Current Affairs Don't mention the War !

[Toffee in Jandals]

Possibly because we fought a war that left us bankrupt and enduring rationing for years. Then when you ask why did we fight this war, because we could have just stayed out of it, it seems there was a moral issue. Now while we still remember it, because as you say we paid a very heavy price, it seems that Europe has conveniently forgotten it, and the likes of France positively hate us for liberating them. It’s Europe you see, we don’t understand them, and they don’t understand us, and never will.........

All due respect, but I think the Americans and the Soviets (by keeping three-quarters of the Nazi war machine fighting in the east) arguably had more to do with liberating France than the British and the Commonwealth.

As stated above, the Dunkirk evacuation did leave a sour taste for the French, not to mention the attack on the French fleet by the British at Mers-el-Kebir in early July 1940 (less than two weeks after the French surrender). The attack was ostensibly to keep the powerful French fleet out of German hands, but it was an attack on an ally that killed well over 1,000 French sailors. Not to mention countless air attacks on German targets within occupied France that killed thousands of French civillians, who were viewed as collateral damage.

I'm sure the vast majority of French are indebted to all Allies who helped liberate their country, but war is a very messy business and no side escaped with their hands completely clean, especially in a conflict as brutal as 1939-1945.

 

[peteblue]

And there you have the bizarre rationale for pursuing a hardline Brexit summed up in a just a few words.

To suggest that "Europe has conveniently forgotten it" when they set the EU up for the very purpose of ensuring that it never happens again is ridiculous.

To suggest that "France positively hate us for liberating them" when there is statue of Churchill on display just off the Champs-Elysees is risible. I'm fairly sure it was US forces that liberated most of France, but however.

And finally, that you make no attempt at all just understand the European psyche, and just give up on it claiming that they will never understand you, explains lucidly why the likes of you have an irrational in-depth animosity towards the EU and everyone else in Europe. You wish to cut yourself off from the rest of us and blame everyone else for this because "they don't understand us".

Open your eyes and see. The rest of the world is laughing at you.

I have worked closely with the French, Italians, Spanish and Germans over many years and have nothing but respect for them. But we are different, in the way we communicate, reach conclusions, reach agreements and approach things. This is why we send senior managers on cultural and behavioural awareness courses and why it takes time to develop working relationships. This is not going on holiday to Spain of Italy. If you do not understand the differences you can never overcome them.

I don’t like the EU. I do not regard it as democratic, it is corrupt and it favours certain nations. I do like Europeans. I don’t wish to ‘cut ourselves off’. For me Brexit is the exact opposite, it is continuing to trade and deal with Europe but to re-establish ourselves around the world again.....

 

[degsy]

Hmmmm ......... the plain fact is that without the USA and the Soviet Union, we wouldn't have won. The EU basically came from the determination of people in France, Germany and the Benelux countries never to have a devastating and destructive war in Europe again. It's true that we paid a very heavy price in the War, but the inhabitants of those countries suffered even more - millions dead in Germany and the whole country wrecked, while the Benelux countries and France were occupied, fought over and suffered dreadful privations..

But without the UK holding out *nods to english channel, radar, the merlin engine, etc.
There wouldn't have been a war to win.
The russians would have probably gone under ( and came pretty close in the 'real' world) before the US could supply them...and the rest of the allies...using the relatively unsung heroes of the British Merchant Marine, with enough stuff to keep the germans occupied on 2 fronts.

 

[peteblue]

But without the UK holding out *nods to english channel, radar, the merlin engine, etc.
There wouldn't have been a war to win.
The russians would have probably gone under ( and came pretty close in the 'real' world) before the US could supply them...and the rest of the allies...using the relatively unsung heroes of the British Merchant Marine, with enough stuff to keep the germans occupied on 2 fronts.

Indeed. Germany would have controlled the whole of Europe, Russia and the British Empire, with all the slave Labour and materials it could have ever wanted. The invasion of North America would have followed....

 

[Aberblue]

But without the UK holding out *nods to english channel, radar, the merlin engine, etc.
There wouldn't have been a war to win.
The russians would have probably gone under ( and came pretty close in the 'real' world) before the US could supply them...and the rest of the allies...using the relatively unsung heroes of the British Merchant Marine, with enough stuff to keep the germans occupied on 2 fronts.

That is true, and I'm not minimising Britain's contribution to defeating the Nazis. But the point is that the Nazis were defeated by an allied effort, not by us alone.

 

[abelard]

Do people who studied the War at British high schools have any idea how comically useless and incompetent the British performance was in every single theatre outside Britain itself? If this thread is anything to go by, I suspect not.

It would be of enormous benefit to the world if the Anglo-Saxon countries de-propagandised their school curriculae (curriculums? curriculii?), and attempted to teach actual history instead.

Not for nothing did Leave occur in the only place that remembers the war as a glorious encounter, rather than a source of permanent humiliation and shame.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Do people who studied the War at British high schools have any idea how comically useless and incompetent the British performance was in every single theatre outside Britain itself? If this thread is anything to go by, I suspect not.

It would be of enormous benefit to the world if the Anglo-Saxon countries de-propagandised their school curriculae (curriculums? curriculii?), and attempted to teach actual history instead.

Not for nothing did Leave occur in the only place that remembers the war as a glorious encounter, rather than a source of permanent humiliation and shame.

Go read up on the defence of Kohima in Burma. It destroys your first sentence completely...

Go read up on Lieutenant-General Leslie Morshead, and his brilliant campaign that blunted the Afrika Korps in 1941 & 1942.

There are more, but I'll leave the above two for starters...

 

[degsy]

That is true, and I'm not minimising Britain's contribution to defeating the Nazis. But the point is that the Nazis were defeated by an allied effort, not by us alone.

