Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Anshal wrote:You do NOT what to know what I think about Americans, if you cant resist the urge to know my feelings for said "people" PM me.
You love us right? Particularly Texans after we helped out and kicked the crap out of the Nazis for you?
Go a certain warm place Israel lover, And I take it for granted that even you with your limited minde can reason that I dont hold you lot particularly close to my hearth.
Lenge leve Norge, måtte hun altidd være fri
Disciples Of Nidhog 2500 (CSM)
Order of the bloodied sword
2010/10/08 22:48:49
Subject: Re:What does the rest of the world think?
Anshal wrote:
Go a certain warm place Israel lover, And I take it for granted that even you with your limited minde can reason that I dont hold you lot particularly close to my hearth.
And I was hoping we'd get to have reasonable discussion without things like this happening. =Sigh=
But yes, thank you Artick...that's kind of what I was hoping for, and it does explain a bit. I'm guessing that, in general, Americans are a bit more nationalistic/patriotic than many other countries? It does make sense from a historical background....
Oh, and one thing that also surprised me in recent discussion was being told that the US as a whole places too much pride in its veterans/servicemen. I assumed respect for veterans or current members of the military was a thing that happened in most parts of the world (or at least, the West) but I've been told that here in the UK, veterans are not as venerated as the rest of the world. I'm thinking that this is just blatant lying, or a minority viewpoint, especially considering the massive service the WW2 veterans got during the Battle of Britain memorial. But yes...one more thing to toss on the discussion pile.
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
From what I can tell (in my own point of view), Vets are only really celebrated on VE/VJ/Remembrance etc days. In day to day, if you went up to someone and asked them about servicemen they would be on the whole apathetic and possibly even anti-war (to the extent of "yes, they are good guys but I don't agree they should be fighting the wars they are" kind of way).
On the whole I don't think people really believe in a great deal any more. We've seen too many ideals torn apart in the last century to really hold anything sacred - of the many and varied cultures and revolutionary spirits which have existed, few if any have survived or positively changed our society to any great degree.
America on the other hand is always billed as positive and vibrant, full of pride and opinion.
Anshal wrote:You do NOT what to know what I think about Americans, if you cant resist the urge to know my feelings for said "people" PM me.
You love us right? Particularly Texans after we helped out and kicked the crap out of the Nazis for you?
Go a certain warm place Israel lover, And I take it for granted that even you with your limited minde can reason that I dont hold you lot particularly close to my hearth.
Well see, now I am confused. Are you damning Fraz to hell or hoping he will visit a tropical island sometime in the future. I can't imagine it is the first one because that would take a cruel and heartless person to do so and I don't imagine you to think of yourself as cruel and heartless, so certainly you wouldn't purposefully try to inflict such awfulness on others.
What does Israel have to do with it? Is this a generic anti-Semitic statement or are you concerned over the complicated issue of Middle East foreign affairs? Certainly you wouldn't just dislike a country over one single issue that is debated even within the country in question. An overly simplistic view such as that would not be something an enlightened person, such as ourselves, would take, now would we?
Also, why the assumption that your mind is superior? You are the one condemning people to bad places and insulting them instead of making an argument or talking the issue over.
I imagine we aren't particularly close to your hearth as we are across the ocean and I don't recall anyone talking about a Dakka get together at your home, but wouldn't that be nice? We can all drink some tea and have some snacks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/08 23:13:24
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Many thousands of British civilians were killed or injured during WW2, so probably there isn't so much of a feeling that the troops went out there to face danger unshared.
The UK suffered a bit under 400,000 military dead and nearly 70,000 civilian dead. The US suffered a bit over 400,000 military dead and under 2,000 civilian dead. The figures are in Wikipedia (for what it's worth).
Also I think there is a feeling in post WW1 Britain that wars are bad, and fighting them is not something to celebrate. This attitude isn't 100%, we certainly celebrated the Falklands War, for example.
