Special Relationship

[Fruitbat]

Just going through my great grandad’s medals and realised how we might bicker between the US and British/Aus/NZ/SA but 83 years agoISH we all knew what’s up.

while my country (England) was being bombed to smitheries US politicians were visiting and we were actively cheering them. We needed you, Yankies.

2 years later you came with your usual kick ass and won it for us, but spare a thought for us, holding out, holding our balls and showing a straight bat to Hitler before the new world came to the rescue of the old.
Salute to the men who gave their lives for our freedom.

long live our special relationship.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Fruitbat,
As Stalin said...."Britain gave time,America gave money but Russia gave blood" 23 million War Dead attest to that....And while we talk of War time Pals,India gave 2.5 million Soldiers 90 thousand of whom died in action...Lest We Forget!

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Could you imagine any of the current leaders trying to lead their countries through those situations?

I shudder to think what would have happened if Trump or Biden were in office when WWII was going on...

 

[Bokanovsky]

The “special relationship” only became possible when the Brits got too weak to defend themselves and had to beg the Americans to come to their rescue (and, in an ironic twist, became a client state of their former colony).

When the British Empire was at the peak of its power, they weren’t exactly treating their American brothers in a special way (War of 1812 anyone?)

 

[Fruitbat]

The “special relationship” only became possible when the Brits got too weak to defend themselves and had to beg the Americans to come to their rescue (and, in an ironic twist, became a client state of their former colony).

When the British Empire was at the peak of its power, they weren’t exactly treating their American brothers in a special way (War of 1812 anyone?)

Well, that’s because the US saw itself as an entity but we saw it as a colony which rebelled.
Britain colonised the Americas, the colony got funded by Britain’s arch enemy, France, to establish its independence.

Think of say, Texas deciding it didn’t want to be part of the US, and being funded by Mexico to establish its independence. The nationhood itself was invented on the spot. There was no such concept of an “American”. Those fighting the war were mainly Englishmen who emigrated, along with other Europeans. It wasn’t as if this was a nation conquered by British, it WAS essentially Britain, until it reinvented itself.
So yes, your fellow countrymen creating a mutiny and throwing their lot in with your ancient enemy did not create a nice taste. It’s treason. So that took a while for the zeitgeist to change to accept the United States as it’s own entity.

It wasn’t until the Suez crisis in 1956 that the US was enshrined as the de facto world power. At the start of WW2 Britain and it’s empire was the world power. We were allies long before that.

 

[Dr.Suave]

Think of say, Texas deciding it didn’t want to be part of the US, and being funded by Mexico to establish its independence.

Cool example, I guess. I dont see either Texas wanting to separate from the US or Mexico having money to fund such a thing anytime soon, but cool example.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Fruitbat,
Of course things could have been a little different,if during the Civil War Britain had allied herself with The Confederacy,there was ample excuse as the Union had intercepted British Merchant Ships on the High Seas,preventing trade with the Southern States.....The Commander of the British Army Sir Garnet Wolsely toured the Battle Lines in Disguise to assess the possibilities,but his recommendations were kyboshed by Victoria the Queen Empress who didn't want Britain reassociated with Slavery.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

The “special relationship” only became possible when the Brits got too weak to defend themselves and had to beg the Americans to come to their rescue (and, in an ironic twist, became a client state of their former colony).

When the British Empire was at the peak of its power, they weren’t exactly treating their American brothers in a special way (War of 1812 anyone?)

Ironically Winston Churchill may have been the strongest of all the leaders in that time and probably the only reason the Brits held out for as long as they did because he gave them the resolve and strength to do so from his leadership.

Talk about the perfect person being there exactly when he is needed and that is Churchill's tenure during WWII in a nutshell.

 

[Fruitbat]

Could you imagine any of the current leaders trying to lead their countries through those situations?

I shudder to think what would have happened if Trump or Biden were in office when WWII was going on...

or the shower or shyt which masquerades as a conservative government in this country.

Conservative has a slightly different meaning here (abortion is not an issue as 99% pro choice, religion not an issue as 99% atheist, and gun rights not an issue because they’ve never been a thing in living memory)

I really like the US version of Conservatism if you could take the God bothering out of it.

Our current incumbents are fast tracking emissions zones and standing by while deranged perverts promote their sexual fetishes to children with a shield of “tolerance”.

the other option, Labour, are just the same but fking you harder

 

[Fruitbat]

Ironically Winston Churchill may have been the strongest of all the leaders in that time and probably the only reason the Brits held out for as long as they did because he gave them the resolve and strength to do so from his leadership.

Talk about the perfect person being there exactly when he is needed and that is Churchill's tenure during WWII in a nutshell.

Hell yeah, it took a man who was constantly slightly pissed (drunk) to galvanise our nation.
His speeches are amongst the greatest in the English language, imagine being bombed to shyt just waiting for Fritz to turn up and this monster of an alcoholic Toff shows up on the radio saying we’re going to fight them everywhere, anywhere, even with starvation, we will fight to the death and never give in….

