, to be trying to follow a current which doesn't, and never did, flow as is imagined. Palmerston and Pitt both rebuilt this country in radical ways during conflict, they didn't do it exclusively through the force of arms. They did it through examining our situation plainly and flexibly, finding surprising allies, economical use of force, focusing on free(er) trade, and our long term interests over old ideas.
Of course, Pitt also sent Sir Arthur Wellesley to Portugal, and Nelson to Egypt (then Trafalgar). Palmerston also started the Opium wars... whether or not that was a long term strategic blunder or not remains to be seen, though certainly I think it was shameful!
Shame is not the enemy of a people, it is the engine of self reflection which drove us to end the slave trade in the first place. Pride without shame is a deep, deep sin.
Britain has always been, at its best, a diplomatic superpower more than a military one. While hard power plays a significant role, we need to reclaim the legacy of Palmerston and Pitt - flexibility, coalition building, forward thinking, and a maritime focused doctrine
“Always” ? I don’t think you mean that.
"At its best". The times when Britain has used hard power without diplomacy have almost always been disastrous, shameful, and severely damaging.
Was the ending of the slave trade through military might - The West Africa Squadron - Shameful? Was forcing other European countries to sign up to end slavery shameful?
No. You're wrong.
"Have almost always been" Mr Mouth and Trousers, I can't understand why you aren't reading the words in detail before imagining I am saying things I am not. I agree that the ending of slavery was good, and the use of coercive power in that case was extensive. It is one of the reasons I said "almost always been" rather than "always been"
My original comment, that Britain has "always, at its best, been a diplomatic superpower" may have been mildly overstated - it is also a short comment, not a long essay diving into the detail. If you want to see that, feel free to read my article about why the UK should have voted no in the UN proposition "The Atlantic Slave Trade Was The Worst Crime In History" rather than abstaining - as we did.
Alternatively, feel free to read my 9000 word essay on the history of English constitutionalism and institution building - which is explicit about the use of force being a staging platform for consensual diplomatic solution building from Alfred the Great to Elizabeth I.
I'm not a dove, but I think we a) severely over-estimate what we can achieve with hard power at present, b) severely under-estimate what we can achieve with soft power/diplomacy, c) have forgotten how to be a diplomatically flexible sovereign nation, and d) have forgotten how much of our past success came from diplomacy over force.
My comment above is a corrective, not a universalist statement. There are always exceptions, but our present course seems, to me, to be trying to follow a current which doesn't, and never did, flow as is imagined. Palmerston and Pitt both rebuilt this country in radical ways during conflict, they didn't do it exclusively through the force of arms. They did it through examining our situation plainly and flexibly, finding surprising allies, economical use of force, focusing on free(er) trade, and our long term interests over old ideas.
Of course, Pitt also sent Sir Arthur Wellesley to Portugal, and Nelson to Egypt (then Trafalgar). Palmerston also started the Opium wars... whether or not that was a long term strategic blunder or not remains to be seen, though certainly I think it was shameful!
Shame is not the enemy of a people, it is the engine of self reflection which drove us to end the slave trade in the first place. Pride without shame is a deep, deep sin.
I'll leave it there
So it’s nonsense, thanks for admitting it.
Troll, bot, illiterate, some combination? Something else I'm not considering?
Have a good day sir. I hope you got some pleasure from this interaction - I found it mildly frustrating and entirely unrewarding
Hell yes.