I think people on the whole support the military in the current fighting in the Middle East, but the wars aren't well supported.
@ChrisWWII - To be perfectly honest with you Chris, your flat-mates sound like total cocks. Please don't think them representative of ALL British people. The Chavez thing in particular is just typical of the know-nothing arseholes the UK education system seems to attract.
Albatross wrote:@ChrisWWII - To be perfectly honest with you Chris, your flat-mates sound like total cocks. Please don't think them representative of ALL British people. The Chavez thing in particular is just typical of the know-nothing arseholes the UK education system seems to attract.
Hope you're enjoying life in Britain!
I am actually. St. Andrews is a very nice, quaint town, and I'm looking forward to the chance to go to Warhammer World sometime in the near future.
But yes, good to know. I suppose living on a uni campus would expose me much more to a very leftist point of view, yes?
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
I think I am typical of many British people my age in my views on the USofA.
Generally often I say we when talking about a US idea/action/policy, not because I am a great lover of americans but because our life views and aims are so similar.
I am also part of the generation who did sleep better knowing that our "cousins" accross the pond would come if needed, and we saw the F111s and A10s every day to prove it.
BUT,
We REALLY get upset when you put over the USA won both wars and nobody else was involved act.
Hollywood always manages to get people mad, even saying it was US who broke the Ultra machine code.
We also remember that the reason we needed to rely on you in the 60's.70's etc was because of your governments profiteering in the lend/lease trade deals with us.
We had to pay for every rifle and bullet you sent us, first with land, then gold then your loans.
Then your betrayal of Churchill and the Eastern Europeans at Yalta.
We went to war over Poland, destroyed our wealth and our empire, to be forced to renege on our treaty and let Poland fall under the USSR 6 years of hell wasted.
Poland changes one oppressor for another.
Then finally after you see what Stalin was like you need to rebuild Europe, the Marshall Plan, do you help you closest ally,hell no,we have to pay back lend/lease and you build up with cheap loans our late military enemies and our main economic competitor France.
Why?
We accept that the US had a right as they saw it to try to dismantle an imperial system, and reduce a trade rivals ability to compete, but why you continued after the war when it was obvious the BE was a shot bolt seemed vindictive. Terrible things happened because of our precipitous retreat from empire and I really do think a richer more confident empire might have dissolved itself into a much stronger more unified commonwealth if Britain had had the time and the money with enornous improvement in the lifes of hundreds of millions of people .
Though you do piss us off every so often I would like to see you back on the Gairloch, Upper Heyford and Alconbury.
I think younger people have a different view and more and more seem to be anti american, why I don't know.
I think your economic success and the pervasivness of big US corporations does polarise opinions.
Plus the last few presidents have all been crap, making monumental cockups from Clintons cigar to Bush's Iranian Airbus, Columbia to Somalia.
Where are Maggie and Ronnie when we need them?
Anshal wrote:You do NOT what to know what I think about Americans, if you cant resist the urge to know my feelings for said "people" PM me.
You love us right? Particularly Texans after we helped out and kicked the crap out of the Nazis for you?
Go a certain warm place Israel lover, And I take it for granted that even you with your limited minde can reason that I dont hold you lot particularly close to my hearth.
Well see, now I am confused. Are you damning Fraz to hell or hoping he will visit a tropical island sometime in the future. I can't imagine it is the first one because that would take a cruel and heartless person to do so and I don't imagine you to think of yourself as cruel and heartless, so certainly you wouldn't purposefully try to inflict such awfulness on others.
What does Israel have to do with it? Is this a generic anti-Semitic statement or are you concerned over the complicated issue of Middle East foreign affairs? Certainly you wouldn't just dislike a country over one single issue that is debated even within the country in question. An overly simplistic view such as that would not be something an enlightened person, such as ourselves, would take, now would we?
Also, why the assumption that your mind is superior? You are the one condemning people to bad places and insulting them instead of making an argument or talking the issue over.
