Thedelldays Posted 20 September, 2011 Share Posted 20 September, 2011 interesting programme on now talking about an hysterical and paranoid USA in the late 19th and early 20th century planning a possible war with the British empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 20 September, 2011 Share Posted 20 September, 2011 channel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 September, 2011 Ch 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 20 September, 2011 Share Posted 20 September, 2011 Ch 5 Ta - quickly put it on record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K,Billy's supersound Posted 20 September, 2011 Share Posted 20 September, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039453/How-America-planned-destroy-BRITAIN-1930-bombing-raids-chemical-weapons.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Blimey, The timeframe was interesting. When I first read TDD's post, I assumed the plans would be dated on or around the turn of the 20th century, not the 1930s. In the end, looks like the plans were unnecessary. We ended up dismantling most of the Empire after the war anyway ( The Road To War : The Origins of World War 2 claims that the British Empire was in pretty bad shape leading up to WW2 ). Personally, I've never believed that the term "special relationship" meant much to the Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Makes sense really. Plans must be put in place for every eventuality I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Blimey, . . . . . . . Personally, I've never believed that the term "special relationship" meant much to the Americans. Me neither, it suited both countries at the time of WWII and occasionally since. Be under no illusion though that if America needed to side with either Russia or China our 'file' would fall off the table and into the bin marked 'inconsequential collateral damage'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Personally, I've never believed that the term "special relationship" meant much to the Americans. The Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial is a World War II cemetery and memorial in Colleville-sur-Mer, Normandy, France, that honors American soldiers who died in Europe during World War II. The cemetery is located on a bluff overlooking Omaha Beach (one of the landing beaches of the Normandy Invasion) and the English Channel. It covers 70 ha (172 acres), and contains the remains of 9,387 American military dead, most of whom were killed during the invasion of Normandy and ensuing military operations in World War II. Included are graves of Army Air Corps crews shot down over France as early as 1942. Only some of the soldiers who died overseas are buried in the overseas American military cemeteries. When it came time for a permanent burial, the next of kin eligible to make decisions were asked if they wanted their loved ones repatriated for permanent burial in the U.S., or interred at the closest overseas cemetery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Don't get it. How does this relate to the special relationship? Are you suggesting that the US entered WW2 purely because it loved the UK so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Don't get it. How does this relate to the special relationship? Are you suggesting that the US entered WW2 purely because it loved the UK so much? I am saying that they obviously shared our values enough, to die for the freeedom you are exercising, spouting xenophobic rubbish. I would call that a "special-relationship". Personally, I'd be happier restricting the bandwidth you are currently inhabiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 I am saying that they obviously shared our values enough, to die for the freeedom you are exercising, spouting xenophobic rubbish. I would call that a "special-relationship". Personally, I'd be happier restricting the bandwidth you are currently inhabiting... The fact that hundreds of thousands of both troops and civilians gave their lives indicates that there was a common aim, of freedom from Nazi tyranny. However, any 'special relationship' between any amount of countries will only exist as and when it suits ALL of the countries concerned. Should a country realise that it needs to dispense with that 'special relationship' to protect itself or aims in any way then it will do so. I don't think Pap is being Xenophobic, or anti American, just realistic and probably 'not getting' your picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 I am saying that they obviously shared our values enough, to die for the freeedom you are exercising, spouting xenophobic rubbish. I would call that a "special-relationship". Then I would suggest you're wrong. They entered the war after Nazi Germany declared war on the USA after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. Their stated aim, eloquently put by FDR, was to overthrow tyranny, not to help out poor old Blighty beyond Lend/Lease. The "Special Relationship" meant squat to them from September '39 until December '41. You seem to also forget that Britain was seen as an oppressor of free people around the world due to its Empire, one of the reasons FDR wouldn’t/couldn’t get into the war before December 1941. No one would ever belittle the sacrifice that their forces made and no soul could be anything but moved at Colleville-Sur-Mer but let’s not get confused regarding them dying for some mythical “Special Relationship” Our “Special Relationship” through the dark days of 1940/41 was with Canada and the other Dominions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 A 1942 Gallup poll conducted after Pearl Harbor, before the arrival of US troops and Churchill's heavy promotion of the special relationship, showed wartime ally Russia was still more popular than the United States among 62% of Britons. However only 6% had ever visited the United States and only 35% knew any Americans personally. In 1986, 71% of Britons, questioned in a Mori poll the day after Reagan’s bombing of Libya, disagreed with Thatcher's decision to allow the use of RAF bases, while two thirds in a Gallup survey opposed the bombing itself, the reverse of American opinion. The above 2 polls and subsequent history have shown how clueless the UK general public is, demonstrated so well by many of the posters on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Then I would suggest you're wrong. They entered the war after Nazi Germany declared war on the USA after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. Their stated aim, eloquently put by FDR, was to overthrow tyranny, not to help out poor old Blighty beyond Lend/Lease. The "Special Relationship" meant squat to them from September '39 until December '41. You seem to also forget that Britain was seen as an oppressor of free people around the world due to its Empire, one of the reasons FDR wouldn’t/couldn’t get into the war before December 1941. No one would ever belittle the sacrifice that their forces made and no soul could be anything but moved at Colleville-Sur-Mer but let’s not get confused regarding them dying for some mythical “Special Relationship” Our “Special Relationship” through the dark days of 1940/41 was with Canada and the other Dominions. Spot on and beat me to it. The USA was also happy to make a fortune out of Britain as a result of both world wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 There was no charge for the Lend Lease aid delivered during the war, but the Americans did expect the return of some durable goods such as ships. Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies after the war, so the administration charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[26] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support. I guess a 90 % discount on US wartime aid and thousands of US lives lost in Europe wasn't enough for you lot. What we repaid was about 10% value of the durable goods we kept, like battleships and the post war Anglo-American loan, that funded the NHS, amongst other Socialist experiments. At least Ed Balls had some gratitude, unlike you lot. The US making a fortune out of the UK from the aid they gave us? Yeah, that's right.