Literatura académica sobre el tema "Military bases, american, great britain"
Crea una cita precisa en los estilos APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard y otros
Consulte las listas temáticas de artículos, libros, tesis, actas de conferencias y otras fuentes académicas sobre el tema "Military bases, american, great britain".
Junto a cada fuente en la lista de referencias hay un botón "Agregar a la bibliografía". Pulsa este botón, y generaremos automáticamente la referencia bibliográfica para la obra elegida en el estilo de cita que necesites: APA, MLA, Harvard, Vancouver, Chicago, etc.
También puede descargar el texto completo de la publicación académica en formato pdf y leer en línea su resumen siempre que esté disponible en los metadatos.
Artículos de revistas sobre el tema "Military bases, american, great britain"
1
Nikolina, Inna, Inna Mazur y Volodymyr Ocheretianyi. "Organizational and Legal Bases Military-Economic Cooperation of USSR, Britain and the United States at the Beginning of World War II". Scientific Papers of the Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynskyi State Pedagogical University. Series: History, n.º 40 (junio de 2022): 124–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.31652/2411-2143-2022-40-124-130.
Texto completoResumen
. The purpose of the article is an attempt to objectively cover the organizational and legal basis of military-economic cooperation between the Soviet Union and the United States and Great Britain at the beginning of World War II. Efforts have been made to prove that the Soviet Union was also interested in providing logistical assistance to prevent its defeat in the Soviet-Nazi war. The research methodology based on the principles of historicism, systematics, objectivity, generalization. Preference was given to such special historical methods as historical-systemic, problem-chronological, descriptive, comparative-historical. Scientific novelty of the research is that an attempt was made to comprehensively analyze historiographical narratives to develop organizational and legal foundations of military-economic cooperation of the Soviet Union with the United States and Britain at the beginning of World War II. Conclusions. At first, USA foreign policy doctrine was based on deterring Nazi Germany with British help, but after the Soviet-German conflict, the USA and Britain changed their views on the USSR and saw it as an element in the war that would help weaken and destroy the Nazis on the continent. The defeat on the Soviet front in the early stages of the war was another catalyst that forced the United States and Britain to change their position, while the Soviet state also began to form an external doctrine on other approaches to unite with the anti-Hitler coalition. As a result of the Soviet-British-American agreements, the first protocol was ratified during the Moscow Conference, which allowed the United States to extend the influence of the Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union in the future. However, the inflow of foreign "defense materials" was accompanied by many contradictions, especially in 1941-1943. The main one was the slow development of the Allies' supply process in the USSR, which at the time was a small part of Soviet needs. Towards the end of the war, the contribution of the lease to the total military potential of the USSR increased significantly
2
Spiridonova, Valeria I. "THE ORIGIN OF AN IMPERIAL CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE UNITED STATES". RUDN Journal of Political Science 21, n.º 2 (15 de diciembre de 2019): 268–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2019-21-2-268-281.
Texto completoResumen
The article examines the origins of Imperial discourse formation in American political culture and geopolitics. At the end of XX - beginning of XXI century it took disguised forms - “nonterritorial Empire”, “informal Empire”, “positive Empire”, “cultural hegemony”. The latency of the US Imperial consciousness is due to a number of reasons. First, the historical fact of the struggle for liberation from the colonial rule of Britain left a deep trace in the “political imaginary” of the American people and gave rise to the belief that the United States itself has never been, is not and cannot be an Empire. The second factor was the semantic evolution that occurred in the American interpretation of power. In fact, America has not passed the historical path that developed the idea of a “monopoly on legitimate violence” in Europe. The idea of “dispersal” of power has rooted in the public consciousness the priority of the power factor, coupled with the admissibility of the use of force at own discretion. Inside, both motives were regarded by the public consciousness as democratic. The third component of imperialism became a powerful Messianic argument, the belief in the special destiny of the American nation to create an ideal society This Faith brought with them in the “terra nullis” (on “no man's land”) immigrants of the New World. This thesis has become fundamental to the public opinion and to all the leaders of America. The justification of the concept of “soft power” and “cultural hegemony” did not detract from the importance of the “power factor”, which gave rise to new forms of imperialism - the deployment of military bases and economic dictatorship. The range of American domination is characterized by great flexibility - from mutually beneficial cooperation in Europe (“Empire by invitation”) to direct military intervention into the “rogue States”.
