Why dont the Americans mind their own F*cking Business?

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Hello gents,

Apologies for taking a little while to get back to you, I’ve been at work with 30 or so of those Americans that many people on here seem to dislike so much .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
So in hindsight, 90% bollocks – the British and commonwealth troops were very brave.

Atp

Born and bred in Sussex.

Very good and correct ATP but not sure that the facts fit too well with the Daily Mail/SKY History Channel 'versions' of world history.
Just a couple of minor points to add:
1) Appeasement of Hitler; surely one of the most disgraceful pieces of 20th century UK foreign policy (ie Halifax's) and just maybe there was an alternative to selling the Czechs et al down the river (if we'd had the balls).
2) Haven't we (ie HMG) just finished paying off the lend lease debt to the US - or is it just the debts run up during WW1?

Bbfn.

 

[Gwylan]

... Most of them also don’t like their government any more than the opinions on this thread show, but at least they are prepared to get out there and vote to do something about it, unlike the apathy that grips the UK.

I agree with about 90 percent of what you said in your post but the above quote is bollocks. Voter turnout in the UK is well above the US: turnout at the last general election was 61.4 percent (and that was the third lowest turnout this century), turnout at the last presidential election was 55.3 percent (and that was the highest turnout since 1968). If you look at average trends, turnout in the UK is about 20 percent above that in the US.

As for the rest of your post: I think you underestimate the effects that the Red Army had on the Wehrmacht. When the US did join the war in Europe, it was fighting an enemy that was much weakened. But if they hadn't joined in, we'd probably all be speaking Russian rather than German.

And yes, they supported us financially, but as Alex Dawson said, we only paid finished paying back the debt last year so it cost us.

 

[acrossthepond]

I agree with about 90 percent of what you said in your post but the above quote is bollocks. Voter turnout in the UK is well above the US: turnout at the last general election was 61.4 percent (and that was the third lowest turnout this century), turnout at the last presidential election was 55.3 percent (and that was the highest turnout since 1968). If you look at average trends, turnout in the UK is about 20 percent above that in the US.

As for the rest of your post: I think you underestimate the effects that the Red Army had on the Wehrmacht. When the US did join the war in Europe, it was fighting an enemy that was much weakened. But if they hadn't joined in, we'd probably all be speaking Russian rather than German.

And yes, they supported us financially, but as Alex Dawson said, we only paid finished paying back the debt last year so it cost us.

I suppose that counts as being hoisted by your own petard!! You're absolutely right, though I was more talking about trends than absolutes, where the UK's is decidedly downward (coupled with an increasing in general winging.)

On your last points, I agree, but I wasn't arguing that the yanks won it on their own, rather that we would have lost (to somebody) without them.

Nice to have paid the mortgage off isn't it!!

 

[NMH]

Oh, and back to those three pieces of paper that I was clutching - the third one cites Twentieth-century geopolitics as a topic that I know at least a little about.. I think that qualifies me to have an informed opinion on this, albeit that I’m dredging this up from quite a few years ago. I’m also a dab hand on NBC warfare, if you find the need.

Bluster and bullshit - do you have paperwork in that too?

IF you have studied and achieved this apparent diploma, why did you dismiss, without any decent attempt to discuss with some semblance, even of parity?

I did not say the Germans landed on American beaches and you know it.
I really don't think I would, for a moment have suggested the Americans were persecuting jews either - but Negros? Yessiree, and I notice you still have slaves (Hispanic ones now, earning low wages with no rights, conveniently overlooked by US Immigration?! I DON'T THINK SO BEAVIS)
Hitler DID have carte blanche over Europe, and in the beginning he had the overwhelming might of Russia on his side - we only know from HINDSIGHT that Russia would turn against the nazis - so Britain DID TAKE ON THE OVERWHELMING WITHOUT AMERICAN HELP, thankyou very much.

All the factors you are able, as ANYONE would be able to state, in HINDSIGHT, make only the underlining of what we pretty-much-know to be true - that Britain would ultimately have lost had the combined forces against us stood, and without US assistance as an ally. (the French were little use, but full credit to their brave underground force who, like The British, took on the Germans against ALL ODDS)

Your belittling of The Battle of Britain successes as down to the decision of Hitlers to distract from the battle - sort-of just conveniently DISMISSES the numbers of CASUALTIES SUFFERED by THE MANY against THE FEW!