I imagine we aren't particularly close to your hearth as we are across the ocean and I don't recall anyone talking about a Dakka get together at your home, but wouldn't that be nice? We can all drink some tea and have some snacks.
This is good stuff^
OP I can only attest to what I learned in school about WWI and WWII, the gist of which is that America was instrumental in beating off the nasty evil Germans in both wars, with particular chest thumping when it comes to WWII.
However I haven't read any overseas history textbooks so i have never been presented with an argument that counters the notion that WWII was the last war in which the USA kicks some serious ass and came out smelling like daisies.
I will say with only my USA education and view point to back me up that the notion that Brittan could have won WWII without the aid of the United States seems to me to be ludicrous. I don't think that Brittan had the man power or the supplies before the United States entered the war to launch a "D-Day" like attack on mainland Europe.
As for the social issues you commented on before, (be warned this will be a rant)
Spoiler:
I do not think that the United States government does a very good job giving everyone an equal chance to succeed. You mentioned a right to an education. Unfortunately the United States has a subpar public educational system that is largely funded by local property taxes and what little spare change the state and federal governments see fit to send their way.
Laws like the “no child left behind act” only serve to gak on schools that are in low income areas. A school in a low income area can’t count on much revenue from local property taxes (increases to local property taxes to benefit schools are often opposed by conservatives because “the government is trying to take my money”). Low income means that they can’t afford many teachers and those who they can afford don’t get paid much. With teaching you pay for quality, if you can’t pay, you don’t get quality, if you can’t pay you get few teachers and huge class sizes.
This brings us around to the notion that you put forward that “everyone should get a even start on life” if this were a view held by conservatives then they would support these schools so they could hire more and better qualified teachers. And to a certain extent they do, state and federal dollars do get allocated to public schools but there is a catch 22 with this money, it is called…
“no child left behind” Where by the government pays more money to schools that do well (something called “adequate yearly progress”) and punished those that don’t do well.
I am sure you can see the problem, poor public school, few teachers of dubious quality, huge class sizes 30+ kids in a class room, next to no funding = bad school = inadequate yearly progress = no government money = school gets poorer conditions get worse.
On the flip side, public school in an affluent area, plenty of money from property taxes (which people bitch about), with a big budget the school hires plenty of teachers who graduated at the top of their classes, class sizes are small, there is money for all sort of extracurricular activities = school easily makes adequate yearly progress or stays at current level = government rewards school with more money = affluent school gets even better
So, a republican president (George W Bush) introduces and passes the “no child left behind” law, which in effect only serves only to gimp already struggling schools and leave millions of children behind.
And it’s not just republicans, why oh god why hasn’t a so called “liberal” congress and administration gotten rid of this abomination yet.
Another example, the governor of Minnesota (my home state) has refused to accept the current health care legislation that forces insurance companies to insure children. So if a child gets seriously ill in Minnesota and their parents take them to the hospital they had better be able to pay out of pocket for their child’s medical care or else the child will be turned away.
In short in the United States the notion that everyone starts off equal is a load of crap, the notion that the government puts serious effort into making it so everyone starts off on an equal foot is a load of crap, and I would argue that the claim that one party is better for the average Joe than the other is a load of crap
Now I have a rage headache… I will most likely not be answering any quotes to this post of mine, it just makes me sick to think about it (the social issues that is, I don’t give a damn about who was or wasn’t responsible for winning the world wars)
Albatross wrote:@ChrisWWII - To be perfectly honest with you Chris, your flat-mates sound like total cocks. Please don't think them representative of ALL British people. The Chavez thing in particular is just typical of the know-nothing arseholes the UK education system seems to attract.
Hope you're enjoying life in Britain!
I am actually. St. Andrews is a very nice, quaint town, and I'm looking forward to the chance to go to Warhammer World sometime in the near future.
But yes, good to know. I suppose living on a uni campus would expose me much more to a very leftist point of view, yes?