3
Ball, S. J. "Military nuclear relations between the United States and Great Britain under the terms of the McMahon Act, 1946–1958". Historical Journal 38, n.º 2 (junio de 1995): 439–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x0001949x.
Texto completoResumen
ABSTRACTThis article takes a fresh look at Anglo-American nuclear relations between 1946 and 1958. It concentrates on the relationship between the military establishments of the two countries in general and the ties between the United States air force and the Royal Air Force in particular. The article argues that an understanding of military relations is essential for an understanding of the high politics of the nuclear relationship. It is shown that senior officers in the armed services were the main ‘functional elite’ dealing with nuclear delivery systems and the planning for their use. Relations between these groups were personally and institutionally close and on the whole cordial. In Britain the link sustained optimism about the possibility of close nuclear co-operation in the 1940s and early 1950s and suppressed fears about the loss of nuclear independence in the late 1950s. In the United States it was recognized that military relations were an important channel through which to influence British nuclear policy. The article offers accounts, based on new archival research, of the nuclear aspect of the October 1947 Pentagon talks on the Middle East, Churchill's visit to the United States in January 1952 and the first Anglo-American joint nuclear targeting agreement – the Wilson/Alexander agreement of 12 March 1954. It reveals for the first time details of Plans E and X which equipped the RAF with American atomic and thermonuclear weapons between 1955 and 1958. The article concludes that the British nuclear force was becoming subordinated to the United States even before negotiations about Thor, Skybolt and Polaris missiles became central to the relationship.
4
Shacillo, Vyacheslav. "The First (1895) and the Second (1903) Venezuelan Crises: a Comparative Analysis of Geopolitical Consequences". ISTORIYA 12, n.º 12-1 (110) (2021): 0. http://dx.doi.org/10.18254/s207987840018150-4.
Texto completoResumen
The article presents a comparative analysis of the geopolitical consequences of two international crises in Latin America in the end of 19th — the beginning of the 20th century. The first Venezuelan crisis caused by a territorial dispute between Venezuela and the British Empire, worsened also relations between Washington and London. The government of the USA considered that the territorial claims of Great Britain to one of the Latin American countries threatened the vital interests of the United States and were in contradiction with the principles of the Monroe doctrine. Based on such considerations, the White House demanded the convening of an international tribunal to resolve this territorial dispute. The British government originally refused to accept the American proposal, and then, under the pressure of international circumstances, agreed to arbitration and actually recognized the Monroe doctrine. Afterwards, the process of rapprochement between the two countries began. During the Second Venezuelan crisis, caused by the financial demands of a number of European countries to the Venezuelan government, the main opponent of the United States was the German Empire, which also did not recognize the Monroe doctrine and tried to strengthen its financial and military positions in Latin America. The German-American confrontation in Venezuela seriously worsened relations between Washington and Berlin and led to a closer Anglo-American cooperation. Thus, both crises changed the geopolitical situation not only in Latin America, but also worldwide.
5
Goncharenko, A. V. y T. O. Safonova. "Great Britain and the tvolution of the colonial system (end 19th – beginning 20th centuries)". SUMY HISTORICAL AND ARCHIVAL JOURNAL, n.º 35 (2020): 60–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.21272/shaj.2020.i35.p.60.
