Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-17-2014, 11:49 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,035,571 times
Reputation: 2154

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford View Post


Staying out of Vietnam was probably among the more sensible post war British policies.

Harold Wilson, Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War, 1964-68

Johnson was a total, tosser. He was behind the coup de tat in the USA when Kennedy was seen off. WW2 ended in 1946 for the Brits. They continued fighting in Viet Nam against the Viet Minh and took the whole country in a year. Then they handed it over to the French the legal administrators. The last the Brits wanted to was get re-involved in a country they total took less than 20 years previously. The Brits understood the region having had colonies there and fought the Communists in Malaya in the 1950s. They said it is not worth it.

Ex British colony Burma on independence went communist. The UK did not start up a full war again because of it. Sims army in Burma was over 1 million strong. The Brits knew Burma would not make it and left them to stew. They are just coming back to common sense. When they UK starts talking about Burma they listen hard.

Last edited by John-UK; 06-17-2014 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2014, 11:58 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,035,571 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
Well all I'll say is you have been really unlucky to be meeting up with those Americans that have er let's say...very 'erroneous' impressions. ..;-)....
Most I have met have that impression. I had two old American friends. On was fly F4s from carriers off Viet Nam (he died 2 years ago) the other was in the Air Force in the UK. They were convinced they US saved the world. I would tear strips off the two of them - it made no difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 12:19 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,035,571 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford View Post
The truth being the US has never really liked us, and far from a Special Relationship has always sought to undermine Britain and even when British personnel are dying out in Afghanistan in a War on Terror (which is ironic given the US never helped us battle terrorism) refuses to even back us on issues such as the Falklands. Surely it should be Argentinian lads doing Americas bidding and not British, but then again the Argentines aren't the stupid.
The US is cold on the UK regard the Falklands. But when it mattered in 1982 they sided with the UK. They offered a carrier manned by UK personnel. The UK declined. UK troops do the fighting on the ground and the US do the transport in Afghanistan. Paul, a guy in wheel chair who goes to my local pub was hit by an RPG.

About 20 years ago I was in a pub in Earls Court in London I got talking to this American guy. We slowly got drunk and were thrown out of the pub at the end. We went to his hotel to continue. He started talking and he was a high up US military man. He did not reveal anything I did not already know, but what he did say was, "we all know in my circles that when it hits the fan the only people we can rely on to stick with us are the Brits".They know the Brits did not make deals with Hitler when he took over most of the western European continent. They kept fighting and ignored the idiot. It seems they need us than we need them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 04:11 PM
 
447 posts, read 730,795 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford View Post
The US had a campaign to stay out of the war and only became involved in the war after first stripping Britain of her gold and assets, and secondly when Hitler actually declared war on the US and made his intentions clear with regard to the US and Japan subsequently attacked Pearl Harbour.

The US was quite happy to stay out of the war as Britain faced daily bombardment by Nazi Bombers during the Blitz, when Britain had to see off the might of the German Luftwaffe and defend herself against Nazi invasion and during the invasion of most of Europe by one of the most evil regimes to ever walk the face of the earth. We declared war on September 1, 1939, America didn't even declare war on Germany until the 7th December 1941. Whilst in terms of WW1, Britain was actually owed more by other countries than she owed in debts, and unlike Britain and Canada who fought WW1 from 1914, the Americans didn't arrive until 1917, shortly before the war ended in 1918.

The US always goes on that it helped the UK materially, and indeed it did some extent before the war but only after stripping every piece of gold and asset from Britain and parts of her Empire possible and even after the war we weren't treat well, and some Americans do thing but yap on about how you saved our asses or are under the impression the US won the war single handedly.

The truth being the US has never really liked us, and far from a Special Relationship has always sought to undermine Britain and even when British personnel are dying out in Afghanistan in a War on Terror (which is ironic given the US never helped us battle terrorism) refuses to even back us on issues such as the Falklands. Surely it should be Argentinian lads doing Americas bidding and not British, but then again the Argentines aren't the stupid. Perhaps the Syria vote was a turning point and we can remember the common sense of staying out of Vietnam and furthermore remember just how the US has treated us in the past and indeed still treats us on certain issues.

