Happy "We Beat British Butt" Day!

[bolo]

I still hold the Allied soldiers who gave their live to chase the Nazis away in very high regard. That's why some of us still celebrate the 4th over here. Not for the various UK/US administrations but for those brave men who did what had to be done.

So there.

[Cogidubnus]

And yes I know it wasn't formally called Marshall Aid until 1947, and yes I'm aware of the huge contribution in 1948/49, but the fact remains that in the winters of 1945 and 1946 Britons starved whilst former enemies were being helped to recover

All the best

Dave

[bolo]

And yes I know it wasn't formally called Marshall Aid until 1947, and yes I'm aware of the huge contribution in 1948/49, but the fact remains that in the winters of 1945 and 1946 Britons starved whilst former enemies were being helped to recover

All the best

Dave

...to recover to a sate still sub-standard to what UK people had to go through.

Germany was considered an important barricade against the red Eastern Block that was about to form so they changed from "every German is your enemy" to a more pragmatic approach.

Thank god this era is over now.

[Cogidubnus]

I still hold the Allied soldiers who gave their live to chase the Nazis away in very high regard. That's why some of us still celebrate the 4th over here. Not for the various UK/US administrations but for those brave men who did what had to be done.

So there.

Good for you Boris!

I hope you don't take any of my comments as anti-German...those days are long gone mate!

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

...to recover to a sate still sub-standard to what UK people had to go through.

Germany was considered an important barricade against the red Eastern Block that was about to form so they changed from "every German is your enemy" to a more pragmatic approach.

Thank god this era is over now.

Absolutely Boris, I acknowledge that!

Dave

[bolo]

Good for you Boris!

I hope you don't take any of my comments as anti-German...those days are long gone mate!

All the best

Dave

Not at all, Dave, not at all!

I'm always ready to discuss these things.

[RivkahChaya]

Salk vaccine
Microchip (yes, I know the Germans invented the integrated circuit, but I'm talking about current technology)
Space travel
Assembly line production

There're actually a lot of thing the prototype of which was invented somewhere else, but a practical version was developed in the US, like myoelectric prostheses, and a lot of drugs. You guys had a big "Oops" over there with thalidomide. A couple of years ago, some US doctors figured out it was useful in cancer and AIDS treatment.

A lot of that has to do with the US being so big and rich. If you throw darts at a world map, the chances are good that first of all, you'll hit some place that's part of the US or its territories, and second, not impoverished.

[sdreid]

We also invented nuclear annihilation

We also claim to have invented hair-in-a-can although I think that's one we actually back-engineered from Roswell.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So now let's talk about Marshall Aid...In the winter of 1945 hundreds of thousands of Britsh citizens literally died because it was a really bad winter and there was no food. The UK had been denied aid...so tell me please Mac why the US flew food into Germany, Italy, France and damned nearly everywhere else and left their allies to die?

Hello Dave,

The point is that the Americans didn't 'leave Englishmen to die'.

We willingly declared war on Germany. We didn't have to. It was our decision and so why should another country have to come along and sweep up behind us? British policy towards Europe had always been one of keeping away from continental wars, mainly because there was nothing for us in continental Europe. We only ever got involved when our trade routes were threatened.

At the turn of the 20th century the Germans were extremely paranoid that England was deliberately preventing Germany from building up a head of steam in terms of colonial possessions and continental European allies. Which, of course, was well grounded paranoia because British policy towards continental Europe was one of maintaining a balance of power to enable us to take from here to the end of the earth.

We didn't have to get involved in WW1 or WW2. It was a calculated risk. If it was known that WW1 was to be a protracted war then England would not have got involved. It was felt here that the Germans would beat the Russians easily and then turn to beat the French with a bit more difficulty and that would have meant a dominant continental power.

Parts of France and Germany were in ruins after WW2, and perhaps the US thought there was very little chance of England turning to Communism, unlike say Germany and France who had a history of extreme politics and revolution.

Ultimately, we paid a high price in WW1. Not just in terms of men killed and disabled, but in terms of our financial standing in the world. One major factor in our involvement was 'honour'. The British government didn't care about Belguim but did believe that Britian's ability to build pacts and alliances would be damaged in the event we did not honour our agreements. So, if you're going to go to war for such reasons then you've only yourself to blame when it doesn't work out as planned.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You mean when we come in and clean up the messes our European neighbors make? It's okay, you don't need to say thank you, we're glad to help when our neighbors start global conflicts they can't win.