As far as my casual glance, that I have even credited YOUR windy missive with - that was enough for me to know that you are loaded with the "bollocks" and little else. If I told you that you should go back and STUDY a little more, my faith in that would still be fraught with doubt, as you prove rather to have been reading between lines than the black and white.

I suggest that whatever you have been smoking, better that you teach others of the harm it did to your views of reality.

 

[Vlad the Impala]

so Britain DID TAKE ON THE OVERWHELMING WITHOUT AMERICAN HELP, thankyou very much.

Actually Britain had a very significant level of help from the USA from very early on (for which they rarely get any gratitude from the UK).

And of course pilots from quite a few nations (including the USA) took part in the Battle of Britain, not just us.

From battleofbritainmemorial.org:

"Perhaps the essential myth of the Battle of Britain can be summed up in the idea that this was a victory gained by young British officer pilots flying Spitfires.

Many were far from young. Teenagers fought in the Battle, but so did men in their 20, 30s and 40s. One air gunner was 51.

Many were not from the United Kingdom. The countries represented in Fighter Command in 1940 included Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Ireland, Jamaica, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Poland, the Rhodesias, South Africa and the United States."

 

[NMH]

I agree with about 90 percent of what you said in your post but the above quote is bollocks. Voter turnout in the UK is well above the US: turnout at the last general election was 61.4 percent (and that was the third lowest turnout this century), turnout at the last presidential election was 55.3 percent (and that was the highest turnout since 1968). If you look at average trends, turnout in the UK is about 20 percent above that in the US.

As for the rest of your post: I think you underestimate the effects that the Red Army had on the Wehrmacht. When the US did join the war in Europe, it was fighting an enemy that was much weakened. But if they hadn't joined in, we'd probably all be speaking Russian rather than German.

And yes, they supported us financially, but as Alex Dawson said, we only paid finished paying back the debt last year so it cost us.

But.... I would point out that voters in the US heavily distrusted the vote count - and even fewer trust the incumbent government.
The republican party held American Government up for two years previous to that, in an attempt to HI-JACK it - and because Clinton dabbled with his secretary?
That Britain would have to pay a debt, for having been the first line in defending the world, is astounding in itself.

That we 'have been declining as a world power' is conjecture based on our having given autonomy to our commonwealth. The USA bases it's power on consumption!
The war in Vietnam? They lost. They may cough and splutter and say "we didn't lose, we 'withdrew'!!" but....... sorry pardner, that was what we call, in the old-country, "losing"

If it wasn't for Great Britain, what language WOULD Americans be speaking??
It couldn't be ENGLISH now, could it? It would have to be some other language. FACT.

 

[NMH]

Actually Britain had a very significant level of help from the USA from very early on (for which they rarely get any gratitude from the UK).

And of course pilots from quite a few nations (including the USA) took part in the Battle of Britain, not just us.

From battleofbritainmemorial.org:

"Perhaps the essential myth of the Battle of Britain can be summed up in the idea that this was a victory gained by young British officer pilots flying Spitfires.

Many were far from young. Teenagers fought in the Battle, but so did men in their 20, 30s and 40s. One air gunner was 51.

Many were not from the United Kingdom. The countries represented in Fighter Command in 1940 included Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Ireland, Jamaica, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Poland, the Rhodesias, South Africa and the United States."

I had little doubt that we did get help from other nationals, including a creditable assistance from Gurkhas (sp), and some South Pacific Islanders. The war effort required that we bring to bear every possible iota of assitance and sympathies we could draw from every and any nook and cranny of the globe. Do we have to check every fighter's passport and birth certificate to make the statement true, that Britain took on the might of the combined German allied forces?
We were not the only ones either. Yugoslavia gave them some gyp too, I understand. I doubt they will be claiming that "without Yugoslavia, you would be speaking German" though.

 

[Vlad the Impala]

I doubt they will be claiming that "without Yugoslavia, you would be speaking German" though.