Words are very powerful things. As they say, the pen is mightier than the sword

 

[Fruitbat]

Just had to drop this


Turning once again, and this time more generally, to the question of invasion, I would observe that there has never been a period in all these long centuries of which we boast when an absolute guarantee against invasion, still less against serious raids, could have been given to our people. In the days of Napoleon, of which I was speaking just now, the same wind which would have carried his transports across the Channel might have driven away the blockading fleet. There was always the chance, and it is that chance which has excited and befooled the imaginations of many Continental tyrants. Many are the tales that are told. We are assured that novel methods will be adopted, and when we see the originality of malice, the ingenuity of aggression, which our enemy displays, we may certainly prepare ourselves for every kind of novel stratagem and every kind of brutal and treacherous manœuvre. I think that no idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered and viewed with a searching, but at the same time, I hope, with a steady eye. We must never forget the solid assurances of sea power and those which belong to air power if it can be locally exercised.

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government – every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.[10]

 

[Fruitbat]

To be fair... the US didn't start it. Y'all did with the compensation with you lot demanded from Germany after WW1.

We just blew stuff up in europe theater though, Russia did all the heavy dying for us (had more soldiers than bullets).

In the Pacific, however... Yeah, that was 100% your unwanted, unloved, emancipated step-child.

It was France mainly, but yes, lessons have been learned and we didn’t repeat them.

Interestingly, in the 1950s polls were done in Britain and France as to who won the war. The resounding consensus was 1. USSR 2. Britain 3. France (lol) and 4. USA. I think the French vote influenced that third place.

they did the same poll I think about 10 years ago and it had changed to 1. US 2. USSR 3. Britain 4. France

I think Hollywood has a massive impact on how people view world events. I completely agree that the USSR were basically the victors of the European theatre.

Without the US I think Germany/Britain would have been in stalemate for a long time. I think if Germany had taken Moscow, and their oil, that a hasty peace would have been negotiated. Hitler’s world order was for Britain to be allied and control the new world and for Germany to control the continent.

Post beating the USSR there was no way Britain could have lasted against a power that large.

Churchill was extremely keen on getting the US involved and there is a persistent rumour that he knew about Pearl Harbour and said nothing. I don’t think that’s the case: Even if Japan got caught pre emptively, and they didn’t destroy most of the fleet, the US was still in the war either way.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

@Fruitbat what do you think about the invasion of Normandy being codenamed OPERATION OVERLORD and being commenced on the 6th hour of the 6th day of the 6th month of the year? (5:30 am on June 6th, or 666 in other words)

It seems like perhaps there is indeed a "special relationship" involved, but between whom?

 

[Bokanovsky]

Hell yeah, it took a man who was constantly slightly pissed (drunk) to galvanise our nation.
His speeches are amongst the greatest in the English language, imagine being bombed to shyt just waiting for Fritz to turn up and this monster of an alcoholic Toff shows up on the radio saying we’re going to fight them everywhere, anywhere, even with starvation, we will fight to the death and never give in….

Words are very powerful things. As they say, the pen is mightier than the sword

History is kind to those who happen to be on the winning side…and not so much to everyone else. George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers are celebrated today because their rebellion succeeded against all odds. Had the uprising been crushed, they would have been hanged for treason and no one would remember their names by now.

Churchill is a war hero because his side won. Had the Allies lost (for reasons that had nothing to do with Churchill personally), he would not be seen as a hero today. Similarly, if Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasing Hitler actually worked and prevented the war, he would have been remembered as a great humanitarian and peacemaker, not as a weakling and a coward.

While I think that Churchill was objectively a good wartime leader, his personal role in assuring victory has been greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes. Personally, I don’t buy the idea that the Brits were about to surrender but then he gave a brilliant speech and everyone was like “fvck it, the old man’s got a point, let’s give it another shot.”

It’s also important to remember that the Western Front was essentially a sideshow to WWII. The vast majority of German troops and armor were fighting in the east. Over 70% of Wehrmacht casualties were on the Eastern Front. Frankly, it’s kind of embarrassing that the combined American, British and Commonwealth force had so much trouble defeating Germany’s B-Team.

 

[Fruitbat]

History is kind to those who happen to be on the winning side…and not so much to everyone else. George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers are celebrated today because their rebellion succeeded against all odds. Had the uprising been crushed, they would have been hanged for treason and no one would remember their names by now.

Churchill is a war hero because his side won. Had the Allies lost (for reasons that had nothing to do with Churchill personally), he would not be seen as a hero today. Similarly, if Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasing Hitler actually worked and prevented the war, he would have been remembered as a great humanitarian and peacemaker, not as a weakling and a coward.

While I think that Churchill was objectively a good wartime leader, his personal role in assuring victory has been greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes. Personally, I don’t buy the idea that the Brits were about to surrender but then he gave a brilliant speech and everyone was like “fvck it, the old man’s got a point, let’s give it another shot.”

