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.
Opinionated nonsense. Go by facts, it is easier. Without the British the world would be a different place than what you know it.
Do not go by Hollywood history.
Britain has bequeathed many a great legacy to the world, especially moderate democracy and a belief in honest, good government. Being the primary actor in winning WW I or WW II aren't among their moments of greatness. Nor, equally importantly, was grounding the ball and abruptly surrendering the colonial empire to chaos.
Being the primary actor in winning WW I or WW II aren't among their moments of greatness. Nor, equally importantly, was grounding the ball and abruptly surrendering the colonial empire to chaos.
The British were the prime agents in the defeat of the Axis. Not the Soviets, not the USA. The British were the only nation to be in WW2 from day one to the last day. Well they fought on until 1946 defeating the Viet Minh in Viet Nam. The British went in on principle, moral grounds. They were not attacked or attacked by anyone, which was not the case for the other major combatants.
In WW1 the Royal Navy's blockade of Germany literally starved them out. They also did it in WW2. In May 1941 the Italian navy could not put to sea because they had no oil. The British surrounded the Axis from Turkey to the Northern Cape using its navy and ground troops. http://www.city-data.com/forum/54020718-post116.html
Germany had been forced into a situation by the British that they knew they could not escape from.
The empire morphed into the Commonwealth. Well ordered with little chaos on transition considering its size. The British created and left behind world trade centres complete with trade routes, which are important to this day. Oh and the Esperanto of the world - English.
The British were the prime agents in the defeat of the Axis. Not the Soviets, not the USA. The British were the only nation to be in WW2 from day one to the last day. Well they fought on until 1946 defeating the Viet Minh in Viet Nam. The British went in on principle, moral grounds. They were not attacked or attacked by anyone, which was not the case for the other major combatants.
In WW1 the Royal Navy's blockade of Germany literally starved them out. They also did it in WW2. In May 1941 the Italian navy could not put to sea because they had no oil. The British surrounded the Axis from Turkey to the Northern Cape using its navy and ground troops. http://www.city-data.com/forum/54020718-post116.html
Germany had been forced into a situation by the British that they knew they could not escape from.
The empire morphed into the Commonwealth. Well ordered with little chaos on transition considering its size. The British created and left behind world trade centres complete with trade routes, which are important to this day. Oh and the Esperanto of the world - English.
Let's work through that claim.
1931: Japan invades Manchuria. Britain did nothing.
1935: Italy invades Ethiopia. Britain did nothing.
1936: Hitler marches in to the Rhineland. Britain did nothing.
1938: The Anschluss between Germany and Austria. Britain did nothing.
1938: Munich Conference: Well, Britain did something here. You wet your pants, capitulated to Hitler, and helped him tear Czechoslovakia in half. "Peace in our Time." A great euphemism for cowardice.
The British were the prime agents in the defeat of the Axis. Not the Soviets, not the USA. The British were the only nation to be in WW2 from day one to the last day. Well they fought on until 1946 defeating the Viet Minh in Viet Nam. The British went in on principle, moral grounds. They were not attacked or attacked by anyone, which was not the case for the other major combatants.
In WW1 the Royal Navy's blockade of Germany literally starved them out. They also did it in WW2. In May 1941 the Italian navy could not put to sea because they had no oil. The British surrounded the Axis from Turkey to the Northern Cape using its navy and ground troops. http://www.city-data.com/forum/54020718-post116.html
Germany had been forced into a situation by the British that they knew they could not escape from.
The empire morphed into the Commonwealth. Well ordered with little chaos on transition considering its size. The British created and left behind world trade centres complete with trade routes, which are important to this day. Oh and the Esperanto of the world - English.
The infamous White Paper of May 1939 shows were the British government's heart was; not with the Western alliance.
If not for Churchill none of what you laid out would have come to pass, in either war. During the years leading up to the start of WWII Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, among others, were surrender monkeys. Where was the oil embargo before the Fall of France? And the serious effort to stop the Fall of France or Norway? When the appeasement policy dramatically failed in May 1940 the Conservative Party turned over leadership to Churchill. Even that was a close call; the Royal Family, which technically chooses the PM was leaning towards appeasement or condominium with Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
1939: Munich Conference: Well, Britain did something here. You wet your pants, capitulated to Hitler, and helped him tear Czechoslovakia in half. "Peace in our Time." A great euphemism for cowardice.
Principle, moral grounds.
October 1938 but otherwise great post. You left out Kristallnacht a month later, when the Western world issued lots of rhetoric but did nothing. The White Paper was the next definitive action, which was akin to leaving lobsters in a pot of boiling water.
humanity has never invented a weapon it did not use..as much as i wish very few against the bombing mention the terrific damage from firebombing 100,000 Tokyo alone viewed from the perspective of fire bombing the a-bomb saved lives as well Japanese lives...
This is just incorrect. No one to my knowledge has ever used a thermonuclear ("H-Bomb") in anger, and while I know of at least on full on live fire of an ICBM with a "live" warhead, no ICBM or any nuclear armed missile of any sort has ever been fired in anger - again to my knowledge. Although, if anyone did use one, it would be tough to keep that a secret.
Then again, no known or suspected nuclear armed nation has been subject to an attack that threatened it's existence. Thus, "deterrence".