However one could make a great case for saying that without the USA and Lend/Lease we could indeed be speaking German.

 

[NMH]

However one could make a great case for saying that without the USA and Lend/Lease we could indeed be speaking German.

Fercrissakes, go back to the beginning again will you?
ONE COULD MAKE A GREAT CASE FOR SAYING THAT WITHOUT GREAT BRITAIN, THE USA COULD BE THE USG AND SPEAKING.... GERMAN.

And, as we know in hindsight, without RUSSIA turning around on Hitler.

what do you do, just like to go around in stupid circles for the sake of it?

On second thoughts, that's not a question.

 

[acrossthepond]

Bluster and bullshit - do you have paperwork in that too?

IF you have studied and achieved this apparent diploma, why did you dismiss, without any decent attempt to discuss with some semblance, even of parity?

I did not say the Germans landed on American beaches and you know it.
I really don't think I would, for a moment have suggested the Americans were persecuting jews either - but Negros? Yessiree, and I notice you still have slaves (Hispanic ones now, earning low wages with no rights, conveniently overlooked by US Immigration?! I DON'T THINK SO BEAVIS)
Hitler DID have carte blanche over Europe, and in the beginning he had the overwhelming might of Russia on his side - we only know from HINDSIGHT that Russia would turn against the nazis - so Britain DID TAKE ON THE OVERWHELMING WITHOUT AMERICAN HELP, thankyou very much.

All the factors you are able, as ANYONE would be able to state, in HINDSIGHT, make only the underlining of what we pretty-much-know to be true - that Britain would ultimately have lost had the combined forces against us stood, and without US assistance as an ally. (the French were little use, but full credit to their brave underground force who, like The British, took on the Germans against ALL ODDS)

Your belittling of The Battle of Britain successes as down to the decision of Hitlers to distract from the battle - sort-of just conveniently DISMISSES the numbers of CASUALTIES SUFFERED by THE MANY against THE FEW!

As far as my casual glance, that I have even credited YOUR windy missive with - that was enough for me to know that you are loaded with the "bollocks" and little else. If I told you that you should go back and STUDY a little more, my faith in that would still be fraught with doubt, as you prove rather to have been reading between lines than the black and white.

I suggest that whatever you have been smoking, better that you teach others of the harm it did to your views of reality.

Ok NMH – I’ll do you a deal. I will discuss your take on events without being dismissive (as it goes, I was establishing credentials, not dismissing, but I see how it could be read that way.) You quit the verbal abuse, or you can shove this conversation up your arse. If you thought I was windy, fine I can do history ‘lite’ too.

But a couple of things to start. First, I am as British as I assume you are – just because I live in the US, does not make me American. Second, I served in HM’s forces – and they supported me through much of my studies – so when I say we, us etc I mean the British, not the yanks, and what I wrote and write should be read in that context.

 With that in mind, tell me precisely which BRITISH beach the Germans landed troops on, when, and the outcome.
 Your original post says that the Americans would have erupted to “eradicate all JEWS and negroes” -
 The blacks were persecuted here, but what you are suggesting is systematic genocide – that’s what eradicate means. You ask anyone who served in the Balkans in the 90’s, or in the aftermath of Rwanda, about the difference.
 Hispanic slaves – yup, some of the conditions suffered by illegals here are bad, but slavery, no. And don’t forget, all that anyone who doesn’t want to be here has to do is to hand themselves in at a police station and they’ll be on their way. I’m not defending the system, because I don’t agree with it, but you are misrepresenting it.
 Your point about the Nazis having the Soviets on their side is way off. The Soviets provided resources (pre 1934) for the Germans to train their pilots whilst they were banned from having an air force; the Germans promptly wiped the floor with them in the Spanish civil war.
 The Soviets did not turn against the Nazis, the Nazis attacked the Soviets. As laid out in MK.
 The French resistance was far more of a mixed bag than you make it out to be. Some good, some bad, most brave, some shamelessly racketeering. I don’t understand the rest of the point you are making in this bit.
 I’m not belittling the BoB, far from it. But I am placing it in context; the RAF was all but done in when the Germans switched. The RAF suffered 1547 casualties in the BoB (Ray, John Philip. The Battle of Britain: Dowding and the First Victory 1940. London: Cassel & Co., 2001. ISBN 0-304-35677-8.) Which is a lot of good, brave men (and one of them was my grandfather) but in the context of the war, and other engagements, it’s only a handful. The Dieppe raid cost that in a day; jump on the ferry from Newhaven, see how you fancy those cliffs and that beach.