I did Grad School in Durham. My flatmates for the first year were a bunch of young (I was an old geezer of 27) lefty pinko, pothead, trance listening, GTA 3 playing slackers. The best year of my life.
Albatross wrote:@ChrisWWII - To be perfectly honest with you Chris, your flat-mates sound like total cocks. Please don't think them representative of ALL British people. The Chavez thing in particular is just typical of the know-nothing arseholes the UK education system seems to attract.
Hope you're enjoying life in Britain!
I am actually. St. Andrews is a very nice, quaint town, and I'm looking forward to the chance to go to Warhammer World sometime in the near future.
But yes, good to know. I suppose living on a uni campus would expose me much more to a very leftist point of view, yes?
I don't think so, really. As an American you will probably find that most British people are more left wing than the average in the USA. For example, public support for the NHS is very widespread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kramanal wrote:
I think younger people have a different view and more and more seem to be anti american, why I don't know.
Because of the Iraq War primarily, and also attitudes on environmental issues, and some social and economic points.
It is absolutely clear from public opinion surveys and anecdotal evidence that Bush's presidencies wasted the surge of sympathy following 9/11, and caused a serious deterioration in the rest of the world's opinion of the USA.
People may say that does not matter. It began to recover with the election of Obama.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/09 08:26:23
Arctik_Firangi wrote:'Aussie icons' - things that represent our aspirations and the country as a whole.
Like this guy?
Precisely. Australia was, as you probably know, a British penal colony. We have a history of revering outlaws - the 'Bushranger' was a parallel of the British highwayman, and the concept is romanticised.
The photo you've posted is of Mark "Chopper" Read, a convicted murderer who is famous for being a great storyteller, and has since made a name for himself as a crime author and autobiographer. He is also well known for having had his ears cut off (on request). He is a reformed criminal and a cultural icon - there's no denying that.
Albatross wrote:@ChrisWWII - To be perfectly honest with you Chris, your flat-mates sound like total cocks. Please don't think them representative of ALL British people. The Chavez thing in particular is just typical of the know-nothing arseholes the UK education system seems to attract.
Hope you're enjoying life in Britain!
I am actually. St. Andrews is a very nice, quaint town, and I'm looking forward to the chance to go to Warhammer World sometime in the near future.
But yes, good to know. I suppose living on a uni campus would expose me much more to a very leftist point of view, yes?
I don't think so, really. As an American you will probably find that most British people are more left wing than the average in the USA. For example, public support for the NHS is very widespread.
Yeah, whilst this is true I would say that support for Chavez is not generally representative of British political opinion. As I alluded to before, student spankers trying to appear hip.
If anything like that comes up again, gently remind them that Chavez threatened the intervention of Venezuela in the event of another Falklands war. That's right - he threatened our country. But hey! He takes from the rich and gives to the poor! Awesome!!!1!
Albatross wrote:
If anything like that comes up again, gently remind them that Chavez threatened the intervention of Venezuela in the event of another Falklands war. That's right - he threatened our country. But hey! He takes from the rich and gives to the poor! Awesome!!!1!
I'll be sure to try that one out on them at some point if the debate starts up again.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think so, really. As an American you will probably find that most British people are more left wing than the average in the USA. For example, public support for the NHS is very widespread.
Well, what I meant was that I'd be exposed to a more leftist view then is prevalent within the nation as is. I mean yes, most of Europe is more liberal than the US, and most people seem to consider the Republicans and Democrats as 'Far right' and 'Less far right' rather than the way the US views the situation. Honestly, I can't blame them.
But yeah, Ma55ter_Fett I am in total agreement with you on NCLB. I hate that law with a passion, and blame it along with other factors for the current decline of the American educational system. I view it as one of President Bush's major screw ups and quite possibly his worst idea conceived during his time in office. My stance of equality of opportunity is my own, and I view it as a conservative stance. I'm not saying that it's the case...I'm saying that it's what should be in an ideal situation.
