I'm glad you're proud of your country, not enough people are; I wasn't trying to insult you, just to say that it's hard to judge the actions of an embattled nation trying to fight for it's own survival. I'll try to address your most important points here.
First off, I totally agree that much more should have been done to prevent Germany's re-armament and power-mongering. Chamberlain entirely misjudged Hitler's intentions and capabilities. I think that Chamberlain, like many people of the day, sympathised with Germany's desire to regain it's national pride and power; the Treaty of Versailles had been very (maybe too) tough on Germany. However, Chamberlain's failure to stop Hitler at Czechoslovakia weakened our position and gave Hitler extra encouragement to take whatever land he wanted. Few people would consider Chamberlain to be a good example of English premiership and leadership. I suspect that most people simply didn't believe that Hitler would be prepared to plunge Europe into another war.
But you go on to say:
"The United States was FOUNDED by people who were FED UP with the "old world" and wanted to be FREE! A HECK of a lot of the people from ENGLAND who came to the U.S., came here because they were totally fed up with the King and HIS "gang!"
Of course I remember that; we learnt, all too late in this case, that the colonies deserved fair representation and consideration in government. Of course, the next hundred years weren't all roses for you lot were they?
However, I find it extremely distasteful for you to suggest that you wouldn't support us against a rampaging tyrant because of an ancient and irrelevant squabble.
You then talk about the First World War
You joined us in the first world war because you were our ally; this means you're obliged to help us out; we were fighting a justified war against Austria and Germany because they had sparked a conflict against our other ally; Russia. Your losses, compared to those of the major European players, were negligible. The Great War slaughtered, maimed and scarred an entire generation who honestly believed, afterwards, that the like could never happen again due to the pure horror of it; they reckoned without knowledge of Hitler. Russia was destroyed and plunged into turbulent revolution and civil war, Germany and Austria were crippled by the war and punished for starting it. Britain survived of course, and so did America but you never felt the pain of it like we did. Maybe that's why you didn't care for our needs in the Second World War.
"Americans got little more than a BELLYFULL OF INGRATITUDE for all their efforts! The only RESULTS of WWI, that Americans saw, were constant SQUABBLING between nations, tarrif walls, and failure to reduce armaments!"
Of course you were thanked and remembered for the part you played, but to expect more than that for doing what you were obliged and expected to do would just be kidding yourselves.
"MOST Americans were TOTALLY DISGUSTED, and concluded that they had been just plain SUCKERED, and they were NOT going to let it happen AGAIN!"
Because you're the shining pole that all moral compasses point to?
"WWII was long before my time (I was born in 1952), but I am TOTALLY in favor of Roosevelt's efforts to send aid to Britain!" Well, that's noble of you; I was born in 1991 and so the war is not exactly fresh in my memory, but it is fresh in my mind. I think it's the duty of all British subjects to remember the price paid for them by their ancestors.
We did need that aid and many American mariners died in the effort of bringing it to us as German U-boats sunk as many ships as they could in an attempt to starve us. Lack of resources and rationing were an ever-present aspect of life in Britain well into the 1960s.
"But MOST Americans at THAT time were just plain FED UP, they were NOT in favor of aiding ANYBODY again, and they wanted NOTHING to do with another war in Europe."
Because you'd have rather seen Hitler enslave and murder all that stood before him than have gotten your hands dirty? Or maybe because pragmatism is easy when you're thousands of miles away from risk.
And then you make some bold, sweeping statements.
"You mean nations like Austria...and Czechoslavakia?"
No, I mean nations like Poland, Holland, Belgium and France. Anyway, I've already said that allowing Czechoslovakia to be taken was immoral and dangerous. Austria is different, they had also been our enemies in the great war and largely wanted to be united with Germany, if not actually annexed.
"An AWFUL LOT of the peril that Britain faced during 1940, was a mess of their OWN MAKING!"
Now, that's just ridiculous; we had given Hitler more lee-way certainly, we had allowed him to get away with something unacceptable. However, I would suggest that the peril was the same any way round; Hitler would have taken them anyway whether he was allowed to or not and the war would have just started over Czechoslovakia instead of over Poland.
You then say that we got our "butts kicked" in Norway and Western Europe; Norway I would accept but I think the Western Europe part is something of an overstatement; we were pushed out of France not because of any kind of incompetence but because we were fighting a highly greater force backed up by plundering and slave labour from the occupied territories. No, I can't blame you for that; I can, however, blame your absence.
Moving on, yes Chamberlain was, in hindsight, gravely and dangerously deluded about Germany; however I can understand his fear and horror of war. Churchill, on the other hand, was an incredible hero and leader and he kept us going through our darkest hours.
We entered the war as one of the few forces for good, fighting for our freedom and that of Europe; like in the First World War, you Americans never paid the same price that we did. That's why, on the whole, Britons treat the memories of our heroes well. Your war-films, or at least the ones that I've seen, don't have the same reverence, the same tenderness that our classics do. We don't need characters to tell us how terrible the war was because we know it and they knew it too; however, being Englishmen they went out and did their duty to an extent well beyond heroism. Bader is a figure of hope and courage who embodies the British spirit. This is my only response to your last statement.
I think I've addressed most of your points well enough and I'd be interested in hearing any retort you may have.
