|
|
Post by limey² on Aug 19, 2020 4:56:33 GMT
Is that a serious question? Don't they teach 20th Century history in America? Just answer my question Limey. I'm always delighted to assist in battling the twin demons of Ignorance and Misconception, Archie, so I shall ignore your presumptious tone with grace. In both WW1 and WW2, the result of an Allied defeat would have been a world order inimical to the core, declared, American values of democracy and free trade. In both World Wars, the UK fought at great cost and was essential to victory-without the UK's involvement, it is certain that the German alliances would have quickly become master from Atlantic to Pacific and Arctic to Indian Ocean in both Wars, and of the Mediterranean and Africa too. The outcome of that would have been the isolation, in a world of authoritarianism, of the USA as a lone democracy, trading on terms dictated, and militarily irrelevant. In such a scenario, it's impossible to see American ideals of democracy surviving long. I know American right wingers, like their brethren elsewhere, have a good deal of sympathy with the social structures we can postulate for a Kaiser or Fuhrer led planet, but the application of a little honesty will give us agreement that either would have been a Bad Thing. In 1914-17 & 1939-41, isolationism ensured that the USA's military was entirely useless as a capable offensive force; American industrial might allowed extraordinarily rapid arming from 1917 and 1941, but in no way could an isolated USA have defeated a victorious German alliance either time. Thus, both in WW1 and WW2, the UK saved the US from having its way of life besieged, hemmed in, and ultimately changed by events to fall in line with authoritarian world norms. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 19, 2020 6:04:33 GMT
Just answer my question Limey. I'm always delighted to assist in battling the twin demons of Ignorance and Misconception, Archie, so I shall ignore your presumptious tone with grace. In both WW1 and WW2, the result of an Allied defeat would have been a world order inimical to the core, declared, American values of democracy and free trade. In both World Wars, the UK fought at great cost and was essential to victory-without the UK's involvement, it is certain that the German alliances would have quickly become master from Atlantic to Pacific and Arctic to Indian Ocean in both Wars, and of the Mediterranean and Africa too. The outcome of that would have been the isolation, in a world of authoritarianism, of the USA as a lone democracy, trading on terms dictated, and militarily irrelevant. In such a scenario, it's impossible to see American ideals of democracy surviving long. I know American right wingers, like their brethren elsewhere, have a good deal of sympathy with the social structures we can postulate for a Kaiser or Fuhrer led planet, but the application of a little honesty will give us agreement that either would have been a Bad Thing. In 1914-17 & 1939-41, isolationism ensured that the USA's military was entirely useless as a capable offensive force; American industrial might allowed extraordinarily rapid arming from 1917 and 1941, but in no way could an isolated USA have defeated a victorious German alliance either time. Thus, both in WW1 and WW2, the UK saved the US from having its way of life besieged, hemmed in, and ultimately changed by events to fall in line with authoritarian world norms.
The only problem is your premise is that without positive US assistance, including lend-lease before 1942, the UK could not have withstood the Axis powers.
Also, the USA was re-arming well before 1941, especially its navy. Where do you think we got the four aircraft carriers the Japanese failed to hit at Pearl Harbor? And within six months, the US air and sea power had turned the tide of battle in the Pacific at Midway, setting Japan back on its heels until its final surrender in 1945. You Brits had basically given up east of India by then, other than Australia. And had the US not taken the initiative, you might well have lost Australia as well. And all this in spite of the US sending the majority of war materiel to the European theater.
True, the US ground forces were woeful before Pearl. But as a nation isolated by two vast oceans, we didn't need a big army for self-defense. Naval air power was far more critical.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Aug 19, 2020 6:50:10 GMT
Yes, we are.
We have freedom, wealth, opportunity, strength, faith, democracy, etc.
Why else do so many foreigners want to come here?