It’s also important to remember that the Western Front was essentially a sideshow to WWII. The vast majority of German troops and armor were fighting in the east. Over 70% of Wehrmacht casualties were on the Eastern Front. Frankly, it’s kind of embarrassing that the combined American, British and Commonwealth force had so much trouble defeating Germany’s B-Team.

Churchill was a long time advocate for rearmament in the 30s. The majority of British politicians did not want another war and underplayed the threat of a re emergent Germany.

Chamberlain released the “Peace in our time” speech having met Hitler.

Germany then invaded Czechoslovakia, re militarised the Rhineland and when they attacked Poland the consensus was that appeasement hadn’t worked and Churchill was right. That’s why he got the role of PM, as he was the lone voice or one of a very few who was warning that it was a matter of time before the Hun would try to occupy Europe.

His speech which most closely resembles what you state was his “Blood, toil, sweat and tears” speech to parliament. It was academic at that point.

it wasn’t the case that Churchill turned everyone away from appeasement. It was that the policy was appeasement, appeasement clearly didn’t work as he was currently invading all his neighbouring states so he was vindicated. At the point he made these speeches it was already accepted we were going to war.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Fruitbat,
Yes you are right about Chamberlain,but then reflect,that perhaps he gave breathing time,time to build the Hurricanes that won the Battle Of Britain,train Pilots and prepare for an inevitable War...The favourite for Prime Minister when Churchill was elected was Lord Halifax,another appeaser but on the afternoon the election was held he broke a tooth was absent at the dentist....The fickle finger of Fate.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Fruitbat,
Me again," Churchill was extremely keen on getting the US involved and there is a persistent rumour that he knew about Pearl Harbour and said nothing."Perhaps yes,but there is another rumour that the US fleet had Radar from Britain,warning them of the Japanese Aircraft and that Rooseveldt had suppressed the News ...As a matter of interest Australia declared War on Japan before the US check it out.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Money And Muscle,
On WW1 yes reparations were responsible for WW2 but Y'all included your Woodrow Wilson who presided over the Peace negotiations,he together with the Frenchman Clemanceau insisted on rediculous reparations it was after all an Armistice not a Victory.
"In the Pacific, however... Yeah, that was 100% your unwanted, unloved, emancipated step-child."Sorry but disagree...The first involvement against Japan was with the Russians in Mongolia,in fact Marshall Zhukov inflicted Japans first reversal at Khalkin Ghol in 1937....Which was incidentally the year that Nationalist China started fighting them too,the Chinese suffered 6 million War Dead...Then we have the British 14th Army in Burma who were responsible for more Japanese casualties than all other Allied participants in one of the greatest retreats ever they were pushed back into India,where they made a heroic stand on the Arakan at a place called Imphal one of WW2's bloodiest battles after prevailing there they fought a bitter war pushing the Japs all the way to Vietnam...Then could I mention Australia?The Japanese Armies furthest limit was New Guinea where they were stopped by the Australians on the Owen Stanleys before any Americans arrived on the Scene,Just Saying.

 

[BeExcellent]

Cool example, I guess. I dont see either Texas wanting to separate from the US or Mexico having money to fund such a thing anytime soon, but cool example.

Let me correct your history gentlemen. Texas in fact WAS an independent country that won its independence from Mexico on March 2, 1836. Texas was a sovereign nation for 10 years until Texas elected to join the US as a state. Because Texas has been sovereign it has retained the right to secede from the US and once again become sovereign. Texas also can fly its flag at the same height as the US flag due to its former sovereignty. There have been rumblings for years about secession as Texas has a robust economy in its own right.

Native Texans are typically nationalists who are Texans first and Americans second. I certainly meet that description. So Texans are rather a unique breed.

“You can go to Hell, I’m going to Texas”
-Davy Crockett (who later died defending the Alamo)

As a native Texan, I have always revered and considered Churchill a hero and have immense respect for his character and fortitude as a tactician, strategist, leader, politician and man. He stood on principle when Chamberlain and others were soft and he understood the Nazi threat very early.

“You cannot reason with a Tiger when your head is in its mouth!!!!”
-Sir Winston Churchill

Cheers @Fruitbat to our brethren across the pond. Amazing sacrifice was made by all.

The rescue at Dunkirk was an awesome display of British tenacity. It took guts to order it, and incredible guts for the British people to execute it.

A tip of the cowboy hat to you.

 

[Fruitbat]

Hi Fruitbat,
Me again," Churchill was extremely keen on getting the US involved and there is a persistent rumour that he knew about Pearl Harbour and said nothing."Perhaps yes,but there is another rumour that the US fleet had Radar from Britain,warning them of the Japanese Aircraft and that Rooseveldt had suppressed the News ...As a matter of interest Australia declared War on Japan before the US check it out.

Churchill’s mother was American and yes, he very much wanted the US in the war.

the issue is with the pearl harbour theory, even if he knew, and he told the US, the Japanese were at sea. They had set sail. If the US had intercepted, it would have been a huge naval battle and the US would be in the war anyway.