As for my being full of bullshit, bluster and bollocks; prove it. Don’t rant – prove it.

Atp

Born and Bred in Sussex

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Bluster and bullshit - do you have paperwork in that too?

IF you have studied and achieved this apparent diploma, why did you dismiss, without any decent attempt to discuss with some semblance, even of parity?

I did not say the Germans landed on American beaches and you know it.
I really don't think I would, for a moment have suggested the Americans were persecuting jews either - but Negros? Yessiree, and I notice you still have slaves (Hispanic ones now, earning low wages with no rights, conveniently overlooked by US Immigration?! I DON'T THINK SO BEAVIS)
Hitler DID have carte blanche over Europe, and in the beginning he had the overwhelming might of Russia on his side - we only know from HINDSIGHT that Russia would turn against the nazis - so Britain DID TAKE ON THE OVERWHELMING WITHOUT AMERICAN HELP, thankyou very much.

All the factors you are able, as ANYONE would be able to state, in HINDSIGHT, make only the underlining of what we pretty-much-know to be true - that Britain would ultimately have lost had the combined forces against us stood, and without US assistance as an ally. (the French were little use, but full credit to their brave underground force who, like The British, took on the Germans against ALL ODDS)

Your belittling of The Battle of Britain successes as down to the decision of Hitlers to distract from the battle - sort-of just conveniently DISMISSES the numbers of CASUALTIES SUFFERED by THE MANY against THE FEW!

As far as my casual glance, that I have even credited YOUR windy missive with - that was enough for me to know that you are loaded with the "bollocks" and little else. If I told you that you should go back and STUDY a little more, my faith in that would still be fraught with doubt, as you prove rather to have been reading between lines than the black and white.

I suggest that whatever you have been smoking, better that you teach others of the harm it did to your views of reality.

Bit disturbed to see anyone reacting to education is such a hostile manner - personal and professional ridicule, distrust, misquotation, some racism, implied use of drugs and an admission that you couldn't be bothered to read the posting anyway. I also can't see where ATP dismisses any BoB casualties (either RAF or Luftwaffe) but never mind, when your book bonfire has gone out, I thought you might be interested in the following:

"After covering the evacuation from Dunkirk, he (Dowding) had just enough aircraft to fight the Luftwaffe in the one place they could be effectively used - within the comprehensive air defence system he had built in the UK. Even so, he admitted that the situation was "critical in the extreme" and while it is true that the immortal "Few" - his 'chicks' as Churchill christened them - won the Battle using the organisation he had created, the Luftwaffe lost it through bad leadership, faulty tactics and mistaken target selection."

It comes from the RAF website so hopefully the source is OK.

Finally, I suspect that the Luftwaffe's failures would have been down to Goering and not Hitler as you contend.

 

[acrossthepond]

But.... I would point out that voters in the US heavily distrusted the vote count - and even fewer trust the incumbent government.
The republican party held American Government up for two years previous to that, in an attempt to HI-JACK it - and because Clinton dabbled with his secretary?
That Britain would have to pay a debt, for having been the first line in defending the world, is astounding in itself.

That we 'have been declining as a world power' is conjecture based on our having given autonomy to our commonwealth. The USA bases it's power on consumption!
The war in Vietnam? They lost. They may cough and splutter and say "we didn't lose, we 'withdrew'!!" but....... sorry pardner, that was what we call, in the old-country, "losing"

If it wasn't for Great Britain, what language WOULD Americans be speaking??
It couldn't be ENGLISH now, could it? It would have to be some other language. FACT.

