Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would say, yes, the British still have the mettle to fight a great conflict in defense of their homeland. They are an incredible people, intelligent and cultured and highly creative, yet somewhere underneath that polished, peaceful exterior remains some traits of their savage Anglo-Saxon ancestors that still come to the foreground at certain times.
In recent conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, the British forces have deported themselves well. Colonel Tim Collins, deployed to Iraq, made a speech to his troops that will go down as one of the most inspiring speeches in military history.
Britain in the 1930s was not seen by the Germans as a credible deterrent to conquest of the continent. Neville Chamberlain was a weak leader, too willing to achieve peace at any cost. Yet a few years later, Britain under Churchill had its "finest moment".
The Americans, too, are deceptively soft until pushed to a certain limit. Brasher and less classy than the British, but there is a certain steel and resolve under the surface that is common to both peoples.
I disagree with the fellow who complains of the Muslims in England. For the most part, they seem to be well integrated. The main problems there are with current immigrants from backward villages in Pakistan and so forth, who do not share the Western values of their hosts. But over time, their children will also integrate. British culture is too compelling to resist.
Yeah, I'm a bit of an Anglophile
I agree with you.
I know that before WW2, Britain imported nearly 70% of it's food. The food ministry worked hard to decrease that and the dependence on outside sources through rationing, Dig for Victory, animal husbandry, the Land Army, wartime food products and campaigns "British Restaurants", controlling food/farming production. Plus voluntary service, health campaigns etc (before NHS), Home Guard, evacuation of children from London, factory labor, and transportation and other measures. Measures like this are more along the lines of what I was thinking in the OP rather than military defense/offense measures.
Nevertheless, the airport remained open to Argentine transports right up to the surrender.
But NOT fighters. Fighters based on Falklands would have made matters more difficult.
Quote:
The UK never attacked any of the bases on the mainland because it was not realistic. The UK did land SAS units on the mainland who monitored and reported back on movements from Argentine air bases.
The reason for not attacking the mainland was political, as London thought some South American countries could be drawn in.
You are splitting hairs. Sheffield was put out of action by an Argentine missile.
You stated Sheffield was sunk by the Argentines. It wasn't. It was out of action but not sunk. She could have been repaired and they thought of towing her to the UK. There was even a suggestion of using her as a decoy. All were rejected as she was viewed as being in the way of the fleet and scuttled. Many of the problems of the Type 42's safety design after Sheffield's sinking were put right after in the other ships. Futures designs were amended. The USN also did studies on the rapid spread of the fire and did similar amendments to some of their ships and amended future designs.
Britain in the 1930s was not seen by the Germans as a credible deterrent to conquest of the continent.
The UK was indeed.
Quote:
Neville Chamberlain was a weak leader, too willing to achieve peace at any cost. Yet a few years later, Britain under Churchill had its "finest moment".
I am not defending Chamberlain, just trying to get some balance. In 1938 the Royal Navy was on full alert as was the USSR. If the Germans went into Czechoslovakia in 1938, they would be fighting, French, British, Czech, Soviet and most probably Polish forces, "all at once", on two fronts. It was diplomatically put to Hitler that if he wanted war he had it. Hitler backed down. That is not the common view of Munich in 1938.
Wages of Destruction: Page 273
"If Hitler had wanted war on 1 October 1938, he could have had it. The French and British had reached the point at which they could make no further concessions. The armies of France and the Soviet Union had mobilized. The Royal Navy stood at full alert. On 9 September 1938 it was Hitler who stepped back not his opponents"
Page 274
"Hitler backed down and accepted the extraordinarily generous settlement on offer at the hastily convened conference in Munich. In so doing, he almost certainly saved his regime from disaster."
In the case of Britain, it would be quite unthinkable that she would forget that great Nelson quip just prior to Trafalgar ,' England expects that every man do his duty' 'if the enemy is at the shore. Orthopedically, Britain in a way has been handed down the advantage of a strong Nelsonian backbone...;-)...
Couldn't do it, the population is too large now, there wouldn't be enough food produced locally to fulfil its needs.