Texto completoResumen
The article investigates the impact of Great Britain on the evolution of colonialism in the late ХІХ and early ХХ centuries. It is analyzed the sources and scientific literature on the policy of the United Kingdom in the colonial question in the late ХІХ – early ХХ century. The reasons, course and consequences of the intensification of British policy in the colonial problem are described. The process of formation and implementation of London’s initiatives in the colonial question during the period under study is studied. It is considered the position of Great Britain on the transformation of the colonial system in the late XIX – early XX centuries. The resettlement activity of the British and the peculiarities of their mentality, based on the idea of racial superiority and the new national messianism, led to the formation of developed resettlement colonies. The war for the independence of the North American colonies led to the formation of a new state on their territory, and the rest of the “white” colonies of Great Britain had at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries had to build a new policy of relations, taking into account the influence of the United States on them, and the general decline of economic and military-strategic influence of Britain in the world, and the militarization of other leading countries. As a result, a commonwealth is formed instead of an empire. With regard to other dependent territories, there is also a change in policy towards the liberalization of colonial rule and concessions to local elites. In the late ХІХ – early ХІХ centuries the newly industrialized powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) sought to seize the colonies to reaffirm their new status in the world, the great colonial powers of the past (Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands) sought to retain what remained to preserve their international prestige, and Russia sought to expand. The largest colonial empires, Great Britain and France, were interested in maintaining the status quo. In the colonial policy of the United Kingdom, it is possible to trace a certain line related to attempts to preserve the situation in their remote possessions and not to get involved in conflicts and costly measures where this can be avoided. In this sense, the British government showed some flexibility and foresight – the relative weakening of the military and economic power of the empire due to the emergence of new states, as well as the achievement of certain self-sufficiency, made it necessary to reconsider traditional foreign policy. Colonies are increasingly no longer seen as personal acquisitions of states, and policy toward these territories is increasingly seen as a common deal of the international community and even its moral duty. The key role here was to be played by Great Britain, which was one of the first to form the foundations of a “neocolonial” system that presupposes a solidarity policy of Western countries towards the rest of the world under the auspices of London. Colonial system in the late ХІХ – early ХІХ century underwent a major transformation, which was associated with a set of factors, the main of which were – the emergence of new industrial powers on the world stage, the internal evolution of the British Empire, changes in world trade, the emergence of new weapons, general growth of national and religious identity and related with this contradiction. The fact that the First World War did not solve many problems, such as Japanese expansionism or British marinism, and caused new ones, primarily such as the Bolshevik coup in Russia and the coming to power of the National Socialists in Germany, the implementation of the above trends stretched to later moments.
6
Ponypalyak, Oleksandr. "Cooperation of the OUN with the USA and Great Britain IN 1945–1955 (based on Soviet materials)". Ethnic History of European Nations, n.º 67 (2022): 92–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/2518-1270.2022.67.11.
Texto completoResumen
In this article, the author explores the issue of cooperation between the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Great Britain and the United States of America in the first postwar decade. The object of the author’s study is the Ukrainian liberation movement, the subject of study is the cooperation of Ukrainian nationalists with the special services of Western countries in the context of the confrontation with the Soviet Union in the early stages of the Cold War. The sources of the study are internal documents of the Soviet security services, reports, orders of the Ministry of State Security and the Committee of State Security of the USSR and protocols of interrogations of participants and leaders of the Ukrainian underground. In this context, the interrogation reports of V. Okhrymovych, the head of intelligence of the Ukrainian liberation movement abroad, who was trained in intelligence at the school of spies and in 1951 was landed in Soviet-controlled territory, were discovered and arrested by the KGB. The author analyzed the peculiarities of the geopolitical situation in Ukraine and the entire region of Central and Eastern Europe in the postwar period. Separately, the researcher studied the specifics and features of cooperation of Ukrainian nationalists with the intelligence agencies of the United States and Great Britain. The author analyzed the documents available in the archives of Ukraine for evidence of cooperation and coordination of efforts of the Ukrainian liberation movement abroad with representatives of special services of foreign states to gather intelligence in the USSR anti-Soviet sentiments, etc. The analysis of the facts in the documents showed the complexity of the situation of the Ukrainian liberation movement at the final stage of the armed struggle on the territory of Ukraine. In fact, Western special services were in dire need of intelligence from the Soviet Union, while centers of the Ukrainian movement abroad needed support in weapons, equipment, radio, new methods of sabotage and intelligence, and financial support. OUN members also had to study and learn about parachuting abroad, as illegal land routes were blocked by socialist countries. The transfer of Ukrainian underground was carried out illegally on American or British planes, from which landings were carried out over the territory of Ukraine together with walkie-talkies and equipment. The overthrown had to get in touch with the underground in Ukraine and renew the line of communication with the network of the Ukrainian liberation movement in the USSR. This article will be of interest to researchers of the history of Ukraine, the Soviet Union, the United States and the European continent of the ХХ century, specialists in military affairs, intelligence and the Ukrainian liberation movement, students and anyone persons interested in history.
7
Ivanov, Oleksandr y Danylo Matviienko. "PREREQUISITES AND REASONS FOR THE REMILITARIZATION OF GERMANY AND THE FORMATION OF THE BUNDESWER (1949–1957)". European Historical Studies, n.º 20 (2021): 72–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2021.20.5.
