"We were the junior partner in 1940"
Discussion
TVR Sagaris said:
Discuss.We didn't have the manpower, the industrial capacity, or the natural resources to defeat Hitler following the defeat of continental Europe in 1940, or without help, even survive.
Churchill's only real hope was that the US would enter the war, but even before 1941 the US was providing support to the UK via the supply convoys. More than a few US citizens perished in that venture, well before the declaration of war between the US and the Axis.
IMHO, CMD was correct. Without the support of the US between 1940 and 1941, you'd be goose-stepping to work, and the pre-eminent academic institution on these shores would be the SS academy at Oxford.
Not that I'm a big fan of the current septic stance, but don't let it skew your historical perspective.
Edited by eharding on Wednesday 21st July 22:53
eharding said:
Discuss.
We didn't have the manpower, the industrial capacity, or the natural resources to defeat Hitler following the defeat of continental Europe in 1940, or without help, even survive.
Churchill's only real hope was that the US would enter the war, but even before 1941 the US was providing support to the UK via the supply convoys. More than a few US citizens perished in that venture, well before the declaration of war between the US and the Axis.
IMHO, CMD was correct. Without the support of the US between 1940 and 1941, you'd be goose-stepping to work, and the pre-eminent academic institution on these shores would be the SS academy at Oxford.
Not that I'm a big fan of the current septic stance, but don't let it skew your historical perspective.
Clearly we required the U.S.A. to 'win' WWII. However, your last statement is nonsense: Hitler's planned invasion of Britain failed. We were able to successfully defend our own borders, but it is unlikely we would have ended Germany's grip on mainland Europe.We didn't have the manpower, the industrial capacity, or the natural resources to defeat Hitler following the defeat of continental Europe in 1940, or without help, even survive.
Churchill's only real hope was that the US would enter the war, but even before 1941 the US was providing support to the UK via the supply convoys. More than a few US citizens perished in that venture, well before the declaration of war between the US and the Axis.
IMHO, CMD was correct. Without the support of the US between 1940 and 1941, you'd be goose-stepping to work, and the pre-eminent academic institution on these shores would be the SS academy at Oxford.
Not that I'm a big fan of the current septic stance, but don't let it skew your historical perspective.
We also required Russian and Commonwealth troops. The Allies were also partly successful because of German blunders. To give the U.S.A. total credit for the Allies' success in WWII is insulting.
Going back to Cameron's "slip" I can't really see how he made that sort of mistake. What was he actually trying to say? There was no Allied 'junior partner' in WWII at any point - at a stretch, you might be able to accuse the French of playing that role. So did he mean to say "We were the junior partner in 1942"? And isn't that almost as bad? Or was he trying to say something completely different?
Edited by TVR Sagaris on Wednesday 21st July 23:23
TVR Sagaris said:
eharding said:
Discuss.
We didn't have the manpower, the industrial capacity, or the natural resources to defeat Hitler following the defeat of continental Europe in 1940, or without help, even survive.
Churchill's only real hope was that the US would enter the war, but even before 1941 the US was providing support to the UK via the supply convoys. More than a few US citizens perished in that venture, well before the declaration of war between the US and the Axis.
IMHO, CMD was correct. Without the support of the US between 1940 and 1941, you'd be goose-stepping to work, and the pre-eminent academic institution on these shores would be the SS academy at Oxford.
Not that I'm a big fan of the current septic stance, but don't let it skew your historical perspective.
Clearly we required the U.S.A. to 'win' WWII. However, your last statement is nonsense: Hitler's planned invasion of Britain failed. We were able to successfully defend our own borders, but it is unlikely we would have ended Germany's grip on mainland Europe.We didn't have the manpower, the industrial capacity, or the natural resources to defeat Hitler following the defeat of continental Europe in 1940, or without help, even survive.
Churchill's only real hope was that the US would enter the war, but even before 1941 the US was providing support to the UK via the supply convoys. More than a few US citizens perished in that venture, well before the declaration of war between the US and the Axis.
IMHO, CMD was correct. Without the support of the US between 1940 and 1941, you'd be goose-stepping to work, and the pre-eminent academic institution on these shores would be the SS academy at Oxford.
