Brits slow to repay loans

Disagree, look at the formation of the Uniter Nations and NATO. The US wanted dialogue between other countries and the US to try and prevent future world wars.

Thanks for the intellectual honesty.

I think that Germany's infrastructure was in far worse shape than anyone else's in Europe by May 1945 and probably needed more financial support than anyone else. As I said, the US isn't a charity and if I had been a leader back then, I would've put my money on a US-friendly and democratic Germany to lead the pack in Europe, certainly not on anyone else.

Pfff... Welcome to Europe post-1989...

Hang on. We're talking about pre-1939 and could/should have been done about Nazi Germany, not what the situation was after World War II.

The real losers of World War II were the British and the French, who as you said yourself, lost their status as global powers forever.

You've pretty much got it nailed. People *cough* Europe *cough* want it their way. They lack the power to do much of anything themselves so they prefer to armchair quarterback.

Europe of today: ever the critic, never the author.

or

Europe of today is like a retired person, full of opinion, but too weary for actual planning and work.

I haven't read much of this thread, but essentially :

1. The US did only join the war properly once Japan and Nazi Germany declared war on them, meaning an effective start date of early 1942. However it would have been hard for the US to get involved prior anyway as the public over there, and Congress, saw it as someone elses war. To get people to fight for something they don't believe in is pretty hard
2. The US did indeed help the UK from 1940 through the 'lend-lease' scheme
3. Roosvelt, though not liking Churchill personally, was sympathetic to the cause and I believe all the help extended to the UK prior to 1941 was through Presidential decree, as Congress wanted to stay out of it
4. The US military was in no fit state to fight a war in both Europe and the Pacific prior to 1942 anyway

So while I can understand why the US didn't join fully until late on, it would have been nice if they'd helped their cousins earlier on. I mean the Aussies, Kiwis, Saffas and Canadians did - and at that point none of them were obliged to as they all had either independence or as close to it as dammit by then.

I do however agree with OG that had the US opened their eyes a bit they would have noticed Japan sneaking up on them for years beforehand.

We're all friends here, does it really matter anyway?

Brilliant thread for my bday. Thanks BD.

Seriously - the USA in my view could and should have shown more solidarity in the early days and jumped into the fray on our side. However, she didn't, and that's life (the British and French shouldn't have allowed Versailles to happen as it did). The U.S. did, however, make amends to a large extent after the war, and during the last 3 years I don't think there are many commentators who would or could doubt the size of the U.S. contribution.

It's all swings and roundabouts at the end of the day - to my mind America's biggest mistake was ignoring Churchill's advice and letting FDR cuddle up to Uncle Joe - Communism was let off lightly in my eyes - we should have taken a much tougher stance with Russia from the get go.

I also agree with that sentiment. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. But what that might really mean is for the US to consult with its allies before making decisions that effect the world. This way it is not a unilateral decision. So the question is how do you speed up the process of gathering consensus?

@jimbo
Then again, that's just the opposite extreme to the "I hate America" viewpoint...branding people communists is an excuse for anything! Look at Vietnam , Korea, and, bringin us neatly back to what it all boils down to these days...Iraq and the reason Saddam was put in place in the first place...to fight the Communists...

Situation in South America is getting interesting too...

@Brokenm
A start would be action that everyone thinks is a good idea, as opposed to bullying your reluctant "allies" into doing what you're planning for your own interests, "or else".

That should probably read "Situation in South America is getting interesting again" .

Where is Colonel Ollie when you need him.

Those other countries (sans SA) share a common head of state with Britain. If that doesn't count as being obliged I'm not sure what does.

But does anybody seriously believe that the USA would not have ended up fighting the Axis powers at some point, if not in Europe it would have been somewhere else and maybe a lot closer to home.

I'm reading a book that goes in some detail on the relationship between the three and argues that Churchill, who was bittlely anti-communist, had realized for a long time the danger that Stalin's ruthlessness and ambition posed. Unfortunately Roosevelt basically ignored him, considering Britain an empire which was basically on its way out, and was too sick and out of touch to really react when the two blocs were starting define themselves towards the end of the war.

Not to mention that a lot of folk back then called it "going home to fight", or similar...ties were still very strong with Britain 60 years ago

But that did not oblige them to join in.

We still have a common head of state (except the Saffers), doesn't mean the Aussies do what we tell them though (apart from when we order beers in pretty much any London bar )

That's my take on it from what I've read. In his autobiography Churchill is very critical of the stance FDR took towards the Russians. FDR had his reasons, but he was, on balance, proved wrong. The Russians were spying in quite some detail on the British and Americans whenever they all met and so Uncle Joe often had the drop on Churchill and tried to divide the Brits and the Americans.

Shame - Churchill will always be seen as a great war leader, but few people realise that he had the chance, and tried, to put the brakes on Communism, only, ironically, to be ultimately frustrated by the U.S. Such is life though. All worked out OK in the end, didn't it?

Didn't the Queen's representative dissolve the parliament of Australia in the early 70's`? And just two years ago Australia voted to maintain this power of the Queen?

Cue:


Ties between the US and Britain post WW2 are orders of magnitude stronger than then they ever have been. By the time WW2 rolled around the US had already been its own nation for a century and a half (vice the other nations you mentioned) and had fought two wars against Britain in the time between colonization and WW2.

US-UK coziness is a very new development.

I don't agree with that statement. So many presidents of the US lived for years in the UK. But reflecting back, if you are meaning the goevrnments and not the people I agree with you. But the people (who had many disatnat relatives) have always had a close connection to the British.