Texto completoResumen
Based on the analysis of published sources, and the research of German, Soviet and Russian historians, the reasons and preconditions that led to the remilitarization of West Germany are clarified. Moreover, the authors also aim to highlight the processes of preparation and political decision-making, as well as the role of historical figures who influenced the construction of the West German army and directly participated in this process. Where as this problem has not been the subject of special analysis in Ukrainian historiography yet, this to some extent determines the scientific novelty of this article. The authors pay special attention to the factors that influenced on the creation of the West German army, namely the internal political circumstances: the split of Germany and the need to build a new sovereign West German state, increasing military power in East Germany. External factors included the development of the Cold War in the world, one of the objects of which was post-war Germany, as well as the beginning of the Korean War, which caused a violation of the balance of military power in Europe. As a result of theresearch, the authors came to the conclusion that the decisive factor in the creation of the West German armed forces were international factors. This is confirmed by the fact that at international meetings of representatives of the United States, Great Britain and France, as well as during bilateral dialogues between the West German and American leadership, the issue of remilitarization of Germany was constantly in the spotlight. After all, without information of the US militar administration, which was then in Germany, it would be impossible to begin conceptual and legislative support for the construction of the army, conscription, development of strategic and tactical plans for its use.
8
Moskalenko, Olga A., Aleksandr A. Irkhin y Natalya E. Kabanova. "The Black Sea Region as a Conflict Space in the Discourse of Foreign Think Tanks of 2018–2021". REGIONOLOGY 30, n.º 2 (30 de junio de 2022): 258–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.119.030.202202.258-277.
Texto completoResumen
Introduction. The strengthening of Russia’s subjectivity in the Black Sea region makes it the center of the Western media and expert-analytical agenda. The authors of the study aim to define the mechanisms of metaphorical construction of the Black Sea region as a space of conflict in the discourse of the Western think tanks. Materials and Methods. The reports of the leading Western think tanks developing the region concept are used as research materials. The methodological basis of the study is a systematic approach that combines the methods of political linguistics and geopolitical analysis and synthesis. The authors use the methods of discourse analysis to interpret the materials of foreign think tanks devoted to the study of the region, and based on the definition of dominant metaphorical models in the discourse of the Black Sea region, consider possible scenarios for the leading actors in the region. Results. The narratives of the leading American, European and British think tanks are considered and the main metaphorical models characterizing the geopolitical processes in the region are highlighted. The American discourse is dominated by the sports metaphor and its subspecies associated with gambling: the region is perceived as a space of competition, but not war, as evidenced by the lack of military metaphor, which, however, appears in the narratives of the European experts. The Black Sea region is a platform, a springboard for the projection of Russian power in the Mediterranean, which is realized through metaphors with the component “aggressive”. For the British, the Black Sea region is metaphorized as a space of information warfare. Discussion and Conclusion. There are two main types of perception of the Black Sea region as a geopolitical unit by the Western think tanks: the American think tanks see it as a space of global competition of the great powers; the Great Britain has made the Black Sea region a platform for a return to the global arena of Global Britain by drawing on the rhetoric of universal values. The materials of the article and the methodology may be useful for information and analytical support of the foreign policy of the Western countries and for design of response from part of Russia under the condition of intensification of contest of the main Black Sea region actors
9
Hnydiuk, O. P. "ORGANIZATIONAL AND PEDAGOGICAL BASES OF PROFESSIONAL AND PHYSICAL TRAINING OF OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF GREAT BRITAIN". Scientific Herald of Sivershchyna. Series: Education. Social and Behavioural Sciences 2022, n.º 1 (22 de junio de 2022): 69–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.32755/sjeducation.2022.01.069.
Texto completoResumen
Given the transformation of Ukraine’s military education system, the experience of professional and physical training of officer personnel at military educational institutions in Great Britain is of particular interest. The aim of this article is to summarize the organizational and pedagogical foundations of the professional and physical training of British Armed Forces officers. The British Armed Forces are one of the largest armed forces in Europe; they are fully professional and voluntary. Although Britain’s national security concept includes an emphasis on countering the new threats of the information age, physical training of officers in military education institutions is a priority. It has been established that the United Kingdom has accumulated innovative experience that can be used to develop a system of continuous physical training of border guard officers. In particular, physical training of officers in British military education institutions remains a priority. Physical training programs for officers of the British Armed Forces include general gymnastics, athletics, swimming, soccer, boxing, and judo. In addition, in ground units designed for direct participation in combat operations, physical training programs are supplemented by overcoming obstacles and learning hand-to-hand combat techniques. A compulsory element is the so-called adventure course, covering a set of techniques and actions for moving on difficult terrain, overcoming natural and artificial obstacles in the conditions of tactical tasks. Physical training of future police officers in training centers is practice-oriented. This is a short and medium-distance running, the ability to use special techniques when detaining suspicious persons, etc. Key words: physical training system, officers, military schools and colleges, military education, British Armed Forces, sports.