Not that I'm a big fan of the current septic stance, but don't let it skew your historical perspective.
We also required Russian and Commonwealth troops. The Allies were also partly successful because of German blunders. To give the U.S.A. total credit for the Allies' success in WWII is insulting.
Going back to Cameron's "slip" I can't really see how he made that sort of mistake. What was he actually trying to say? There was no Allied 'junior partner' in WWII at any point - at a stretch, you might be able to accuse the French of playing that role. So did he mean to say "We were the junior partner in 1942"? And isn't that almost as bad? Or was he trying to say something completely different?
Edited by TVR Sagaris on Wednesday 21st July 23:23
I'm struggling to see how you make the leap from the the arguably succinct "junior partner" to "give the U.S.A. total credit for the Allies' success in WWII is insulting".
eharding said:
I'm struggling to see how you make the leap from the the arguably succinct "junior partner" to "give the U.S.A. total credit for the Allies' success in WWII is insulting".
I was wondering that as well. By the end of 1940 the only good news was the Battle of Britain. At that point we were relying on the USA, one way or another. The rest of Europe was too busy surviving, and we were supporting the Russians with food to Murmansk.Police State said:
But shadow foreign secretary David Miliband said it was a "slight" on the memory of their sacrifices.
as if he really gives a toss.
FWIW, I think Cameron had it pretty much correct. We were the Junior Partner, when that war is looked at in its entirety.
Millibands, of either variety, would have been so far up the apparently dominant European dictator's fundamental orifice in a heartbeat, so quickly, you'd need ballistic armour in the vicinity to keep you safe from the discarded socks.as if he really gives a toss.
FWIW, I think Cameron had it pretty much correct. We were the Junior Partner, when that war is looked at in its entirety.
Pesty said:
much as I agree on the BBC bias
on this story he either said it or he didn't.
Would you have called it a slip of the tongue had it been winky?
He did say it, I didn't say he didn't. A journalist was prodding him about whether he was happy to be a junior partner in the war in Afghanistan and he said he was. He then qualified it by adding the UK has been a junior partner in other worthwhile events and mentioned 1940 when I suspect he intended to use WW2 in general as an example. I'm pretty sure he knows the US didn't join the war until after 1940, so it was said in error.on this story he either said it or he didn't.
Would you have called it a slip of the tongue had it been winky?
Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 21st July 22:46
If it was Winky I would've called it yet another monumental f
k-up by that myopic scotch tt because A) I've never claimed to be objective, and B) In Winkys case it would have been one of very many whereas, so far, Cameron tends not to spend the whole day with his hand-crafted brogue in his gob.With regard to what I wrote about 'winning', I meant in a military sense in the whole of WWII (i.e. we wouldn't have won without the US assistance we received).
I fail to understand how the use of US to UK convoys would make the UK the 'junior partner'. We were purchasing arms/food/whatever from the US. It needed protecting.
And if the UK was the junior partner in WWII then, as I mentioned earlier, where does that leave the rest of the Allies? Were the USSR and France also junior partners to the US?
It's putting it into simple terms, but WWII was a 'joint effort': it was the combination of the Allies' powers that led to the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany in mainland Europe.
I fail to understand how the use of US to UK convoys would make the UK the 'junior partner'. We were purchasing arms/food/whatever from the US. It needed protecting.
And if the UK was the junior partner in WWII then, as I mentioned earlier, where does that leave the rest of the Allies? Were the USSR and France also junior partners to the US?
It's putting it into simple terms, but WWII was a 'joint effort': it was the combination of the Allies' powers that led to the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany in mainland Europe.
Police State said:
But shadow foreign secretary David Miliband said it was a "slight" on the memory of their sacrifices.
as if he really gives a toss.
FWIW, I think Cameron had it pretty much correct. We were the Junior Partner, when that war is looked at in its entirety.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/milibands-trip-to-india-a-disaster-after-kashmir-gaffe-1418914.html as if he really gives a toss.
FWIW, I think Cameron had it pretty much correct. We were the Junior Partner, when that war is looked at in its entirety.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff