Sorry, bit behind on the news, but it appears a member of Labour's front bench has

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The point was we didn't have to go to war either time. We could have cut a deal and carried on in prosperity and peace - at least in the short term. Instead we took the principled decisions - and they cost us dear.

---

Sorry, B, doing an MA in WW1 studies atm. *******s saying that about WW1.

You know about the September Prog, yes? You know that Brest-Litovsk proves they were serious, yes? And you know that the Peace Offer to Fr and Rus said 'The War at Sea continues', yes?

Everyone, every single ****ing historian for the last 50 years since Fritz Fischer, will tell you that had GB not fought, we'd ave been 100% ****ed either way.

10% - Fr/Rus win, we have no allies. 500 years of GB ForPol finished and India and the Med threatened.
90% - Hun win, then use the resources of the Europe to start War 2 vs us, which they talk about all the time in officlal docs.

Thought you'd read Forgotten Victory by Gary Sheffield. He deals with all this in chap.1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

The greatest generation argument is made at the personal level, not the national/political/economical level.

You are quite right that American industry did fantastically well, very often cynically, out of the war. That doesn't change the fact that millions of young, American men volunteered to serve in order to resolve issues in Europe and the Pacific that had little effect on their every day lives or the future security of their country.

The Americans, quite rightly, revere the contribution of that generation of Americans and you as a Brit should be equally grateful. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you never would have won the war without them.

---

I have nothing against American veterans (most of whom were drafted, btw) at all and am equally grateful to all those who fought the Axis powers. I'm talking about Americans specifically talking as though their government acted out of anything other than self-interest in WWII. They stayed out of the war as long as they could and were happy for us to act as their proxies while hoovering up our financial reserves, taking our overseas possessions and dismantling our empire in payment for war materiel. Never forget that while Germany's war debts were cancelled, the Americans made us pay every single fücking nickel back. Grateful my Ã*rse.

So for the record, I'm no more grateful to the USA than they ought to be to us for keeping the war alive for two long years while they sat on their hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:nod: In fact, during the battle for Normandy, casualty rates exceeded those on the Eastern Front.

---

Still weren't a patch on Italy, though. At least according to my tutor. [I know jack **** about ww2 personally.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

The greatest generation argument is made at the personal level, not the national/political/economical level.

You are quite right that American industry did fantastically well, very often cynically, out of the war. That doesn't change the fact that millions of young, American men volunteered to serve in order to resolve issues in Europe and the Pacific that had little effect on their every day lives or the future security of their country.

The Americans, quite rightly, revere the contribution of that generation of Americans and you as a Brit should be equally grateful. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you never would have won the war without them.

---

Utter bøllocks. They sat back while the entire of western democracy was almost wiped out in 1940, and would have been a lot less secure with a Jap Asia, sorry RCPS. They only had to do something cos the Japs, moronically, thought they'd help us from Peral Harbour once they got on the march and they only fought in Europe cos Hitler declared war on them.

Yer average Gurkha, Sikh or Baluchi/Pathan has far more to be proud of than yer average Septic. Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Sorry, B, doing an MA in WW1 studies atm. *******s saying that about WW1.

You know about the September Prog, yes? You know that Brest-Litovsk proves they were serious, yes? And you know that the Peace Offer to Fr and Rus said 'The War at Sea continues', yes?

Everyone, every single ****ing historian for the last 50 years since Fritz Fischer, will tell you that had GB not fought, we'd ave been 100% ****ed either way.

10% - Fr/Rus win, we have no allies. 500 years of GB ForPol finished and India and the Med threatened.
90% - Hun win, then use the resources of the Europe to start War 2 vs us, which they talk about all the time in officlal docs.

Thought you'd read Forgotten Victory by Gary Sheffield. He deals with all this in chap.1

---

Hence 'at least in the short term,'. Of course we'd have had to fight eventually. However, we needn't have done so when we did. Indeed, Germany didn't expect us to do so. Alternatively, we could quite easily have committed on a purely naval basis, blockaded Germany and - as was shown in the course of War itself - there was nothing they could have done about it. However, we didn't. We fought on the basis of principle. Germany had violated Belgian neutrality and on that principle, we went to war.