10
Lutsenko, Nazarii. "United States – United Kingdom military cooperation under Donald Trump’s administration (2017 – 2021)". American History & Politics: Scientific edition, n.º 12 (2021): 43–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2021.12.4.
Texto completoResumen
This article refers to military cooperation between the United States and Great Britain. Their relationship constitutes an important component of the system of the international relations. Both countries have nuclear weapons and the latest military technology. Both states are sending troops to resolve military conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. The United States and the United Kingdom provide a significant support to Ukraine in its confrontation with the Russian Federation. Methodology. The research is based on chronological, historical-political and comparative methods. The purpose of the article is to study the changes and the development of the US-British bilateral relations in the context of military cooperation. Looking at the results of this study, the US-British military relations under the Donald Trump administration have not changed. The article illustrates that the United States and the United Kingdom are the main partners in the production of weapons and equipment, strategic planning of operations. British ships in the Asian-Pacific and Middle East plying with the US Navy, repeatedly conducted joint exercises. These are the only countries that conduct the bilateral military exercises almost every year. Under the premiership of Theresa May and Boris Johnson, the United Kingdom pursued a foreign policy strategy which is called Global Britain. The main goal is to make the country more powerful in the international arena. At the same time Donald Trump`s main strategy was to «Made America great again». So, sometimes there were some political discussions among political leaders how to react and to solve the problems in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. However, this did not affect the proximity of the military partnership. Both countries work closely together in the military force and in intelligence.
Tesis sobre el tema "Military bases, american, great britain"
1
Duke, Simon. "United States defence bases in the United Kingdom". Thesis, University of Oxford, 1985. http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:5f7987f7-8286-48b0-9595-d60413ef6fc6.
Texto completoResumen
The main concerns of the study, covering the years 1945-84, are arrangements that have been made for the use of military bases in the United Kingdom by United States forces. The subject is examined within a chronological framework. The development of the United States military presence is traced, from the earliest Joint Chiefs of Staff plans in 1945 and the Spaatz- Tedder agreement in 1946, which gave the United States permission to deploy certain forces in the United Kingdom in time of emergency. The 1948 Berlin Crisis led to the arrival of bombers in East Anglia which was the first major post-war deployment of United States forces to Britain. It was stated that it would be for a period of temporary duty. In fact the bases have remained from that day to this, though their number and types have varied over time. The Korean War proved to be the next major turning point. It increased demands upon the Attlee government for an agreement defining the conditions of use of United States bases in the United Kingdom. The subsequent Truman- Attlee, and later Truman-Churchill, meetings resulted in the key phrase: the use of bases would be 'a matter for joint decision ... in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time.' Different interpretations have been placed on these words at different times. The years 1950-57 saw a consolidation of the United States military presence, with Britain's importance as an intelligence base also growing. The dawning of the missile age symbolised by the first Soviet earth satellite in 1957, the agreement in the same year to deploy Thor missiles, and the deployment of Polaris to Holy Loch in 1960, raised questions regarding the adequacy of the earlier agreements on the conditions of use. This factor, alongside the development of a distinct European identity of which Britain has become a part, has led to a questioning of American hegemony within NATO. The arrival of cruise missiles in 1983 gave added urgency to the debate. Whilst it may be generally recognized that the bases make a substantial contribution to the United Kingdom's defences, the need for clarification of the uses to which the bases can be put by United States forces remains.
2
Kane, Joshua. "Infrastructure of aggression : military expenditure during the British industrial and the American informational mode of development shifts /". Thesis, Connect to this title online; UW restricted, 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/1773/8875.
Texto completo
3
Thornhill, Paula Georgia. "Catalyst for coalition : the Anglo-American supply relationship, 1939-1941". Thesis, University of Oxford, 1991. http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e66ee069-43c1-423b-8d54-d883c8ff4040.