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Aug 19, 2020 6:51:18 GMT
By many measures, it is the most ethnically diverse. I’m told this is a society’s strength. (Want to honor the OP’s intentions by adding gasoline...) Ugh. (puke) |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Aug 19, 2020 7:55:51 GMT
I'm always delighted to assist in battling the twin demons of Ignorance and Misconception, Archie, so I shall ignore your presumptious tone with grace. In both WW1 and WW2, the result of an Allied defeat would have been a world order inimical to the core, declared, American values of democracy and free trade. In both World Wars, the UK fought at great cost and was essential to victory-without the UK's involvement, it is certain that the German alliances would have quickly become master from Atlantic to Pacific and Arctic to Indian Ocean in both Wars, and of the Mediterranean and Africa too. The outcome of that would have been the isolation, in a world of authoritarianism, of the USA as a lone democracy, trading on terms dictated, and militarily irrelevant. In such a scenario, it's impossible to see American ideals of democracy surviving long. I know American right wingers, like their brethren elsewhere, have a good deal of sympathy with the social structures we can postulate for a Kaiser or Fuhrer led planet, but the application of a little honesty will give us agreement that either would have been a Bad Thing. In 1914-17 & 1939-41, isolationism ensured that the USA's military was entirely useless as a capable offensive force; American industrial might allowed extraordinarily rapid arming from 1917 and 1941, but in no way could an isolated USA have defeated a victorious German alliance either time. Thus, both in WW1 and WW2, the UK saved the US from having its way of life besieged, hemmed in, and ultimately changed by events to fall in line with authoritarian world norms.
The only problem is your premise is that without positive US assistance, including lend-lease before 1942, the UK could not have withstood the Axis powers.
Also, the USA was re-arming well before 1941, especially its navy. Where do you think we got the four aircraft carriers the Japanese failed to hit at Pearl Harbor? And within six months, the US air and sea power had turned the tide of battle in the Pacific at Midway, setting Japan back on its heels until its final surrender in 1945. You Brits had basically given up east of India by then, other than Australia. And had the US not taken the initiative, you might well have lost Australia as well. And all this in spite of the US sending the majority of war materiel to the European theater.
True, the US ground forces were woeful before Pearl. But as a nation isolated by two vast oceans, we didn't need a big army for self-defense. Naval air power was far more critical.
There's no doubt that American armaments and other supplies (particularly some obsolescent destroyers) were important to UK efforts before Dec. 1941, and similarly before 1917. However, the combat between UK - European Axis prior to Barbarossa used very little US weaponry, and with Malta-level rationing, all supplies could have been met, just. The main point is that had Britain not fought, the US would not have been in a position to challenge the victorious Germans. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 19, 2020 8:13:43 GMT
The only problem is your premise is that without positive US assistance, including lend-lease before 1942, the UK could not have withstood the Axis powers.
Also, the USA was re-arming well before 1941, especially its navy. Where do you think we got the four aircraft carriers the Japanese failed to hit at Pearl Harbor? And within six months, the US air and sea power had turned the tide of battle in the Pacific at Midway, setting Japan back on its heels until its final surrender in 1945. You Brits had basically given up east of India by then, other than Australia. And had the US not taken the initiative, you might well have lost Australia as well. And all this in spite of the US sending the majority of war materiel to the European theater.
True, the US ground forces were woeful before Pearl. But as a nation isolated by two vast oceans, we didn't need a big army for self-defense. Naval air power was far more critical.
There's no doubt that American armaments and other supplies (particularly some obsolescent destroyers) were important to UK efforts before Dec. 1941, and similarly before 1917. However, the combat between UK - European Axis prior to Barbarossa used very little US weaponry, and with Malta-level rationing, all supplies could have been met, just. The main point is that had Britain not fought, the US would not have been in a position to challenge the victorious Germans.
If Britain had not fought, you might not be around to pontificate about it today.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,526
|
Post by thor on Aug 19, 2020 8:32:48 GMT
The only problem is your premise is that without positive US assistance, including lend-lease before 1942, the UK could not have withstood the Axis powers.
Also, the USA was re-arming well before 1941, especially its navy. Where do you think we got the four aircraft carriers the Japanese failed to hit at Pearl Harbor? And within six months, the US air and sea power had turned the tide of battle in the Pacific at Midway, setting Japan back on its heels until its final surrender in 1945. You Brits had basically given up east of India by then, other than Australia. And had the US not taken the initiative, you might well have lost Australia as well. And all this in spite of the US sending the majority of war materiel to the European theater.
True, the US ground forces were woeful before Pearl. But as a nation isolated by two vast oceans, we didn't need a big army for self-defense. Naval air power was far more critical.
There's no doubt that American armaments and other supplies (particularly some obsolescent destroyers) were important to UK efforts before Dec. 1941, and similarly before 1917. However, the combat between UK - European Axis prior to Barbarossa used very little US weaponry, and with Malta-level rationing, all supplies could have been met, just. The main point is that had Britain not fought, the US would not have been in a position to challenge the victorious Germans. While it is true that the destroyers sent to the RN were obsolete, they were more than adequate to carry ASDIC and lots of depth charges. Don't need speed to hunt a submerged U-Boat, and their speed far exceeded that of the U-Boats on the surface as well. Which is precisely what the UK needed - escorts for their convoys to augment the RN fleet destroyers, and Hunt and Flower classes of escorts. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Aug 19, 2020 10:15:54 GMT
There's no doubt that American armaments and other supplies (particularly some obsolescent destroyers) were important to UK efforts before Dec. 1941, and similarly before 1917. However, the combat between UK - European Axis prior to Barbarossa used very little US weaponry, and with Malta-level rationing, all supplies could have been met, just. The main point is that had Britain not fought, the US would not have been in a position to challenge the victorious Germans.
If Britain had not fought, you might not be around to pontificate about it today.
Very true. My paternal grandparents only met because Grandad was evacuated out of London and moved to North Wales. His home was destroyed by a V1 flying bomb, so he stayed on. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Aug 19, 2020 10:17:54 GMT
There's no doubt that American armaments and other supplies (particularly some obsolescent destroyers) were important to UK efforts before Dec. 1941, and similarly before 1917. However, the combat between UK - European Axis prior to Barbarossa used very little US weaponry, and with Malta-level rationing, all supplies could have been met, just. The main point is that had Britain not fought, the US would not have been in a position to challenge the victorious Germans. While it is true that the destroyers sent to the RN were obsolete, they were more than adequate to carry ASDIC and lots of depth charges. Don't need speed to hunt a submerged U-Boat, and their speed far exceeded that of the U-Boats on the surface as well. Which is precisely what the UK needed - escorts for their convoys to augment the RN fleet destroyers, and Hunt and Flower classes of escorts. It still astonishing that US shipping wasn't convoyed sooner, with the experience of the British so well known in relevant circles. |
|
|
|
Post by william on Aug 19, 2020 10:54:35 GMT
This should be interesting. Of course it is.. even with all our faults we are the greatest.. This is where participation trophies are born. "Honey, I know you lost the game by 42 points, but lookie lookie we got this super cool #1 trophy because we are so much better than all those other teams that beat us. |
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Aug 19, 2020 12:33:21 GMT
We've definitely lost some ground on the freedom to trade and the rule of law. After 8 years of obummer leading from behind (most people call that following) he had just about destroyed our manufacturing industry, not allowed the military to have much needed new equipment that they had been requesting, we were headed to only having health care provided by the govt and no private health care, and his lack of support for the police has brought us to the blacks murdering blacks at will, making it almost seem like a Saturday night sport. Despicable attitude by blacks who obviously don't believe that black lives matter. |
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Aug 19, 2020 12:35:20 GMT
How did your country save our democracy and capitalism twice?  ? Is that a serious question? Don't they teach 20th Century history in America? As far as I can see, they don't teach any history to our kids, at least not accurately. |
|
|
|
Post by william on Aug 19, 2020 13:24:56 GMT