By the way, not every historian agrees. Niall Ferguson called our decision to intervene 'the biggest error in modern history'. He also points out that the argument that we had to intervene to secure the Channel ports is rather undermined by the fact that we had lived with a similar situation during the Napoleonic Wars whereby Europe was under his sway, the Channel Ports were all in his hands, but we didn't send land forces until we were properly prepared (which we blatantly weren't in 1914). Our navy was immensely powerful and dominant in 1914 - vastly more so, in fact than it was in 1800. We could easily have sat safely behind our navy and let Europe get on with slaughtering one another. We didn't, however, because of principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Still weren't a patch on Italy, though. At least according to my tutor. [I know jack **** about ww2 personally.]

---

Italy had its moments, but it didn't compare to the mincing machine of Normandy from June 6 until the closing of the Falaise Gap in August.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Utter bøllocks. They sat back while the entire of western democracy was almost wiped out in 1940, and would have been a lot less secure with a Jap Asia, sorry RCPS. They only had to do something cos the Japs, moronically, thought they'd help us from Peral Harbour once they got on the march and they only fought in Europe cos Hitler declared war on them.

Yer average Gurkha, Sikh or Baluchi/Pathan has far more to be proud of than yer average Septic. Fact.

---

Which part of 'personal level' did you not understand? You think someone from Des Moines, Iowa who volunteered on Dec 8, 1941 and ended up fighting in Bastogne was party to or gave a toss about the politics or economics associated with when and how the Americans entered the war?

The 'greatest generation' refers to the sacrifice of the average American soldier, which was exceptional and without which the war would never have been won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

Which part of 'personal level' did you not understand? You think someone from Des Moines, Iowa who volunteered on Dec 8, 1941 and ended up fighting in Bastogne was party to or gave a toss about the politics or economics associated with when and how the Americans entered the war?

The 'greatest generation' refers to the sacrifice of the average American soldier, which was exceptional and without which the war would never have been won.

---

The sacrifice of the average American soldier may have been many things, WES, but exceptional it was not. Indeed, it's exactly that sort of self-aggrandising and frankly ignorant horseshît that Americans talk about WWII that gets everyone else's backs up.

In a war that killed around 25 million soldiers and more than 85 million people worldwide to describe America's sacrifice of fewer than half a million men as 'exceptional' displays a breathtaking degree of crassness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

Which part of 'personal level' did you not understand? You think someone from Des Moines, Iowa who volunteered on Dec 8, 1941 and ended up fighting in Bastogne was party to or gave a toss about the politics or economics associated with when and how the Americans entered the war?

The 'greatest generation' refers to the sacrifice of the average American soldier, which was exceptional and without which the war would never have been won.

---

Wait, a dead American was 'exceptional' and therefore more of a sacrifice than a dead Brit, Frenchman or Russian?

Wow. Americans must be really great!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Wait, a dead American was 'exceptional' and therefore more of a sacrifice than a dead Brit, Frenchman or Russian?

Wow. Americans must be really great!

---

This must be what they call 'American exceptionalism' :rolleyes:

As you can see, I have taken him to task on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The sacrifice of the average American soldier may have been many things, WES, but exceptional it was not. Indeed, it's exactly that sort of self-aggrandising and frankly ignorant horseshît that Americans talk about WWII that gets everyone else's backs up.

In a war that killed around 25 million soldiers and more than 85 million people worldwide to describe America's sacrifice of fewer than half a million men as 'exceptional' displays a breathtaking degree of crassness.

---

It was exceptional in that 16 million Americans served in a war which was fought thousands of miles from their shores and which didn't in any way threaten their homeland. More American soldiers died than British soldiers, now imagine that it was the American homeland that was attacked and Britain then joined in and suffered more causalities than the Americans did.

Are you honestly telling me that that wouldn't have been worth recognizing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

It was exceptional in that 16 million Americans served in a war which was fought thousands of miles from their shores and which didn't in any way threaten their homeland. More American soldiers died than British soldiers, now imagine that it was the American homeland that was attacked and Britain then joined in and suffered more causalities than the Americans did.

Are you honestly telling me that that wouldn't have been worth recognizing?

---

Don't give me all that shït. First of all, nearly half of America's dead were in the Pacific theatre - a war that was fought by America purely to defend its own immediate economic and strategic interests following an attack by Japan on American soil. Second, the US fought Germany not because Britain was attacked (that happened two years earlier), but because a/ Germany declared war on the USA and b/ because it was in the US's strategic interest to combat the threat of Germany as far away from its homeland as it possibly could.