Texto completoResumen
This thesis explores the Anglo-American supply relationship, 1939-1941, and the ability of these two nations to wage a coalition war immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Organisationally, the first chapters of the thesis look at the impact of the Great War and the interwar period on this relationship. The remaining chapters are devoted to the evolution of the supply relationship between September 1939 and December 1941. The evidence found in British and American archives indicates that early supply discussions, conducted under the supervision of Arthur Purvis and Henry Morgenthau, established a common ground for Anglo-American co-operation during the early days of the Second World War. The fall of France prompted the British Government to seek much closer ties with the United States. However, in mid-1940 many senior US officials insisted that America should concentrate on its own defence against the Nazi threat because of the likelihood of Britain's defeat. By the end of 1940, the American defence planners were more confident of Britain's ability to survive, and therefore they were willing to consider the creation of Anglo-American defence plans. At the same time President Roosevelt requested Congressional approval for the Lend-Lease Act, to ensure the British Government could still acquire US war supplies even if it lacked the dollars to pay for them. Because of the inability of US industry to produce adequate war materiel for the British effort and American rearmament, representatives from the two countries were forced to work closely together to determine production and allocation priorities. Moreover, since these decisions influenced the fighting capability of British and American forces, war planners rather than civilians officials began to make these supply decisions. Subsequently, British and American officials determined that their efforts should be based on a joint strategy. Ultimately this realisation inspired the creation of the Victory Programme, which effectively acknowledged that supply needs, strategic considerations, and an overall commitment to defeat Germany and its allies were indistinguishable. Thus the supply relationship, 1939-1941, provided the foundation for the Anglo-American wartime coalition against Hitler.
4
von, Bargen Max Anders. "A Misunderstood Partnership: British and American Grand Strategy and the “Special Relationship” as a Military Alliance, 1981-1991". The Ohio State University, 2020. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu158766455515096.
Texto completo
5
Berger, Michael Andrew. "How resisting democracies can defeat substate terrorism : formulating a theoretical framework for strategic coercion against nationalistic substate terrorist organizations". Thesis, St Andrews, 2010. http://hdl.handle.net/10023/889.
Texto completo
6
Souiedan, Racan. ""The Duties of neutrality": the impact of the American Civil War on British Columbia and Vancouver Island, 1861-1865". Thesis, 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/1828/4232.
Texto completoResumen
The American Civil War resulted in lasting consequences for the British Empire’s remote Pacific colonies of British Columbia and Vancouver Island. Britons in the colonies mobilized to address the issue of defending against a potential American attack. Despite concerns surrounding the possibility of an American invasion, the conflict increased solidarity towards the United States, as public opinion in British Columbia and Vancouver Island became more pro-Union through the course of the American Civil War, with local residents regularly celebrating holidays like the Fourth of July. Local newspapers welcomed efforts by the American government to finally abolish slave labour, yet Victoria’s African American community continued to face racial discrimination, which was often blamed on resident Southerners. The conflict ultimately helped in improving public perceptions of the United States, but not without raising significant fears of American military might on the continent.Graduate
Libros sobre el tema "Military bases, american, great britain"
1
United States and Britain in Diego Garcia: Military presence, rendition, and global climate change. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2009.
Buscar texto completo
2
Vine, David. Island of shame: The secret history of the U.S. military base on Diego Garcia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Buscar texto completo
3
Peers, Anthony. Defending our heritage: Historic military buildings on the defence estate. (London): Ministry of Defence, 1994.
Buscar texto completo
4
Robert, Jackson. United States Air Force in Britain: Its aircraft, bases and strategy since 1948. Shrewsbury: Airlife, 2000.
Buscar texto completo
6
Outpost of empire: The Royal Marines and the joint occupation of San Juan Island. Seattle: Northwest Interpretive Association, 2004.
Buscar texto completo
7
Surveillance, secrecy and sovereignty: How a peace campaign challenged the activities of a US base in Britain. United Kingdom]: Burley Publications, 2014.
Buscar texto completo
8
G, Chandler David y Army Records Society (Great Britain), eds. Military miscellany II: Manuscripts from Marlborough's wars, the American War of Independence and the Boer War. Stroud: Sutton PublishingSociety, 2005.
Buscar texto completo
9
Michael, Simpson. Anglo-American naval relations, 1919-1939. Burlington, VT: Ashgate for the Navy Records Society, 2010.
Buscar texto completo
10
British soldiers, American war: Voices of the American Revolution. Yardley, PA: Westholme, 2012.
Buscar texto completoCapítulos de libros sobre el tema "Military bases, american, great britain"
1
James, Simon. "Project Context Rediscovery and Exploration". En The Roman Military Base at Dura-Europos, Syria. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198743569.003.0015.