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
Ahtman wrote:It is an odd thing to argue about as the answer is quite obvious: it was a group effort.
The end result of the war that happened was obviously a group effort. However if you posit the question, "What would have been the outcome have been if the US hadn't become involved in Europe," the answer is Germany still loses, England isn't invaded, the main difference is where the iron curtain lands.
And if you pose the question , "what kind of salt should I put on the margarita", you would also get a different response. That wasn't the question asked or the statement that was made that we are discussing. "What if"" is fun for fiction but not for history. Better to understand what did happen than what didn't. What did happen was a group effort with deaths on all sides that lead to the eventual victory of the Allies (and I suppose Texas helped some).
The statement was made:
I firmly believe that without US intervention in World War I, World War II Germany likely would have one both wars
So if American intervention won both the wars the obvious question to ask is, "What would have been the outcome have been if the US hadn't become involved in Europe." In other words since the OP is sure the US won both wars what would have happened if the US didn't get involved. Well in WWII Germany loses and the UK still isn't invaded which hit the two biggest concerns the OP had in that area. Yes, historically it was a group effort but his flatmates are discounting that US involvement accomplished anything. Given historical context yanking the Yanks out of the situation pretty quickly demonstrates that the US did contribute significantly to WWII. We didn't win it for anyone, but we made the end result much more palatable in the West.
mattyrm wrote: I will bro fist a toilet cleaner.
I will chainfist a pretentious English literature student who wears a beret.
2010/10/09 12:42:01
Subject: Re:What does the rest of the world think?
I was just re-reading "Churchill's Bodyguard" the other day and one of the things mentioned in it was the frustration of Churchill in getting the US involved in WWII. Roosevelt was keen to get stuck in, but he had to be careful as a majority of US politicians didn't. It was only by carefull manoeuvring by Roosevelt that the lend lease scheme was signed off and then the Japs attacked and that sealed the US involvment.
Alot of people don't realise how many patents we gave away as well as part payment for the military hardware, patents that crippled us on the tech front development.
After the war you then proceeded to support anybody who was seen to be standing up to the "commies", even if they were evil tyrants. You throw scorn on our Imperialist past, but you are doing the same thing but in a different way. How many US military bases are there around the world based on foreign lands and how many of them would be there if the governments of that land had a really free hand in making a choice? How many US firms benefitted from the Iraq war and how many are going to benefit from the mineral wealth found in Afghanistan?
If you are going to do this, at least be honest with yourselves over it and don't knock us, as it's a bit two faced.
As a footnote, I've mentioned it before in another post concerning the US involment in WWII. Having read the books by Stephan Ambrose on D-Day and afterwards I came to realise the level of sacfrice by US troops at that time. So unlike alot of Brits I will always respect that and be grateful for it.
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
Anshal wrote:You do NOT what to know what I think about Americans, if you cant resist the urge to know my feelings for said "people" PM me.
You love us right? Particularly Texans after we helped out and kicked the crap out of the Nazis for you?
Go a certain warm place Israel lover, And I take it for granted that even you with your limited minde can reason that I dont hold you lot particularly close to my hearth.
How cute. Because you know, everyone in America just adores Israel's every action. Because when I talk to people about the stupid or unreasonable things Israel does, I say it with all the love in my heart, when I call some of their actions the height of barbaric. I understand that your short-sighted self can't fathom that there's different opinions in a country of multi-millions, but that's okay.
By the clack-smack cracking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes...
Britain is full of pinko hippies, and in 60 years has fallen from a nation of lions to a nation of pussycats.
Too many good years have produced too many spoilt brats who love to brag about the exploits of their grandparents but have no spine and a misplaced loyalty to communists largely due to staggering ignorance and a wish to appear "with it" and "groovy"
We lost the hunger that made us strong and have followed the Americans down the road of whiny self entitlement and "its not fair, its not my fault, its not his fault, its not her fault, find someone else to blame and then sue them, whine whine whine whine"
I hate my country, but then again, i hate all the countries that are like mine, and thats most of them. Especially Western Europe and the USA/commonwealth.