Uncovered: American duplicity that finally explodes the myth of a 'Special Relationship': How US discussed 'blasting the hell' out of UK forces in the Suez Crisis... and other shameful betrayals of our historic alliance | Mail Online

Well everyone I know and all my relatives who fought in WWII all liked the British alot and most Americans felt sorry for what they were going through in 1939 to 1941. Most Americans wanted to help the Brithsh alot but they also did not want to really get involved in another European war and the US had laws about supplying arms to countries at war.

But Rosevelt did what he could to help and get it by congress. Why would he work a deal to get the British 50 destroyers and give what else he could get by congress. In fact alot of Americans feel like I do that we are part English and consider Britian almost like another home country. Sure I dont know all the politics involved but I do know the US did what it could and did not ignore the British. And of course we did not want to get in another European war. Here is a war we send our troops all over the world to fight and die and most felt why as its Europe's war not ours. Heck we could have just fought the Japenese who are the ones who attacked us.

But no they did like Churchill wanted and put Europe first. How do you think some of us Americans felt when 1.5 million American troops were idle in England and not in the Pacific where they were needed to fight. So I dont see how you can say Americans did not like the British. Myself I consider the British-US alliance in WWII a very great alliance maybe the best ever for two nations at war. And many Americans dont go around saying we saved Britian in WWII as the British had fought hard and done all they could but of course when the US came in Churchill new it would help the British alot with our industry and the ability to build up a large armed force.

When you look at the battles in WWII the British were getting banged around alot before the US was in the war. But once the British and US troops started fighting together they were winning the battles. I am not saying its because the US came in the war it just happened that way. And even you know there was no way the British could have opened the second front in Europe on their own without the US. So sure to some people it might look like the US saved Britian but we here all know it took both fighting together with the Soviets to stop Hitler. Both countries did what they could and of course the US built more war machines then anyone and we supplied more troops in the end but its only common sense when we had a larger population of about 130 million to about 46 million. So I dont say anything like the US saved the British's ass's or the US won the war single handed. Yes I do feel the US did alot when you consider we were not at total war as we did not feel the mainland US was threatened as I am sure the British fought even harder knowing their country was threatened to an attack by Germany.


So even if the politicians did not do what you wanted during the war dont think that me or most Americans would ever try and put the British down as I respect what they did and like you I dont like to hear negative things about our countries as they achieved great feats in WWII working together. Ron
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 07:20 PM
 
4,449 posts, read 4,597,625 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
The Soviets were going nowhere. They could just about hold the USSR
together.
That's why later on they went with the adage, 'Go 'west young man!' In hindsight this can be understood as done for 'their' security as they took stock of their 'conquered' territories ias the war was winding down and the Reich was destroyed. No way they wanted Germany to rise from the ashes and threaten again. No way was anybody going to invade them again. And also a time to settle scores.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 10:05 PM
 
447 posts, read 730,795 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
That's why later on they went with the adage, 'Go 'west young man!' In hindsight this can be understood as done for 'their' security as they took stock of their 'conquered' territories ias the war was winding down and the Reich was destroyed. No way they wanted Germany to rise from the ashes and threaten again. No way was anybody going to invade them again. And also a time to settle scores.