Texto completoResumen
The ruined city known locally as Salhiyeh was virtually unknown to western scholarship until the twentieth century (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 386–95; Kaizer 2017, 64), but its ancient identity remained unknown until the aftermath of the World War I when collapse of the Ottoman empire saw Britain and France divide up much of the Middle East between them (Velud 1988; Barr 2011). As we saw, during operations against Arabs resisting the new western occupation, British-commanded Indian troops bivouacking at the site dug defensive positions and accidentally revealed wall paintings. These were seen and published by visiting American archaeologist James Henry Breasted (Breasted 1922; 1924), who first identified the ruins as those of the historically attested but unlocated ‘Dura . . . called Europos by the Greeks’ (Isidore of Charax, Parthian Stations, 1). The site thereafter fell inside the newly imposed borders of French-controlled Syria (Velud 1988). More substantial excavations were conducted and published with exemplary speed by Franz Cumont in 1922–3 (Cumont 1926), paving the way for the great Yale University/French Academy expedition overseen by Mikhail Rostovtzeff. This ran over ten seasons: (Dates from the Preliminary Reports, and Hopkins 1979, xxii–xxiv, except ninth and tenth seasons from information in Yale archives provided by Megan Doyon and Richard A. Grossmann.) With a Roman military presence attested from the outset, further traces were encountered throughout the city’s exploration, with the heart of the military base area being identified and excavated in the fifth season, and the great ‘Palace of the dux ripae’ in the ninth. While masterminded by Rostovtzeff, and more nominally Cumont, these giants actually only briefly visited the excavations on a couple of occasions. The dig was conducted under a series of field directors: Maurice Pillet, Clark Hopkins, and finally Frank Brown. These led a small team of American and European architects, artists, and archaeologists, mostly male (although women occupied prominent places on the team, including Yale graduate student Margaret Crosby and most notably Hopkins’s wife Susan); they were mostly young and inexperienced (including Hopkins and Brown).
2
Adams, Catherine. "The Withdrawal Agreement, Protocol Relating to the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus". En The UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement, 487–508. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192894601.003.0009.
Texto completoResumen
This chapter studies the Protocol relating to the United Kingdom Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) in the island of Cyprus. The two Base Areas (Akrotiri and Dhekelia) include both UK military bases and civilian areas. Protocol 3, which applied limited areas of EU law to the SBAs when Cyprus became a member state, was necessary to allow the continuation of the special arrangements for the SBAs under the Treaty of Establishment, which was concluded between the UK, Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus at the time Cyprus became an independent state. The Protocol to the Withdrawal Agreement provides for the continuation of those arrangements notwithstanding the UK’s exit from the EU. In general terms, the Protocol maintains the status quo by providing for the application of certain areas of Union law in the SBAs, and its enforcement through Union institutions and bodies, while protecting the rights of the UK under the Treaty of Establishment, in particular in relation to its military bases.
3
Lanoszka, Alexander. "Nuclear Proliferation and Other American Alliances". En Atomic Assurance, 132–48. Cornell University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501729188.003.0007.
Texto completoResumen
To anticipate the critique that West Germany, Japan, and South Korea are somehow unrepresentative cases of nuclear proliferation, this chapter expands the analysis by looking at the cases of Great Britain, France, Norway, Australia, and Taiwan. It shows how the United States was able to use economic levers to subordinate partially Great Britain’s nuclear deterrent but not France’s. It also illustrates how threat perceptions made Norway accept in-theater conventional military deployments from the United States in the 1980s. It highlights the absence of coercion in explaining Australia’s decision to cease its pursuit of the nuclear option as well as the difficulties experienced by the United States in applying coercion against a security and economic dependent state like Taiwan.
4
Schmidt, Sebastian. "Colonial Collisions, 1938–1941". En Armed Guests, 84–105. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190097752.003.0004.
Texto completoResumen
This chapter begins the exploration of the origins of contemporary basing practices with a close look at the 1941 Leased Bases Agreement between the United States and Britain and the developments from which it emerged. Concerned only with colonial territory, the agreement can now be seen, in hindsight, as a stepping stone to contemporary practices. The focus is on how policymakers wrestled with the issue of territorial sovereignty in the context of a rapidly evolving and deteriorating security situation immediately prior to the outbreak of the Second World War. Negotiators on both sides worked within the traditional understandings of the relationship between military presence and territorial authority, which made it extremely difficult to come to terms with a foreign military presence. American policymakers expected to retain broad authority in the territories hosting US bases—authority that had significant continuities with colonial governance—while British policymakers feared the loss of British sovereignty.
5
"June 1917". En John J. Pershing and the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I, 1917-1919, editado por John T. Greenwood, 169–244. University Press of Kentucky, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.5810/kentucky/9780813181332.003.0003.