And i hate the commie countries, and the African countries and the Eastern European countries, and i really hate all the Muslim countries and the South American countries...
So whose left?
I like those guys, whoever they are!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/09 16:32:44
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
They arent bad though, they like a drink them lads!
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
mattyrm wrote:Britain is full of pinko hippies, and in 60 years has fallen from a nation of lions to a nation of pussycats.
Too many good years have produced too many spoilt brats who love to brag about the exploits of their grandparents but have no spine and a misplaced loyalty to communists largely due to staggering ignorance and a wish to appear "with it" and "groovy"
We lost the hunger that made us strong and have followed the Americans down the road of whiny self entitlement and "its not fair, its not my fault, its not his fault, its not her fault, find someone else to blame and then sue them, whine whine whine whine"
I hate my country, but then again, i hate all the countries that are like mine, and thats most of them. Especially Western Europe and the USA/commonwealth.
And i hate the commie countries, and the African countries and the Eastern European countries, and i really hate all the Muslim countries and the South American countries...
So whose left?
I like those guys, whoever they are!
Mattyrm for president
What man has build, man can destroy.
Bring alive that day of joy!
ChrisWWII wrote:
Topic 1: Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Resources
In one of my debates with people in my flat, I made the statement: "It is not fair for the government to take away the money I make with my own hard work, and give it to someone else." Back home, at least in my brand of conservatism, that statement is totally accepted as true. The government's job is to ensure people have an equal start, and what they do with that start is up to them. It's not the government's job to bail you out of a bad decision, or a mistake you've made.
However, the impression I've gotten so far is that, at least here at Uni, the prevailing opinion is that the government should try to ensure equality of resources throughout someones life, instead of only ensuring an equal start. Is this accurate overall?
well I'll give you my perspective.... past a certain point concentration of wealth in the hands of a small fraction of the population is politically destabilizing. Obviously having money helps you get more money, and the upper classes have a way of monopolizing all the opportunities for themselves. If they get too good at this then talented, driven people can't improve their situation no matter how hard they work. Denied the opportunity to advance legitimately, they'll find illegitimate ways to do it - instigating revolutions, for instance. Everybody - rich and poor - has a real and serious interest in keeping this from happening. Therefore property rights are important but they are not sacred; the right to life is more important than the right to property, so if compromises regarding the right to property have to be made in order to secure the right to life, then that's acceptable.
The United States and Great Britain both have a long and instructive history in this regard; both countries have averted the violent revolutions that have shaken much of the rest of the world over the last two centuries precisely because they were willing to make practical compromises with the working class. Countries that were not (Russia, for instance) faired considerably worse. Conservative Americans in particular seem to think that because this kind of thing has not happened in the United States, it cannot happen. They think they're insulated from it by the mere fact of being American, by the special grace of God, or who knows what else. The truth is that if they ever succeeded in rigidly enforcing their policies (repeal labor laws, no goverment oversight of business, low taxes, no social welfare programs, etc.) the results would be politically disasterous.
ChristWWII wrote:
Topic 2: History of the 20th Century
Now, as an American patriot, I firmly believe that without US intervention in World War I, World War II Germany likely would have one both wars. Additionally, without US aid to Europe in the form of the Marshall Plan after WW2, the Soviet Union would have been able to spread rapidly Westward, and the Iron Curtain would have come to rest upon the Atlantic instead of where it actually did end up lying. However, my flatmates here seem to be of the mind set that the US didn't really help out, and that Britain would have been fine even without US aid, and that the only reason the US chose to help was because we wanted to weaken Britain.
your flatmates are of course completely wrong. Without American financing Great Britain and France could not have afforded WWI. The Germany Navy might have succeeded in cutting Great Britain off from the rest of the empire. I don't think that Great Britain would have been able to feed itself without imports, let alone continue to pay for the war. They're pretty expensive after all. American financing is what made their war effort possible. If the United States had not stepped in the British and the French might have succeeded in preserving the stalemate in the West but there is no way they could have beaten the Germans. If imagine they would have eventually had to sue for peace on terms favorable to Germany.