Only 7.7% of the UKs land mass is settled, inc' gardens and open urban spaces. The country is empty. If all the land was used for food growing the country could feed itself. But it is far cheaper to import food from others. Agriculture amounts for only about 2.5 to 3% of the economy, yet it takes up 70% of the land. We would be better economically to get rid of agriculture, or just stop subsidising this lame duck industry and allow market forces to determine its future. Land can then be used for more productive economic activities. We are in the EU where agricultural produce is spread around. The Spanish export vegetables and fruit "daily" to the UK. Other produce of agriculture like wood, is mainly imported. All plywood in the UK is made in China.
Could the UK grow its own food if it had to? Yes, using modern intense farming techniques. However we would not have bananas, etc. Bread would taste differently as nearly all grain is imported from North America and has been since the 1800s.
But NOT fighters. Fighters based on Falklands would have made matters more difficult.
So you agree that the runway was not "disabled". The reason there were no fighters is that the runway was not long enough for them and would have to be extended.
There were seven bombing missions planned. I thought there was only one. Each mission required 18 air-to-air refuelings from Victor tankers to get just one bomber to the target. Some of the tankers had to be refueled themselves so that they could be in position to refuel the bomber. In the first mission, only one bomb out of 21 hit the runway. I was unaware that a second mission hit the western end of the runway and it was this that prevented it being extended to take fast jets. The third and fourth mission were called off. The fifth and sixth missions were anti-radar using Shrike missiles while the seventh mission hit the eastern end of the airfield. The Vulcan used on the sixth mission broke its air-to-air refueling probe and had to land in Rio where it was interned.
Despite the damage caused by these mission, the airport was never closed to Argentine transports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
The reason for not attacking the mainland was political, as London thought some South American countries could be drawn in.
There were political considerations although Chile was helping the UK. Chile had - and still does have - border disputes with Argentina. But, the logistics made the political decision easy. The UK simply did not have the air-to-air refueling capacity to extend the range of the Vulcan by 800 miles which is what it would have taken.
Only 7.7% of the UKs land mass is settled, inc' gardens and open urban spaces. The country is empty. If all the land was used for food growing the country could feed itself. But it is far cheaper to import food from others. Agriculture amounts for only about 2.5 to 3% of the economy, yet it takes up 70% of the land. We would be better economically to get rid of agriculture, or just stop subsidising this lame duck industry and allow market forces to determine its future. Land can then be used for more productive economic activities. We are in the EU where agricultural produce is spread around. The Spanish export vegetables and fruit "daily" to the UK. Other produce of agriculture like wood, is mainly imported. All plywood in the UK is made in China.
Could the UK grow its own food if it had to? Yes, using modern intense farming techniques. However we would not have bananas, etc. Bread would taste differently as nearly all grain is imported from North America and has been since the 1800s.
I think that the fact you state, that agriculture already takes up 70% of the land, just proves that England couldn't support itself. None of those imports would be coming in, so each of those need to be accounted for. It's not just the food that would be needed, and all that modern agriculture sucks up oil.
Only 7.7% of the UKs land mass is settled, inc' gardens and open urban spaces. The country is empty. If all the land was used for food growing the country could feed itself. But it is far cheaper to import food from others. Agriculture amounts for only about 2.5 to 3% of the economy, yet it takes up 70% of the land. We would be better economically to get rid of agriculture, or just stop subsidising this lame duck industry and allow market forces to determine its future. Land can then be used for more productive economic activities. We are in the EU where agricultural produce is spread around. The Spanish export vegetables and fruit "daily" to the UK. Other produce of agriculture like wood, is mainly imported. All plywood in the UK is made in China.
Could the UK grow its own food if it had to? Yes, using modern intense farming techniques. However we would not have bananas, etc. Bread would taste differently as nearly all grain is imported from North America and has been since the 1800s.
Much of the UK is not suitable for intensive farming techniques - large parts of Scotland and Wales, the Lake District, the Pennines, Dartmoor, etc..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