All this guff about innocent farm boys travelling thousands of miles to defend freedom is so much böllocks, I'm afraid. Most GIs were drafted (the draft had been in place since 1940) and if they were that starry-eyed and idealistic about fighting fascism they'd had two years when they could have joined British and Canadian forces in order to do so (as a number of Americans did). Like all soldiers, they were there because they were there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Hence 'at least in the short term,'. Of course we'd have had to fight eventually. However, we needn't have done so when we did. Indeed, Germany didn't expect us to do so. Alternatively, we could quite easily have committed on a purely naval basis, blockaded Germany and - as was shown in the course of War itself - there was nothing they could have done about it. However, we didn't. We fought on the basis of principle. Germany had violated Belgian neutrality and on that principle, we went to war.

By the way, not every historian agrees. Niall Ferguson called our decision to intervene 'the biggest error in modern history'. He also points out that the argument that we had to intervene to secure the Channel ports is rather undermined by the fact that we had lived with a similar situation during the Napoleonic Wars whereby Europe was under his sway, the Channel Ports were all in his hands, but we didn't send land forces until we were properly prepared (which we blatantly weren't in 1914). Our navy was immensely powerful and dominant in 1914 - vastly more so, in fact than it was in 1800. We could easily have sat safely behind our navy and let Europe get on with slaughtering one another. We didn't, however, because of principle.

---

1. "Hence 'at least in the short term,'" Don't descend to semantics, mate. It was either fight while we still had friendly channel ports and a Dreadnought advantage or after Ger had taken both of those of us.

2. Nazi Naill's logic (assuming you've read the book) is "Och aye, I love the British empire. Perhaps if we hadn't fought, my beloved empire would have lasted longer and I could have walked around it. And anyway, I hate the Frogs. Och aye the noo."

While the economic analysis in the middle chapters is respected, the stuff on whether we should have fought or not is ignored by all historians and inane ranting drivel.

Ps, Berni, old chap. You know earlier you said you thought Brexit had made the political class go mad?

Erm, you do realise your arguing with a lefty, with you saying I'm wrong for wanting us to fight in the two WWs and you wanting to be all Quislingy. A bit "mad", no?

I can't believe we are arguing about GB's reasons for acting as we did in 1914 and 1939 (and 40). Bit surreal, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Don't give me all that shït. First of all, nearly half of America's dead were in the Pacific theatre - a war that was fought by America purely to defend its own immediate economic and strategic interests following an attack by Japan on American soil. Second, the US fought Germany not because Britain was attacked (that happened two years earlier), but because a/ Germany declared war on the USA and b/ because it was in the US's strategic interest to combat the threat of Germany as far away from its homeland as it possibly could.

All this guff about innocent farm boys travelling thousands of miles to defend freedom is so much böllocks, I'm afraid. Most GIs were drafted (the draft had been in place since 1940) and if they were that starry-eyed and idealistic about fighting fascism they'd had two years when they could have joined British and Canadian forces in order to do so (as a number of Americans did). Like all soldiers, they were there because they were there.

---

And because of the hounds obviously. Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Don't give me all that shït. First of all, nearly half of America's dead were in the Pacific theatre - a war that was fought by America purely to defend its own immediate economic and strategic interests following an attack by Japan on American soil. Second, the US fought Germany not because Britain was attacked (that happened two years earlier), but because a/ Germany declared war on the USA and b/ because it was in the US's strategic interest to combat the threat of Germany as far away from its homeland as it possibly could.

All this guff about innocent farm boys travelling thousands of miles to defend freedom is so much böllocks, I'm afraid. Most GIs were drafted (the draft had been in place since 1940) and if they were that starry-eyed and idealistic about fighting fascism they'd had two years when they could have joined British and Canadian forces in order to do so (as a number of Americans did). Like all soldiers, they were there because they were there.

---

Bingo. Spot on.

{As aside, the one yank on my class of six is over studying WW1 cos his "great granpappy" (I think) joined up with the Canadians in 1914. Gassed, apparently. 1917, I think he said. Poor chap. Y'see? Some Septics are good. Just not most of 'em.}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

1. "Hence 'at least in the short term,'" Don't descend to semantics, mate. It was either fight while we still had friendly channel ports and a Dreadnought advantage or after Ger had taken both of those of us.

