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 posted this in UK and I think it's relevant, but I'd also like to see the answer in the history forum:
I like to read a lot of WW2 home front news about England and US both. I've read a lot about how England fortified itself during war years, being an island nation against blockades that could have starved the nation out through a variety of measures. Times and circumstances are different of course, but all things being equal, in a similar situation, would England rise to the challenge again as it did during the war and succeed at that level. Those were lean and difficult times to be sure, but the nation put forth stringent standards and achieved a level of success through it. Would it be possible again?
As recently as 1982 the Falklands war showed what the UK can do. They had to sail half way around the world and fight war at a moments notice and succeeded admirably and quite quickly.
As recently as 1982 the Falklands war showed what the UK can do. They had to sail half way around the world and fight war at a moments notice and succeeded admirably and quite quickly.
But England dedicated more surface warships to the Falklands conflict than exist in the entire Royal Navy right now. The RN fleet is less than half of what it was in 1982, and it does not have a single operational carrier--two were in the Falklands. The RN is a mere shadow of its former self.
I posted this in UK and I think it's relevant, but I'd also like to see the answer in the history forum:
I like to read a lot of WW2 home front news about England and US both. I've read a lot about how England fortified itself during war years, being an island nation against blockades that could have starved the nation out through a variety of measures. Times and circumstances are different of course, but all things being equal, in a similar situation, would England rise to the challenge again as it did during the war and succeed at that level. Those were lean and difficult times to be sure, but the nation put forth stringent standards and achieved a level of success through it. Would it be possible again?
Are you talking about the logistical challenge of holding out against foreign invasion or the mettle of it's people and social structure? England survived in WW2 for the same reason it survived throughout history, including the Napoleonic Wars - The British Isles are protected by the North Sea, and the British ruled the seas. But you know that from your post. The difficulty in answering this question is trying to figure out, with today's non-conventional warfare (including terrorism, mobile warfare, and nuclear weapons), if it's even plausible for your scenario to arise again where the British Isles are in a siege situation, particularly with the US as a staunch ally. It won't be U-boats, the Luftwaffe, and v-1 rockets they will have to deal with. I can't see any possible conventional situation comparable to previous wars, thus I cannot answer.
I guess the argument could be made that the British people have softened due to the effects of it's post-war entitled social democracy structure. But if history shows anything, human's will rise to the occasion and defend their homeland and beliefs to the bitter end. Doesn't matter what nationality, religion, or race.
However, it does remind me of a movie "Children of Men". In this movie it is a future dystopian world that has lapsed into chaos and anarchy in a world that is doomed...except for England. It reminds me of a headline shown on a prop newspaper in this movie - "England Soldiers On". Only England remained as a nation.
But England dedicated more surface warships to the Falklands conflict than exist in the entire Royal Navy right now. The RN fleet is less than half of what it was in 1982, and it does not have a single operational carrier--two were in the Falklands. The RN is a mere shadow of its former self.
The RN does not need to be big. There are contingency plans to expand in case of war.
Are you talking about the logistical challenge of holding out against foreign invasion or the mettle of it's people and social structure? England survived in WW2 for the same reason it survived throughout history, including the Napoleonic Wars - The British Isles are protected by the North Sea, and the British ruled the seas. But you know that from your post. The difficulty in answering this question is trying to figure out, with today's non-conventional warfare (including terrorism, mobile warfare, and nuclear weapons), if it's even plausible for your scenario to arise again where the British Isles are in a siege situation, particularly with the US as a staunch ally. It won't be U-boats, the Luftwaffe, and v-1 rockets they will have to deal with. I can't see any possible conventional situation comparable to previous wars, thus I cannot answer.
I guess the argument could be made that the British people have softened due to the effects of it's post-war entitled social democracy structure. But if history shows anything, human's will rise to the occasion and defend their homeland and beliefs to the bitter end. Doesn't matter what nationality, religion, or race.
However, it does remind me of a movie "Children of Men". In this movie it is a future dystopian world that has lapsed into chaos and anarchy in a world that is doomed...except for England. It reminds me of a headline shown on a prop newspaper in this movie - "England Soldiers On". Only England remained as a nation.
A great reply. I have many of the same thoughts and conclusions. I was referring more to holding out against invasion AND the mettle of the people. Not as elsewhere posted it's outward response to world events.
As recently as 1982 the Falklands war showed what the UK can do. They had to sail half way around the world and fight war at a moments notice and succeeded admirably and quite quickly.
Thanks, John. Not really what I was aiming at thematically however. I've always just marveled at how UK was able to steal itself against the odds, to take drastic measures inwardly as a nation through it's programs, measures, rationing, propaganda to hold out as an island nation and to really pull together as a national identity. Pretty much isolated from anything else, and to survive from within rather than without if that makes any sense.
England probably couldn't "do it" again. But maybe they with the help their Welsh, Scottish and Irish brothers in arms, just like they "did it" last time. Not to mention all the exiled Poles and Frenchmen, and heroic sacrifices of people from all over a now non-existent empire.
Strange question. If a similar threat to Hitler's Germany ever emerged again, then why not? A bit like asking if we could resist another Spanish Armada or Napoleon. The world changes and you deal with what is in front of you. If any country couldn't deal with a new threat, then it wouldn't deserve to continue in its current form.
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.