Sam Davidson
We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
sammyd_dominatin_mc
16 years ago
Hello again
With your first point, I am completely in agreement. I know a fair amount about Churchill; not enough because our wretched government refuses to teach it's kids anything about our nation's proud history. I will seek both of those out - cheers for the suggestions.
Your second point seems to be suggesting that America existed as an idea before independence; you may well be right. The philosophy of the American Revolution is not an area that I know a lot about; I know there was a lot of unrest among people like Franklin and Thomas Payne long before before the Boston Tea Party. However, I also know that there was never one single philosophy behind America until you wrote your constitution.
I would suggest that the rebellion was less about a lack of loyalty to the King and more about a feeling that the thirteen colonies could provide better for themselves if they were economically independent from the Empire.
On Franklin's quote I should point out a difference between our two countries; you think that "democracy", that is to say direct democracy, is the purpose of government. We think that fairness and stability are the purpose of government. By the time of your Revolution, we had already had three major political revolutions (Cromwell, Reconstruction, Glorious Revolution) along with numerous religious and constitutional changes. By the 18th Century, the monarchs had learnt that an English King only reigns by the will of the people; if he goes against that will, religiously or politically, then he comes against some big problems. Constitutionally, we have many documents which protect the rights and freedoms of all subjects; the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Right, the 1688 Bill of Rights etc. What I'm trying to explain here is how, in England, a Republic is worth nothing, let alone fighting for. The Monarchy bring stability and the constitutional checks and balances bring the stability; it's a shame that Gordon Brown is *beep* all over our contstitution, but that's another debate.
Britain did have a well-prepared and well-trained military; however, it was trained and prepared for fighting small-scale colonial wars; the threat of war in Europe had not been appreciated and yes that is our fault, not yours. The same goes for the USA who were also unprepared for slightly different reasons, and that is your fault not ours.
You know I was never trying to blame too much on America, I think discussing the successes and failures of one's each other's nation is always going to be incendiary, but it is useful.
I would hardly accept that the majority of British officers in the Great War were incompetent. I shall address the issue of officers generally first and then go on to the generals because they need more criticism.
British officers were and, to an extent, still are chosen from among the upper-classes. I'm not here to discuss the merits of the class system, personally I think that it's been demonised to an extent that simply isn't accurate but that's beside the point. The fact is that these upper-class young men had received the best education in the world at British Public Schools and had gone on to train as officers at places such as Sandhurst Academy. The level of skill and training imbued in them was second to none, as a result I find it hard to agree that Britain had largely bad officers. Of course some were more talented than others, but on the whole they looked after their men and acted selflessly and patriotically.
The generals were, however, a more mixed bag and this is because there had never been a war like the Great War; they had to learn how to fight in trench warfare as they went along. This led to dreadful mistakes such as those made by Hague at the Battle of the Somme. However, we did, after all, win the war so it's clear that they learnt in the end.
All the men in my father's side of my family were officers in the army; I've heard terrible stories from various wars. From the experience that I have of British officers and from British gentlemen on the whole, I would like to tell you that to an Englishmen, duty is the most important thing. For those officers it was duty to their King, duty to their country and duty to their men. And where fatal mistakes were made, by anyone in the chain of command or indeed when it became necessary; the officers would die alongside the men as is only right and proper.
"As Napolean once said- "There is no such thing as a bad soldier; Only BAD OFFICERS."" Well, he would know.
Yes, it was uncalled for and I only meant it as a reflection of how many people felt and still feel about America's lack of involvement in the first half of the war. I'm glad you got involved too, you helped bring an end to the war and save more innocents from slaughter.
I would suggest that if you had waited until you were fighting Hitler alone then the war would probably end as a stalemate; I couldn't imagine the US being able to liberate all of Europe (and Russia presumably) and clearly, Hitler couldn't have actually beaten you without nukes.
We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family
reply
share
sammyd_dominatin_mc
16 years ago
Oh, I should make it clear that the first post that I was replying to was this one:
<quote>Oh, yes, the Brits did deliver the legs, but I always thought that this was pretty scurrilous. I am sure that Douglas applauded.
- German ace Adolph Gallard described the raid as "Not very friendly!"
...somebody should have told Gallard that "there was a war on"-!
Even so, I thought that it WAS kind of a dirty trick on the part of the Brits.</quote>
We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
sammyd_dominatin_mc
16 years ago
Yes, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, democracy was one of the principals upon which your nation was founded; you certainly all set a lot of store by it now. Yes, we did lose the right to bear arms; this is because several recent governments have believed that they have the right to change our constitutional law. There's a big backlash against Brown ratifying the Lisbon Treaty because it goes against our constitution (as well as the will of the public) but he's hardly the first. You're completely right about the right to bear arms, we have a bill of rights to - it was drafted in 1688 by Parliament and signed in 1689 by William of Orange. The history behind this is complex, but essentially James II had been ruling by decree and passing various illegal laws and orders which breached the rights and freedoms of his people. As a result, Parliament forced him to abdicate with the help of William of Orange, a Prince of Holland but also heir to the English throne, who later became King. The Bill, which still stands as constitutional law, says "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence".
Thanks for the offer, I'll certainly look out for it.
Well, it's certainly debate-worthy.
Sorry this is a short reply, I'm a bit busy at the moment.
We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family
reply
share