2. Nazi Naill's logic (assuming you've read the book) is "Och aye, I love the British empire. Perhaps if we hadn't fought, my beloved empire would have lasted longer and I could have walked around it. And anyway, I hate the Frogs. Och aye the noo."

While the economic analysis in the middle chapters is respected, the stuff on whether we should have fought or not is ignored by all historians and inane ranting drivel.

Ps, Berni, old chap. You know earlier you said you thought Brexit had made the political class go mad?

Erm, you do realise your arguing with a lefty, with you saying I'm wrong for wanting us to fight in the two WWs and you wanting to be all Quislingy. A bit "mad", no?

I can't believe we are arguing about GB's reasons for acting as we did in 1914 and 1939 (and 40). Bit surreal, no?

---

I'm not arguing we were wrong to fight in 1914 and 1940, though. You seem to have forgotten the initial point - which was that I was arguing that correct principled decisions sometimes come at an economic cost. Like Brexit.

Also, dismissing Ferguson as a 'Nazi' and just directing ad hom crap at him is cheap rubbish that you're doing because he's a conservative historian. He is not 'dismissed'. If he were, he wouldn't have his chair at that notable academic backwater...errr...Harvard, would he? The fact people don't like him is not the same as him not being respected. It simply means he doesn't do the cozy consensus thing that second- and third-rate academic brains like to use as cover for their intellectual inadequacies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

I'm not arguing we were wrong to fight in 1914 and 1940, though. You seem to have forgotten the initial point - which was that I was arguing that correct principled decisions sometimes come at an economic cost. Like Brexit.

Also, dismissing Ferguson as a 'Nazi' and just directing ad hom crap at him is cheap rubbish that you're doing because he's a conservative historian. He is not 'dismissed'. If he were, he wouldn't have his chair at that notable academic backwater...errr...Harvard, would he? The fact people don't like him is not the same as him not being respected. It simply means he doesn't do the cozy consensus thing that second- and third-rate academic brains like to use as cover for their intellectual inadequacies.

---

Go to google scholar or whatever. Check the citations. All the stuff from the middle chapters comparing the GDP per cap spend to kill an enemy soldier in GB is widely cited. The stuff on whether we should fight or not is ignored as drivel.

And NB, Mil hist, in academia, isn't like imperial or cultural history. This isn't the usual lefty schtick. All of them have either served, worked with local regiments or at the RUSI etc.

This lot call a spade a spade. {It's heaven to be somewhere so un-PC}

But all say his arguments against fighting are *******s.

But then, he's not an expert, is he? He wrote one book. Look at all his other stuff. He started as an economist, then imperial historian then **** knows. But he heasn't dedicated his life to it like the proper lads.

Which is why he fücked off. He got laughed across the Atlantic. Sorry, but read something by any of the Fischer school. They've won this argument after 50+ years. Accepted consensus now, mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Don't give me all that shït. First of all, nearly half of America's dead were in the Pacific theatre - a war that was fought by America purely to defend its own immediate economic and strategic interests following an attack by Japan on American soil. Second, the US fought Germany not because Britain was attacked (that happened two years earlier), but because a/ Germany declared war on the USA and b/ because it was in the US's strategic interest to combat the threat of Germany as far away from its homeland as it possibly could.

All this guff about innocent farm boys travelling thousands of miles to defend freedom is so much böllocks, I'm afraid. Most GIs were drafted (the draft had been in place since 1940) and if they were that starry-eyed and idealistic about fighting fascism they'd had two years when they could have joined British and Canadian forces in order to do so (as a number of Americans did). Like all soldiers, they were there because they were there.

---

I recall with fondness my father telling me how quickly the publican in 1969 extended his hand across the bar and thanked him for our country's contribution to the war effort in World War 2 when he discovered that my father was not only Canadian but a member of the Canadian military. The emotion felt very genuine and my father, despite not having served in the war, was genuinely touched.

I'd like to think that his view was representative of the public generally in the UK, as opposed to you and Ganpati who would have refused to offer your hand at all and would have said something like 'yeah but you only helped out because your country told you to and you did pretty well out of the war anyway'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

I recall with fondness my father telling me how quickly the publican in 1969 extended his hand across the bar and thanked him for our country's contribution to the war effort in World War 2 when he discovered that my father was not only Canadian but a member of the Canadian military. The emotion felt very genuine and my father, despite not having served in the war, was genuinely touched.