Deepdown you are minimising it...or at best doubting it

Hmmmm......... the plain fact is that without the USA and the Soviet Union, we wouldn't have won. The EU basically came from the determination of people in France, Germany and the Benelux countries never to have a devastating and destructive war in Europe again. It's true that we paid a very heavy price in the War, but the inhabitants of those countries suffered even more - millions dead in Germany and the whole country wrecked, while the Benelux countries and France were occupied, fought over and suffered dreadful privations..

No GB, No war to win, hence no allies = whole different world.

 

[abelard]

Go read up on the defence of Kohima in Burma. It destroys your first sentence completely...

Go read up on Lieutenant-General Leslie Morshead, and his brilliant campaign that blunted the Afrika Korps in 1941 & 1942.

There are more, but I'll leave the above two for starters...

You are missing the forest for the trees

 

[Old Blue 2]

You are missing the forest for the trees

Don't think so.

You made a statement. I provided two examples to the contrary...

 

[tsubaki]

Do people who studied the War at British high schools have any idea how comically useless and incompetent the British performance was in every single theatre outside Britain itself? If this thread is anything to go by, I suspect not.

It would be of enormous benefit to the world if the Anglo-Saxon countries de-propagandised their school curriculae (curriculums? curriculii?), and attempted to teach actual history instead.

Not for nothing did Leave occur in the only place that remembers the war as a glorious encounter, rather than a source of permanent humiliation and shame.

er - the British performance outside Britain was not “comically useless and incompetent”.

By the time those theatres came into being (which they would by middle / end of 1941) they had been stripped of all the best troops, equipment and resources for more important tasks and were facing a proper enemy that was far closer than Britain was.

The Western Desert is a good example of this. O’Connor had almost totally destroyed the Italian forces there in the winter of 1940, in a series of massive victories that even Rommel praised - and would have mopped up the rest (and probably dealt with the Afrika Korps as it landed), but almost all of his force was taken away in a doomed attempt to save Greece.

Had rearmament been better organised, given political priority and started a couple of years earlier, the disasters of the early war probably would never had occurred.

 

[degsy]

Do people who studied the War at British high schools have any idea how comically useless and incompetent the British performance was in every single theatre outside Britain itself? If this thread is anything to go by, I suspect not.
At the start yes, the poorly trained and led, basically peace time army got their arses handed to them by both the Germans and the Japanese.
But once re-trained, equipped and with better leadership they did their share and then some. ( not at arhnem obvs, but that was a leadership mistake) To such effect that the japanese after the war complained that they only lost due to lack of training, equipment and leadership

It would be of enormous benefit to the world if the Anglo-Saxon countries de-propagandised their school curriculae (curriculums? curriculii?), and attempted to teach actual history instead.
It might help if they actually teach some documented facts, not a mish mash of social studies masquerading as history.

Not for nothing did Leave occur in the only place that remembers the war as a glorious encounter, rather than a source of permanent humiliation and shame.
Mate, you're talking wham, plausible wham, but wham none the less, you're adding apples and oranges and getting a banana.
Though I'll give you that all war is a shame and that the 'glorious dead' don't find it the least bit glorious

So for that reason I'm out.

 

[peteblue]

Do people who studied the War at British high schools have any idea how comically useless and incompetent the British performance was in every single theatre outside Britain itself? If this thread is anything to go by, I suspect not.

It would be of enormous benefit to the world if the Anglo-Saxon countries de-propagandised their school curriculae (curriculums? curriculii?), and attempted to teach actual history instead.

Not for nothing did Leave occur in the only place that remembers the war as a glorious encounter, rather than a source of permanent humiliation and shame.

My father was on a battleship that helped to sink the Scharnhorst off Norway’s North Cape, I think that was a fair way from the U.K. My uncles fought in Burma and defeated the Japanese. Last time I looked, Burma is quite a long way from the U.K. Through this aged old memory of mine, I think we also did quite a decent job in North Africa, D-Day and Europe.

If of course you are referring to the early setbacks at Dunkirk or Singapore then fine, just like the USA suffered at Pearl Harbor and the Russians suffered from the early German Blitzkrieg. Of course it’s not the setbacks of a battle that count, but the final result of a war.....

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Do people who studied the War at British high schools have any idea how comically useless and incompetent the British performance was in every single theatre outside Britain itself? If this thread is anything to go by, I suspect not.

It would be of enormous benefit to the world if the Anglo-Saxon countries de-propagandised their school curriculae (curriculums? curriculii?), and attempted to teach actual history instead.

Not for nothing did Leave occur in the only place that remembers the war as a glorious encounter, rather than a source of permanent humiliation and shame.

With all due respect - you're talking out of your arse.

 

[tsubaki]

My father was on a battleship that helped to sink the Scharnhorst off Norway’s North Cape, I think that was a fair way from the U.K. My uncles fought in Burma and defeated the Japanese. Last time I looked, Burma is quite a long way from the U.K. Through this aged old memory of mine, I think we also did quite a decent job in North Africa, D-Day and Europe.

If of course you are referring to the early setbacks at Dunkirk or Singapore then fine, just like the USA suffered at Pearl Harbor and the Russians suffered from the early German Blitzkrieg. Of course it’s not the setbacks of a battle that count, but the final result of a war.....

Pearl Harbour being an especially relevant example for this debate, because of course it was inspired by a British attack (the Battle of Taranto in November 1940).

Of course though the difference in resources can be shown by the fact that Taranto was carried out by one aircraft carrier and 20 biplanes, wheras the Japanese attack had six carriers and more than four hundred rather more modern planes (though in terms of overall damage to an opponent, Taranto was far more effective).