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 September, 2011 We currently do have a good relationship defence wise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 (edited) I am saying that they obviously shared our values enough, to die for the freeedom you are exercising, spouting xenophobic rubbish. I would call that a "special-relationship". Personally, I'd be happier restricting the bandwidth you are currently inhabiting... Well, I'm glad you clarified your point - but I think you've jumped the gun in terms of your conclusions. I think everybody on this forum appreciates the ultimate sacrifice made by US citizens to end the tyranny of Nazism. However, the US Government's reasons for getting involved were myriad, and didn't exclude self-interest. The US couldn't afford the cost of a Nazi victory, nor could they have dealt with the consequences if the Soviets, woken from their slumber and on the march, and had got to spread communism across Europe. If they were that concerned about the fate of Britain, they'd have joined the war in 1939 on the strength of their convictions, not in December 1941 after they'd been attacked by an Axis power. Dr Patricia Clavin, of Oxford University, reveals this in a BBC article. In a 1945 state department survey on the US public's attitudes to its wartime allies, Britain was one of the least trusted countries. Today, the term "special relationship" is largely bandied about by our politicians, not theirs. The new bloke even prefers our baguette-baking neighbours:- "We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people" My personal view is that the relationship is very one-sided. You only have to look at the extradition situation or the way that Tony Blair's Labour government jumped into the lap of neoconservatism as soon as he was called for. When the defunct Most Favored Nation status was in effect, it was Communist China, not "special relationship" Britain, that were conferred that status. The US media made great capital out of the word "British" during the BP fiasco, despite the fact that it is just another multinational. Right now, President Obama is making noises about the Falklands going back to Argentina. In their relatively short history, the Americans have achieved great things, shaping the world we live in, and you're right, this conversation probably wouldn't be happening without their involvement. That said, I think there is a tendency for Brits to think that they are just like us, largely on account of them speaking the same language. I think British politicians enjoy the association with glamour and success and big the idea of the "special relationship" up. We need to remember that they are a different country, have a totally different outlook on life, and have their own international agenda. Keeping us happy is not one of their biggest priorities, and while we should respect the sacrifice of the American war-dead, we can't be blind to that fact. Edited 21 September, 2011 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 That said, I think there is a tendency for Brits to think that they are just like us, largely on account of them speaking the same language. I think British politicians enjoy the association with glamour and success and big the idea of the "special relationship" up. We need to remember that they are a different country, have a totally different outlook on life, and have their own international agenda. Keeping us happy is not one of their biggest priorities, and while we should respect the sacrifice of the American war-dead, we can't be blind to that fact. [h=3]xe·no·pho·bia definition [/h]Pronunciation: /ˌzen-ə-ˈfō-bē-ə, ˌzēn-/ Function: n : fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 [h=3]xe·no·pho·bia definition [/h]Pronunciation: /ˌzen-ə-ˈfō-bē-ə, ˌzēn-/ Function: n : fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 China vs. USA... who wins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 September, 2011 China vs. USA... who wins? Wins what?? A war? USA, easily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Wins what?? A war? USA, easily Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Why? Because they are far superior in every department Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Because they are far superior in every department Oh yes. China have the numbers but would get a serious kicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 The "Special realtionship" IS acknowledged here very occasionally on the news channels here. Much less, obviously than it appears in the UK. It seems that it does exist though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 September, 2011 Share Posted 21 September, 2011 Because they are far superior in every department No doubt. If China survived the first year though, they might have a chance. A couple of reasons, really. After you've gone through your existing stock, waging a war becomes a supply chain issue. The US would need to revitalize large parts of its manufacturing economy ( I've no doubt that it would though ). China already makes a lot of stuff. The other factor I've considered is technological advancement when there's a war on. Aerial combat and tanks were introduced in the Great War, while World War 2 gave us RADAR, computers, rocketry and atomic bombs. All game changers. People invent a lot of stuff when everything is at stake. That all said, I'd say that you're about 90% right and that China would probably get pwned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 22 September, 2011 Share Posted 22 September, 2011 (edited) I don't seem to remember much help during the Falklands war? Could be wrong but I understand that in a future Argentine UK war the USA will actually support Argentina as they feel that having a (relatively ) stable friend in South America is more to their overall advantage. As others have said I feel that this special relationship is more important to UK politicans than US ones.Having written that however I am sure the ordinary armed services people from both sides get on very well, from experience they always did, major snag is though they are not the people in control. Edited 22 September, 2011 by Saint in Paradise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svetigpung Posted 22 September, 2011 Share Posted 22 September, 2011 War Plan Red. Its an interesting story that the yanks were well and truely threatened by GB and the empire. The original plans from as recent as the 1930's were drafted for an eventuell war against the mghty GB and there main worry was the Canadians, as these were the empires gates to america, so they seriously had plans of attack against the canadians if it ever got interesting. Then WW2 changed it all. Unbelievable to even imagine this nowdays. Heres some iome interesting facts....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 September, 2011 I don't seem to remember much help during the Falklands war? Could be wrong but I understand that in a future Argentine UK war the USA will actually support Argentina as they feel that having a (relatively ) stable friend in South America is more to their overall advantage. As others have said I feel that this special relationship is more important to UK politicans than US ones.Having written that however I am sure the ordinary armed services people from both sides get on very well, from experience they always did, major snag is though they are not the people in control. The yanks did help in the Falklands just not with hardware (they did offer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now