 Yup, there were problems with the vote; and much of the electorate don’t trust the system – nor their govt. Spot on
 Monicagate was a farce form start to finish - agree there too
 This is the way the world works – Japan paid $9BN to the cost of the first gulf war; their constitution did not allow them to send combatants.
 Conjecture Have you looked around you lately – we’ve been on a downward spiral since WW1. And are you suggesting that we should have held on to (i.e. kept subjugated) our empire? Where would the money to do so have come from?
 US power is based on having the highest GDP – i.e. making stuff, and mostly money - in the world, not consumption. Gov’t debt – consumption – has a weakening effect, as about half all US treasury bonds are owned in Asia, most by China and Japan.
 Yes, they got a bloody nose in Vietnam, and no-one here is in any doubt about that. The US won the Cold War, what’s your point?
 This language argument is tripe. The Germans allowed subjugate nations to continue operating in their own native tongues. There was never any attempt to impose German as the official language on vassal states, with the exception that anyone enlisting in the Waffen SS had ot be able to speak German.

Cor, I haven’t had as much fun with my clothes on in ages….

 

[leonidas]

ATP
While NMH loads his guns for the next salvo, could I just say that I know we could not have held out without the American help we received. But I also believe that the Americans could not have been on the winning side without us. And neither of us, together or not, could have beaten the Wermacht without the mind blowing sacrifices of the Russians.

Assuming that point is not to contentious, you can see why we get so bloody hot under the collar when Yanks, usually the less educated ones who get their world history from Holywood, claim to have won the war single handed.

Hitler knew that he had to defeat the US one day to win global control, in fact his advancing years made him push Barbarossa forward so he would still be alive to see the defeat of America.
So American material assistance (that we had to pay for) was as much to the US advantage as ours, better to take the Germans on with us still able to fight than take them on a few years later with us starved out and the huge mineral and labour resources of the defeated Russians available to the German war machine.

We did it together, I don't know of anyone that claims we won the war single handed, played a bloody important role in their defeat maybe, but not won it on our own and thats what pisses me off about that lot across the pond

PS
The Canadians were stationed around here before Dieppe and, as a kid, i was told that they were sent on the raid because, as French Canadians, they refused to fight in defense of the British empire and would only fight for France, So that made them the obvious choice as we were a bit busy elsewhere at the time. Not sure if thats true or not.
Leonidas

 

[acrossthepond]

ONE COULD MAKE A GREAT CASE FOR SAYING THAT WITHOUT GREAT BRITAIN, THE USA COULD BE THE USG AND SPEAKING.... GERMAN.

QUOTE]

Go on then, make the case - and back it up with something solid...

 

[acrossthepond]

ATP
While NMH loads his guns for the next salvo, could I just say that I know we could not have held out without the American help we received. But I also believe that the Americans could not have been on the winning side without us. And neither of us, together or not, could have beaten the Wermacht without the mind blowing sacrifices of the Russians.

Assuming that point is not to contentious, you can see why we get so bloody hot under the collar when Yanks, usually the less educated ones who get their world history from Holywood, claim to have won the war single handed.

Hitler knew that he had to defeat the US one day to win global control, in fact his advancing years made him push Barbarossa forward so he would still be alive to see the defeat of America.
So American material assistance (that we had to pay for) was as much to the US advantage as ours, better to take the Germans on with us still able to fight than take them on a few years later with us starved out and the huge mineral and labour resources of the defeated Russians available to the German war machine.

We did it together, I don't know of anyone that claims we won the war single handed, played a bloody important role in their defeat maybe, but not won it on our own and thats what pisses me off about that lot across the pond

PS
The Canadians were stationed around here before Dieppe and, as a kid, i was told that they were sent on the raid because, as French Canadians, they refused to fight in defense of the British empire and would only fight for France, So that made them the obvious choice as we were a bit busy elsewhere at the time. Not sure if thats true or not.
Leonidas

I agree- no UK forward base, no way to exert power directly on the continent, no second front in 1944 etc etc. However, I don't think the yanks would have lost without us (though it would have taken much longer) but we would certainly have been unable to continue long term without them.

There was a Canadian AA unit based in the field next to our house during the war (apparently). Their only casualty caused when a shell exploded in the breech, killing the layer - not sure where in canada they were from.

And the Soviet casualty numbers keep on being revised upwards too. But i'm not sure everyone gets just how big the USSR was. They shifted the majority of their war production past the urals, and even at the gates of Moscow, with their communication lines at breaking point, and their front full of holes, the Germans were only ONE QUARTER of the way there!! The Soviets planned to just keep on retreating, safe in the knowledge that Geography would ultimately defeat the Germans, even if Soviet men and tanks couldn't.

The Japanese coming into the war clearly accelerated US involvement; I think they would have got involved in europe in any event, but when is impossible to tell, and impossible to prove either!

As for the yanks saying they won it on their own? I have yet to hear any American say that, ever. Is it an urban myth?

 

[Vlad the Impala]

what do you do, just like to go around in stupid circles for the sake of it?

On second thoughts, that's not a question.

I suppose in your warped world it is possible to go round in circles when you've only made a total of TWO posts, but it is a concept I struggle with.

You've made some very inaccurate and simplistic statements about a history you seem to have only a kindergarten (oops) grasp of. I noted with interest your description of someone else's (far more informed) posts as "Bluster and bullshit" - ha!

 

[Vlad the Impala]

The Japanese coming into the war clearly accelerated US involvement; I think they would have got involved in europe in any event, but when is impossible to tell, and impossible to prove either!

The fact that the Yanks were already sinking German U-boats before Pearl Harbor is another oft-overlooked aspect of the early years of WW2. The war came very close to being lost on the cold waters of the North Atlantic but the US gave a lot of assistance while still technically neutral. Without the food, fuel and ammo of the convoys, we would have been helpless. A lot of brave blokes died in our merchant navy but the US wasn't just sitting back and watching.

As the Imperial War Museum puts it:

"Four days after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Germany declared war on the United States of America. Long before its actual entry into the war, the USA had been participating in the Atlantic campaign on an increasing scale. From 1940 onwards, US naval observers had been attached to the Royal Navy. In mid-September 1941, US ships began to escort convoys between Newfoundland and Iceland. The German Navy had long since identified the western Atlantic as the most vulnerable area for Allied shipping and anticipated rich pickings along the American eastern seaboard."

Funny thing is that in some ways we were better off while they were neutral because Hitler had forbidden his U-boat commanders from attacking any American ships (probably for fear of causing their entry into the War) but once they were 'in' they became fair game like everyone else.

As for the yanks saying they won it on their own? I have yet to hear any American say that, ever. Is it an urban myth?

It is another aspect of the great British inferiority complex regarding the Yanks.

 

[leonidas]

I have had a couple of conversations similar to this on other boards with Americans that think we owe them everything and we would be speaking German if it wasnt for them etc etc. So they are out there but I did say they tend to be the redneck type that actualy belive the Holywood version of history like Braveheart and U326 or whatever its called.

 

[Yorkie]

The fact that the Yanks were already sinking German U-boats before Pearl Harbor is another oft-overlooked aspect of the early years of WW2. The war came very close to being lost on the cold waters of the North Atlantic but the US gave a lot of assistance while still technically neutral. Without the food, fuel and ammo of the convoys, we would have been helpless. A lot of brave blokes died in our merchant navy but the US wasn't just sitting back and watching.

As the Imperial War Museum puts it:

"Four days after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Germany declared war on the United States of America. Long before its actual entry into the war, the USA had been participating in the Atlantic campaign on an increasing scale. From 1940 onwards, US naval observers had been attached to the Royal Navy. In mid-September 1941, US ships began to escort convoys between Newfoundland and Iceland. The German Navy had long since identified the western Atlantic as the most vulnerable area for Allied shipping and anticipated rich pickings along the American eastern seaboard."

Funny thing is that in some ways we were better off while they were neutral because Hitler had forbidden his U-boat commanders from attacking any American ships (probably for fear of causing their entry into the War) but once they were 'in' they became fair game like everyone else.


It is another aspect of the great British inferiority complex regarding the Yanks.

Well said. My Dad spent the majority of his war on North Atlantic convoys with the Royal Navy.

 

[bhaexpress]

People need to remember that thousands of American servicemen died fighting on the same side as us. Americans usually see the UK as their best friends in the world too.