Texto completoResumen
This chapter includes Pershing’s June 1917 correspondence after arriving in Great Britain and establishing the American Expeditionary Force’s Headquarters in Paris. The correspondence describes meetings with British and French officials and his recommendations regarding America’s control of military operations in France. Letters discuss the urgent need to train American soldiers in French camps and establishing protocols for waging gas warfare on the western front. The chapter includes extensive supplementary information to provide the reader with background information pertinent to Pershing’s letters.
6
Fry, Joseph A. "Victory and the Death of the Partnership, 1863–1865". En Lincoln, Seward, and US Foreign Relations in the Civil War Era, 114–53. University Press of Kentucky, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.5810/kentucky/9780813177120.003.0005.
Texto completoResumen
This chapter examines US foreign policy challenges over the final two years of the war. Those challenges included the repercussions arising from US efforts to restrict neutral trade with the South, Confederate shipbuilding efforts in Great Britain and France, Confederate attempts to provoke an Anglo-American crisis by attacking the United States from Canada, and Napoleon III’s military and political intervention in Mexico and attempt to install a European monarch in the Western Hemisphere. By continuing their policy of belligerent warnings and timely conciliation, Lincoln and Seward successfully resolved all of these issues. Finally, this chapter includes coverage of the military and imperial dimensions of Lincoln’s policies toward Native Americans.
7
Calvo-Gonzalez, Oscar. "A Critical Juncture". En Unexpected Prosperity, 46–67. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198853978.003.0003.
Texto completoResumen
This chapter zeroes in on a series of events that helped Spain achieve a much higher degree of political stability than in previous decades. Having sided with the Axis, the end of World War II posed great danger to the regime of Spain’s dictator, General Franco. Yet as the Cold War intensified, the geostrategic value of Spain increased, helping shift American foreign policy interests. After the Korean War broke out, the US sought and achieved agreements with Spain to set up a series of military bases in its territory. The agreements helped solidify the Franco regime in power. The chapter shows how the achievement of political stability in Spain was unlikely, fast, and externally facilitated. Crucially, it also led to a significant increase in economic confidence among the business community in the country.
8
Ngoei, Wen-Qing. "The Best Hope". En Arc of Containment, 114–48. Cornell University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501716409.003.0005.
Texto completoResumen
This chapter examines how the creation of Malaysia in 1963—the merger of Malaya, Singapore and Britain’s Borneo territories—completed a geostrategic arc of anticommunist states in Southeast Asia, undermined Sukarno’s left-leaning regime in Indonesia, and provided a powerful fillip to U.S. Cold War aims. As Singapore prepared to enter the Malaysian federation, its anticommunist leader, Lee Kuan Yew, incarcerated his main left-wing rivals with repressive policies inherited from British colonial rule. This move ensured Britain’s military bases in Singapore would continue to serve Anglo-American interests. In addition, Britain and Malaysia launched effective diplomatic offensives against Sukarno during the Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation (Konfrontasi) of the early 1960s, destabilizing the Sukarno regime and paving the way for his ouster and Indonesia’s subsequent alignment America against China and the USSR.
9
Sarson, Steven y Jack P. Greene. "A Plan of Association, on Constitutional Principles, for the Parishes, Tithings, Hundreds, and Counties of Great Britain; By Which the Outrages of Mobs, and the Necessity of a Military Government Will be Prevented, and the English Constitution in a Great Measure Restored. In Three Letters to a Member of Parliament." En The American Colonies and the British Empire, 1607–1783, 117–37. Routledge, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003074168-15.
Texto completo
10
Schmitz, David F. "The Fulcrum of Roosevelt’s Foreign Policy". En The Sailor, 95–113. University Press of Kentucky, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.5810/kentucky/9780813180441.003.0005.
Texto completoResumen
From June 1940 to March 1941, President Roosevelt put into place his war cabinet, obtained direct aid to Great Britain, and imposed a partial embargo on Japan. In the wake of the fall of France in June 1940, FDR expanded American military production and prepared for war. December and January 1941 were the fulcrum of Roosevelt’s foreign policy as he called for lend-lease aid for those fighting Germany, announced that the United States would be the “arsenal of democracy,” and set out the ideological justifications for war in defense of the four freedoms: freedom from want and fear, freedom of belief and speech. The passage of the lend-lease bill in March 1941 marked the final triumph of internationalism over neutrality.