Have you guys ever had a war in the last 200 years you've been able to win? Oh wait there was that whole little thing with Argentina a couple decades ago. Good job boys, good job. Them argentines is uppity.

We won the most important war going - the war of ideas.

At no point did Britain have a large standing army.

Unlike our continental neighbours, we did not have conscription and an army of say two million men.

That's not to say that we preferred to do everything voluntarily because it's not that long ago the Navy didn't bother recruiting people. They kidnapped them from the streets. By the time the victims of this policy had woken up they were on a ship with only water for company, and the only words they needed to know was: "right, you're in the Navy now". And, that was that.

But, Britain's small professional army of 100,000 soldiers was the best in the world at the start of WW1. At Mons 1914, the British Army did extremely well against overwhelming odds in terms of numbers. Shame they were just about all dead by 1915.

The real credit to the British Army is that despite having a small standing army and despite our competitors having vastly superior numbers and highly trained soldiers, we manage to stay in the game and find a way to end up on the victorious side.

It is not to be underestimated. The French Army, made up of highly trained professional soldiers mutinied and refused to go on the offensive for 18 months after Verdun. Again, the German Army, highly trained professional soldiers, were absconding and surrendering in droves in 1918.

The British Army, on the other hand, cobbled together from cooks, accountants, gardeners and shopkeepers etc, stayed the course. They didn't mutiny and at one point were the only allied fighting unit in the field as the French had had enough. Not bad at all for a rag tag outfit that had never lifted a gun prior to 1914.

[Cogidubnus]

We willingly declared war on Germany. We didn't have to. It was our decision and so why should another country have to come along and sweep up behind us? British policy towards Europe had always been one of keeping away from continental wars, mainly because there was nothing for us in continental Europe. We only ever got involved when our trade routes were threatened

You really think there was a choice, honestly? Hitler had just quietly swallowed up Austria and the Sudedenland, and decided not so quietly to swallow up Poland? With a declared policy of Lebensraum how long do you really think any real choice would wait...ten years...twenty? And Hitler would've been SO firmly established he probably could never have been shifted.

And in what way in September 1939 did Germany threaten British trading routes? With U Boats they were always threatened of course, but that would've led surely to.... WW2

Sorry Graham I don't buy your argument...I really don't see there was much practical choice at all...

All the best

Dave

[Fleetwood Mac]

You really think there was a choice, honestly? Hitler had just quietly swallowed up Austria and the Sudedenland, and decided not so quietly to swallow up Poland?

The continental Europeans had been fighting one another for centuries. It was hardly earth shattering news that another war should start up. What's it got to do with us? Clearly there was a choice. Just as there had been options in previous centuries - and usually, we chose to leave them to it.

And in what way in September 1939 did Germany threaten British trading routes?

A dominant European power in possession of the North West coast of France.

Sorry Graham I don't buy your argument

Me name's not Graham, mate.

[Cogidubnus]

Me name's not Graham, mate.

Whoops sorry...that's what comes of posting at the last minute just before the missus drags you away!

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

The continental Europeans had been fighting one another for centuries. It was hardly earth shattering news that another war should start up. What's it got to do with us? Clearly there was a choice. Just as there had been options in previous centuries - and usually, we chose to leave them to it.

What's it got to do with us? Well here's the first potential enemy since Napoleon (who only thought he did) who actually, left in place for long enough, would certainly have had the capacity to invade across the channel...and given his record he certainly had the propensity wouldn't you say?

A dominant European power in possession of the North West coast of France.

But if he's not an enemy then he's not a threat...So in 1939 is he an enemy or not?

All the best

Dave

[Fleetwood Mac]

What's it got to do with us? Well here's the first potential enemy since Napoleon (who only thought he did) who actually, left in place for long enough, would certainly have had the capacity to invade across the channel...and given his record he certainly had the propensity wouldn't you say?

But if he's not an enemy then he's not a threat...So in 1939 is he an enemy or not?

All the best

Dave

No, I wouldn't agree at all, Dave.

Everything that is on record in the years leading upto 1939 suggests he had no wish to fight a war with Britain. He made several peace overtures to the British Government.

The war against France was a defensive war in their minds. Their stated objectives were to the East, not the West; and the invasion of Western Europe was to prevent war on two fronts. In the main, knock France out of the war before they got down to business.

The whole point of my initial post was to say that we had options: opportunities and risks to weigh up prior to any decision being made.

It was inevitable that France would declare war on Germany because they felt they had most to lose from German aggression, so better to fight them with allies on their side.

It was not inevitable that Britain would declare war in WW1 or WW2.