Is that a serious question? Don't they teach 20th Century history in America? As far as I can see, they don't teach any history to our kids, at least not accurately. Just what history is taught inaccurately? |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,526
|
Post by thor on Aug 19, 2020 14:48:42 GMT
We've definitely lost some ground on the freedom to trade and the rule of law. After 8 years of obummer leading from behind (most people call that following) he had just about destroyed our manufacturing industry, not allowed the military to have much needed new equipment that they had been requesting, we were headed to only having health care provided by the govt and no private health care, and his lack of support for the police has brought us to the blacks murdering blacks at will, making it almost seem like a Saturday night sport. Despicable attitude by blacks who obviously don't believe that black lives matter. Scratch Creep long enough and her racism comes out in all its glory. Bless her heart. I wonder if she is in this pic:  |
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Aug 19, 2020 14:53:25 GMT
After 8 years of obummer leading from behind (most people call that following) he had just about destroyed our manufacturing industry, not allowed the military to have much needed new equipment that they had been requesting, we were headed to only having health care provided by the govt and no private health care, and his lack of support for the police has brought us to the blacks murdering blacks at will, making it almost seem like a Saturday night sport. Despicable attitude by blacks who obviously don't believe that black lives matter. Scratch Creep long enough and her racism comes out in all its glory. Bless her heart. I wonder if she is in this pic: Blah, blah, blah. Post one racist thread of which I've approved or even written. You're weird. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2020 17:10:28 GMT
Yes, we are. We have freedom, wealth, opportunity, strength, faith, democracy, etc. Why else do so many foreigners want to come here? How typically ignorant, as proven by the first posts in the thread (FYI, we're 15th in "Freedom "). So how many first world foreigners are clamoring to come here? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2020 17:16:27 GMT
Scratch Creep long enough and her racism comes out in all its glory. Bless her heart. I wonder if she is in this pic: Blah, blah, blah. Post one racist thread of which I've approved or even written. You're weird. Racism aside, try to stay on topic and not make this a tear down Obummer thread. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Aug 19, 2020 22:40:28 GMT
As far as I can see, they don't teach any history to our kids, at least not accurately. Just what history is taught inaccurately? Meaningful history is necessarily subjective to an extent. Objective history is simply a catalogue of dates and events. Little is informative in that. Like if your gran told you "your Aunt Marge and Uncle Jim married on 3rd August 1940".well... great. The useful and interesting detail is coloured by interpretation "Jim was in the Infantry and going to Africa, her sisters think she had a baby scare & insisted on a wedding in case she was on her own with a war baby". True? Maybe. A much richer light on the mores, norms and fears of lower middle class 1940 English 20somethings there, though, eh? Lucy Worsley is a historian whose latest BBC series is this: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00024k8... she's enormously entertaining and if things don't work out with the current Mrs. Limey, she is next on my list, so if you watch it be nice. The premise of the series is that history can be a form, or version, of truth without necessarily being entirely accurate. It's good, educational stuff both in its content and in its points about what history is. She looks great in a 1850s Southern Belle dress too. |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Aug 19, 2020 22:53:43 GMT
Yes, we are. We have freedom, wealth, opportunity, strength, faith, democracy, etc. Why else do so many foreigners want to come here? How typically ignorant, as proven by the first posts in the thread (FYI, we're 15th in "Freedom "). So how many first world foreigners are clamoring to come here? No, my statement is perfectly valid. The Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl. They are considered the No. 1 team. Are they the top-rated offense? No. Are they the top-rated defense? No. They’re just No. 1 overall. Just like America. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2020 23:15:55 GMT
How typically ignorant, as proven by the first posts in the thread (FYI, we're 15th in "Freedom "). So how many first world foreigners are clamoring to come here? No, my statement is perfectly valid. The Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl. They are considered the No. 1 team. Are they the top-rated offense? No. Are they the top-rated defense? No. They’re just No. 1 overall. Just like America. I approve of this message..... |
|
?