I'd like to think that his view was representative of the public generally in the UK, as opposed to you and Ganpati who would have refused to offer your hand at all and would have said something like 'yeah but you only helped out because your country told you to and you did pretty well out of the war anyway'.

---

What has this to do with Canada? As far as I'm aware, Canada and the USA are two very different countries. Canada stood shoulder to shoulder with the United Kingdom in both wars from day one and asked nothing in return. This discussion is nothing to do with Canada's role in either war.

And I've already said that on a personal level I'm grateful to all those who fought against the Axis. However, I do not find anything exceptional about the role of American soldiers and find the grandstanding from modern-day Americans about their role in the war to be boastful, ignorant and irksome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

I recall with fondness my father telling me how quickly the publican in 1969 extended his hand across the bar and thanked him for our country's contribution to the war effort in World War 2 when he discovered that my father was not only Canadian but a member of the Canadian military. The emotion felt very genuine and my father, despite not having served in the war, was genuinely touched.

I'd like to think that his view was representative of the public generally in the UK, as opposed to you and Ganpati who would have refused to offer your hand at all and would have said something like 'yeah but you only helped out because your country told you to and you did pretty well out of the war anyway'.

---

Where have I ever criticised the Canadians, mate?

I've just written 4k words on what they did in the Hundred Days 1918, where they were our stormtroops and consequently the best troops on the planet, and I said the yank in our class is here cos his granddad joined the Canadians in 1914 and was gassed in 1917.

We (B and I and others) were taking issue that the fact that Brad from Bumfück, Alabama was drafted doesn't make him any better than Mr Brit, or M. Frog or Ruskie or Canadian or Convict or Sikh/Gurkha/Pathan.

But silly me, the Septics are better than all those races so they iz special and the above izn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Where have I ever criticised the Canadians, mate?

I've just written 4k words on what they did in the Hundred Days 1918, where they were our stormtroops and consequently the best troops on the planet, and I said the yank in our class is here cos his granddad joined the Canadians in 1914 and was gassed in 1917.

We (B and I and others) were taking issue that the fact that Brad from Bumfück, Alabama was drafted doesn't make him any better than Mr Brit, or M. Frog or Ruskie or Canadian or Convict or Sikh/Gurkha/Pathan.

But silly me, the Septics are better than all those races so they iz special and the above izn't.

---

:nod: Consistently the best troops in the British Army throughout the First World War. Unfortunately for them, this meant they were usually used to spearhead any attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

The greatest generation argument is made at the personal level, not the national/political/economical level.

You are quite right that American industry did fantastically well, very often cynically, out of the war. That doesn't change the fact that millions of young, American men volunteered to serve in order to resolve issues in Europe and the Pacific that had little effect on their every day lives or the future security of their country.

The Americans, quite rightly, revere the contribution of that generation of Americans and you as a Brit should be equally grateful. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you never would have won the war without them.

---

Hang on... they didnt volunteer, they were conscripted. Lets be clear about that. More important
Y, they steered well ****ing clear of the war precisely until the security of their country was threatened.

I am not America bashing here, but lets at least tell the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

I recall with fondness my father telling me how quickly the publican in 1969 extended his hand across the bar and thanked him for our country's contribution to the war effort in World War 2 when he discovered that my father was not only Canadian but a member of the Canadian military. The emotion felt very genuine and my father, despite not having served in the war, was genuinely touched.

I'd like to think that his view was representative of the public generally in the UK, as opposed to you and Ganpati who would have refused to offer your hand at all and would have said something like 'yeah but you only helped out because your country told you to and you did pretty well out of the war anyway'.

---

It is hardly news to discover that nations act in their own interest and their own defence. Nor is it a criticism from any on here.

The criticism is of this grandstanding notion of something altogether more noble and self sacrificial. We are all grateful the USA joined the war and it wouldn't have been won on the western front without them, or in the Pacific theatre.

We in Britain make a similar mistake with our heroism. I don't doubt the heroism of our soldiers, the bravery of every day Londoners facing the blitz....but compared to what people in other parts of the world went through during that war it is a day at the ****ing beach.

Its a sense of perspective that is needed. The yanks lack it, being a young and rather immature country with so little knowledge of the world.

Great bunch of lads though, all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

CLANG!! Its the 80s again :)

---

Right. That's why they finally got around to electing Donald Trump, I suppose.