1931: Japan invades Manchuria. Britain did nothing.
1935: Italy invades Ethiopia. Britain did nothing.
1936: Hitler marches in to the Rhineland. Britain did nothing.
1938: The Anschluss between Germany and Austria. Britain did nothing.
1939: Munich Conference: Well, Britain did something here. You wet your pants, capitulated to Hitler, and helped him tear Czechoslovakia in half. "Peace in our Time." A great euphemism for cowardice.
Principle, moral grounds.
I'd lose the 'wet your pants' juvenilia. Just because John is acting the UK-centric boor, it does not follow that you should be just as boorish from an American POV.
That said, it is clear that John defines the beginning of World War II as 'when the UK chose to enter the fray'. Since Asia is far away and of comparative unimportance to him, it matters not who long Japan had been abusing China.
Personally, I have no particular issue with when Britain entered the war. Like the United States and other powers, it wanted to avoid it if possible. On the other hand, the UK (along with France) did bear more responsibility for the rise of Hitler. The problem arose in their backyard. As such, if anyone was in a position to deal with the rising problem, it was those two powers. For example, 1936: documents and testimony from his associates who survived the war show that Hitler knew full well that if France and the UK had pushed back, Germany would easily have been prevented from remilitarizing the Rhineland and that it would have been the end for Hitler politically. It is also true that as members of the League of Nations, the UK and France bore legal responsibility with enforcing the Treaty of Versailles. The United States was not only an ocean away, it was not a League member and so had no legal authority or responsibility to intervene. One can criticize that global detachment, but not wanting to intervene in European matters is hardly some great fault. The United States avoided the European war for years - but not nearly as many years as the UK ignored the Pacific War, which arguably had raged since 1931 and definitely since 1937 at the latest - because it was far away and not in its immediate interest. John tries to portray the earlier UK entry into the war as a matter of honor, but the UK entered the war before the United States simply because the clear and present danger of the war appeared at the British door long before it appeared at the door of the United States.
When it comes to war, most people have a hard time accepting the fact that the primary motivating factor in their nation's behavior is perceived self-interest. This was true in World War II among the western Allies, no matter how politically incorrect that may be to the flag-wavers.
I'd lose the 'wet your pants' juvenilia. Just because John is acting the UK-centric boor, it does not follow that you should be just as boorish from an American POV.
That said, it is clear that John defines the beginning of World War II as 'when the UK chose to enter the fray'. Since Asia is far away and of comparative unimportance to him, it matters not who long Japan had been abusing China.
...
& before that, IJ was abusing Korea -
1874 - Japan imposes Treaty of Kangwha on Korea
1894 - Sino-Japanese War - Korea is made a protectorate of Japan
1910 - Korea annexed as a colony of Japan
This is just incorrect. No one to my knowledge has ever used a thermonuclear ("H-Bomb") in anger, and while I know of at least on full on live fire of an ICBM with a "live" warhead, no ICBM or any nuclear armed missile of any sort has ever been fired in anger - again to my knowledge. Although, if anyone did use one, it would be tough to keep that a secret.
Also, tactical nukes as a class have never been used. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic strikes. Tactical nuclear weapons includes (or included) everything from 16-inch nuclear shells made to be fired from Iowa-class battleships, to nuclear artillery, to the Davy Crockett (pictured below), with a maximum range of 2.5 miles (I can only imagine the pucker-factor if some soldier had ever had to fire one of those in combat).
I'd lose the 'wet your pants' juvenilia. Just because John is acting the UK-centric boor, it does not follow that you should be just as boorish from an American POV.
That said, it is clear that John defines the beginning of World War II as 'when the UK chose to enter the fray'. Since Asia is far away and of comparative unimportance to him, it matters not who long Japan had been abusing China.
Personally, I have no particular issue with when Britain entered the war. Like the United States and other powers, it wanted to avoid it if possible. On the other hand, the UK (along with France) did bear more responsibility for the rise of Hitler. The problem arose in their backyard. As such, if anyone was in a position to deal with the rising problem, it was those two powers. For example, 1936: documents and testimony from his associates who survived the war show that Hitler knew full well that if France and the UK had pushed back, Germany would easily have been prevented from remilitarizing the Rhineland and that it would have been the end for Hitler politically. It is also true that as members of the League of Nations, the UK and France bore legal responsibility with enforcing the Treaty of Versailles. The United States was not only an ocean away, it was not a League member and so had no legal authority or responsibility to intervene. One can criticize that global detachment, but not wanting to intervene in European matters is hardly some great fault. The United States avoided the European war for years - but not nearly as many years as the UK ignored the Pacific War, which arguably had raged since 1931 and definitely since 1937 at the latest - because it was far away and not in its immediate interest. John tries to portray the earlier UK entry into the war as a matter of honor, but the UK entered the war before the United States simply because the clear and present danger of the war appeared at the British door long before it appeared at the door of the United States.
When it comes to war, most people have a hard time accepting the fact that the primary motivating factor in their nation's behavior is perceived self-interest. This was true in World War II among the western Allies, no matter how politically incorrect that may be to the flag-wavers.
There is nothing wrong with utilizing hyperbole to call out a particularly vulgar and disgusting example of Nationalism.
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.
The signs were there all along