The United States is the only thing that kept the Soviets from taking over all of Europe after WWII. Britain was completely ruined by the second world war. Believe me they would have liked to hold on to their Empire - but they couldn't afford it anymore and had to let it go. The United States wanted to strengthen, not weaken, Europe after the second world war, so that we would have allies against the Soviets. (As it happened Germany got a pretty good deal out of it - we financed their recovery and paid for their military. the practical effect was to make German industry more competitive than would have been possible if the Germans had been taxing themselves to pay for it.) As far as the idea that the Americans wanted to keep the British weak - it's just absurd. You keep an enemy weak if you feel threatened by them. The United States had nothing to fear from Great Britain; its population, wealth, industrial capacity, technical knowhow, land area, etc. etc. all far surpassed those of Great Britain by the close of the 19th century, let alone by the mid 20th. The Empire had been breaking apart for generations; by the time of WWI it was largely a federal union in which Great Britain had no power to compel other parts of the Empire to contribute to its wars. What the United States needed was strong allies, and on that basis financed British (and European) reconstruction after the war. In short your friends are wrong as wrong can be.
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote: Without American financing Great Britain and France could not have afforded WWI. The Germany Navy might have succeeded in cutting Great Britain off from the rest of the empire. I don't think that Great Britain would have been able to feed itself without imports, let alone continue to pay for the war. They're pretty expensive after all. American financing is what made their war effort possible. If the United States had not stepped in the British and the French might have succeeded in preserving the stalemate in the West but there is no way they could have beaten the Germans. If imagine they would have eventually had to sue for peace on terms favorable to Germany.
The United States is the only thing that kept the Soviets from taking over all of Europe after WWII. Britain was completely ruined by the second world war. Believe me they would have liked to hold on to their Empire - but they couldn't afford it anymore and had to let it go. The United States wanted to strengthen, not weaken, Europe after the second world war, so that we would have allies against the Soviets. (As it happened Germany got a pretty good deal out of it - we financed their recovery and paid for their military. the practical effect was to make German industry more competitive than would have been possible if the Germans had been taxing themselves to pay for it.) As far as the idea that the Americans wanted to keep the British weak - it's just absurd. You keep an enemy weak if you feel threatened by them. The United States had nothing to fear from Great Britain; its population, wealth, industrial capacity, technical knowhow, land area, etc. etc. all far surpassed those of Great Britain by the close of the 19th century, let alone by the mid 20th. The Empire had been breaking apart for generations; by the time of WWI it was largely a federal union in which Great Britain had no power to compel other parts of the Empire to contribute to its wars. What the United States needed was strong allies, and on that basis financed British (and European) reconstruction after the war.
Yes, most of us here are aware of the American version of history, AF. You didn't need to type it out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/10 14:32:03
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Chris asked, Albatross. Do you have a version you'd like to share, or are we just trolling?
Why should Albatross answer such utter revisionist crap?
How could the German Imperial Navy blockade Great Britain?
We blockaded them for 5 years!
US policy was to dismantle the BE because we were the only trading competitor.
Post WW2 US funded Britains other trading competitors (Germany, France, Italy) with cheap intrest free loans while forcing lend/lease interest payments on Britain. This was successful in keeping Britain in financial trouble throughout the period.
When you make us think about this it makes us wonder why the hell we keep supporting you.
If we were so scientifically and technically burnt out how come so many of the great post war inventions have been British?
OK we have'nt had the resources to finance them and US companies buy the patents cheap but this is again down to US financial pressure.
707th Lubyan Aquila Banner Motor Rifle Regiment (6000 pts)
Battlefleet Tomania (2500 pts)
By the clack-smack cracking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes... 