Sure, but that didn't make the US and UK anything like the chums they are today.

EDIT: I see your edit. I do mean governments. I'd say the US and UK governments get along pretty well these days whereas they didn't in the past. One could make an argument that the general friendliness between the people has cooled as the cultures have drifted further apart (contrast this to many other British ex-colonies who have retained similar cultures likely due to less time on their own).

@DW - Think if it wasn't for the USA's involvement in Europe 60 yrs ago and it helping itself to some technology it found lying around you might not be in the same job your in today

All the "anti-Communist" rhethoric after 1945 was just that. Churchill had done a deal with Stalin to carve up Europe between the various ruling classes following the war. But he was "bitterly anti communist" in such actions as ordering the army to shoot on striking miners in Tonypandy in 1910. The cunt.

need to finish reading other posts, but thought i'd quick respond

yes Brokenm the US wanted dialogue, but that doesn't mean they wanted someone sitting there mentoring. having other opinions and discussion is diff than a mentor.

@DW, I suppose when a large part of the world hates you, that you will take anyone to be your friend, even as you say a country that "should have been left to rot under rubble, famine and fascism."

There is some truth to that

EDIT: gonna yank that last comment - it's not gonna win me any promotions.

My comment was slathered in sarcasm as anybody who's ever read anything I've ever written in a political thread (e.g. the people who've posted above other than you) clearly knew. I'm sorry if that wasn't obvious to you.

Are you implying that NASA products are also poorly made, mass produced & technically behind the times?

What...amounst the rotting flesh of almost 11 million people that were killed because of Nazi genocidal policy. Luckly ... that wasn't the view of the majority of Americans, otherwise the number would have been alot higher

Mere,

The US was establishing themselves as one of the worlds superpowers. Where do you think the politicians at the time based the long term world outlook. Do you believe that they just thought of new ideas? I am certain they had discussions with the British concerning what are some of the implicatiosn of their actions. Since Britain was the world power at that time, who better to study and learn from. Every leader was a student of someone, who do you believe the US learned from?

@DW perhaps my slathered sarcasm was not obvious to you too, mea culpa

Not what I meat to imply (just doing the US vs. German thing)!

Sar.. cas.. wha?

Well, since you youngsters obviously know little about US history, let me at least mention a couple of things ignored in previous posts...

Why didn't the US jump into the war early, like in 1939?

The US had just spent a decade suffering from the worst financial crisis in its history. The majority of that time was spent fighting over the federal government's role in the economy, and how it could spend money. There is no way politicians could support taking a strong role in the war on the other side of the world when every dollar was being well watched, and people were terrified of extending the Great Depression further.

There was, of course, some secret spending on the war effort, such as fire bombing Tokyo. But more money came from private funding than public. I don't recall that public money was used to build up the Nazi regime as OG claims.

In addition, the US public continued to have strong familial ties with countries on both sides of the war. There was a huge migration of Germans to the US in the mid-1800's. As a matter of fact, there were plenty of Nazi supporters in the US at this time, and there were not at all secretive about it. They even conducted parades in Nazi dress.

The politicians needed to wait until we were dragged into the war, and in spite of Roosevelt's best efforts (the fire bombing of Tokyo was his idea), it wasn't until the end of 1941 that Japan finally attacked.

Anthony, can you explain the timeline on this one please ?

There's much truth to that. This was, of course, before everybody realized that the Nazis sucked.

From Wiki:

@DW Ve ry sor ry did I not sep ar ate out the sy lla bles for you

Twit. The US had much longer-standing and stronger ties to Germany -- damaged but not destroyed after WWI (because while Germany got the blame, it was Austria-Hungary that started it all) -- because so many Americans were of German descent. The animosity between the US and UK didn't settle until the mid- to late 19th century. The US hadn't gone to war with Germany (until 1917) and had received much help from France in protecting its own independence (1812-1815), never mind that Napoleon did so in his own self-interest.

The only smidgeon of truth in your craptastic response to DW is that the US still doesn't seem to have learned that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

woof.

@ BD

We established that jellyone was taking the piss.

You meant mid-20th. century, surely?

Ooops, sorry, got distracted by work, sorry, the Doolittle raids were early 1942. My fuzzy old head confused it with another pre-Pearl harbor secret attack that was exposed a few years back.

No worries, but the Tokyo firestorm raid wasn't until 1945 if my emmentaler-like brain is still working ?

I thought you were exposing some sort of clairvoyant chief of staff x-files thingy.

Yes, the Doolittle raids were not the same as the later firestorm raids.

The Doolittle raid was essential a piece of propaganda and a moral boosting exercise it had no real military significance (flying a few medium bombers off an aircraft carrier and then landing in a friendly/neutral country). Although that does not take away from the audacity, ingenuity and bravery of those you took part.

Jeez anything would be better than 50 years of listering to whining indoctrinated Americans telling us that their government has only our own best interests at heart.

I never trusted the one on the right.

Damn lucky in the real world they are smart enough not to let actors into politics in the US.

Not to mention the Indians (including Pakistanis, Bangalis), Sri Lankans, Singaporeans, the Gurkhas from Nepal etc... all the unsung heros!!

I remember people cheering at the movies when Hugh Grant does that we-will-not-be-bullied speech. Pathetic.

Well said Mystery Man and we wouldn't all be sitting here trying to learn German or gain citizenship either as we'd already all be Germans, er the not dead or imprisoned ones at least.

Whats another couple of hundred years of opression when you already have 800 hundred behind ya?

OH SNAP! No you DIDDUNT!?

Where's me spuds ya feckers ya !

How about some EU subsidies instead?