I can understand how the Soviets felt about Germany. But was it right to keep control of the eastern European countries and not give them their freedom after the war ended ? Ron
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 06:02 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,035,571 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by 383man View Post
I can understand how the Soviets felt about Germany. But was it right to keep control of the eastern European countries and not give them their freedom after the war ended ? Ron
Not from a Soviet point of view. They suffered 25 million dead. They were determined that was not going to happen again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 06:51 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,035,571 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by 383man View Post
Well everyone I know and all my relatives who fought in WWII all liked the British alot and most Americans felt sorry for what they were going through in 1939 to 1941. Most Americans wanted to help the Brithsh alot but they also did not want to really get involved in another European war and the US had laws about supplying arms to countries at war.
..
..
But Rosevelt did what he could to help and get it by congress. Why would he work a deal to get the British 50 destroyers and give what else he could get by congress.
..
..
When you look at the battles in WWII the British were getting banged around alot before the US was in the war.
There are a few points here. Firstly, up until early 1941, the British had destroyed the German surface fleet and most of the French fleet and disabled a major part of the Italian fleet. Beat the Luftwaffe over Dunkirk and in the misnomer the Battle of Britain. Pushed the Italians out of East Africa and decimated the Italian army in North Africa and were about to take all the southern Med coast. Germany was being bombed from the air with raids of over 100 bombers - 150 over Nuremberg - using the new navigational device, Gee. A massive air bombing fleet was being assembled. The RAF shot down over 700 German fighters over continental Europe in 1941. After the small BEF (only 9% of all allied forces in France) left France in June 1940, the Brits went on the rampage. So much so Franco told Hitler the Brits would win and he would not join in with Germany.

In 1941 the Germans gained a foothold in North Africa and tooing and froing occurred. Germany never looked like at any time getting to the Suez Canal always exhausting their supply lines facing regrouped British forces. The small British Army that hastily went to Greece from North Africa was defeated by a million German and Italian troops. But the British defeated the French in Syria and supressed and German inspired uprising in Iraq securing and controlling the oil rich Middle east, which was more important than Greece.

Secondly, it is factually clear beyond doubt that the USA asset stripped the UK while she was fighting alone. The USA knew they were to be involved at some stage and Roosevelt even stated that the UK was doing the fighting for them. The USA was mobilizing in massive way. Roosevelt even came up with analogies of a neighbour's house being on fire and loaning his hose to put out fire.

The Turkish ambassador to the UK stated that the UK can raise 45 million troops from its empire so will win, and Turkey stayed cool towards Germany, except when they were in the southern USSR - in case of German invasion. The UK could raise 45 million troops if it wanted to end the war quickly, but needed to equip and train them quickly which is a massive undertaking. British industry, the same size as Germanys, could not provide the equipment fast enough. That is where the USA came in. Churchill stated to Roosevelt to give the UK materials without charge, which made sense. The British Empire could do the fighting and the USA do some supplying and not be involved on the ground. He never got a reply.

So the Brits were doing the fighting for the USA (freely acknowledged by the US) with some of their materials and they were charging for it. mmmmmm Yes. They insisted all UK assets (about a quarter of US industry) be sold to US concerns, which went at knock down prices, before "selling" any materials. There was considerable trade between the UK and the USA prior to WW2 - the UK took most of its wheat from the USA. Once war broke out the USA said this normal trade was "supplying" the UK.

BTW, the 50 rust bucket WW1 destroyers the USA provided were more a political statement. Few were used and the UK gave a few to the USSR. These antiquated craft were of little use to the UK.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 07:31 AM
 
4,449 posts, read 4,597,625 times
Reputation: 3146
I can understand how the Soviets felt about Germany. But was it right to keep control of the eastern European countries and not give them their freedom after the war ended ? Ron

In my post I did want to present the Soviet mind-set which impelled them to take 'control' of the eastern European countries as the war wound down and cracks started to appear between the Allies. in my view, the Soviet 'takeover' of those countries was one of the biggest calamities of the 20th century. The repercussions are still being felt today and as far as I can see they won't be going away for the quite forseeable future. The chances of it slipping away or easing up are simply like a snowball going through hell. Just my take.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 08:35 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,035,571 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
in my view, the Soviet 'takeover' of those countries was one of the biggest calamities of the 20th century. The repercussions are still being felt today and as far as I can see they won't be going away for the quite forseeable future.
There are no problems with the ex eastern European states. The problem is the split up of the USSR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:00 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top