Don(Wyziwyg)T - 06 Oct 05 - 05:01 AM

"You should remember Keith, that the fact that our ex colonies remain friends, and part of the commonwealth, says more about their tolerance, than about our popularity."

If the above were the case how does it explain the list of countries that have never had any historical tie to Great Britain applying to join the Commonwealth, which after the UN is the largest international organisation and forum in the world, no vetoes, what is democratically decided by the council of Prime Ministers of the member states.

England, then latterly the United Kingdom, had very few 'colonies', most of whom were turned over to Dominion status comparatively early in their histories. Not that many were vacated due to extended campaigns of armed resistence either.

Cyprus, definitiely not a British colony in any way shape or form, actually came into being when the UK threatened to walk out and hand the island back to Turkey, who had previously asked the British to administer it.

I rather liked Gurney's post of 05 Oct 05 - 06:14 PM. I think he puts it rather well.

Old Glory - 06 Oct 05 - 06:06 AM

Regarding the Falklands, the UK's response to Argentinian aggression, shook the world, it took everybody by surprise, especially the Americans. In trying to win friends in South America the CIA and Mrs Jean Fitzpatrick had given the Generals a wink-and-a-nod, intimating that in their assessment the UK would do nothing. Alexander Haig then had to do a great deal of back tracking to put the matter to rights vis-a-vis the US and UK. I also doubt very much whether or not the Boy Scouts could have transported 12,000 troops over 12,500 miles and launched an unsupported landing with your nearest base over 5000 miles away - The US could not even do that fully mobilised during the Second World War in the Pacific. The island hopping that was done was carried out over much shorter distances. In the Falklands, once ashore, the campaign was swift, it was also carried through with minimum loss of life to either side.

With regard to quality of opposition in the Falklands you had a conscript force up against professional, integrated armed forces. You on the other hand can tell us what a grim time the US Marine Corps had taking on the opposition in Grenada - now that really was a farce.

As to the World Wars, America won both of them - Not exactly true and anyone who has studied those conflicts would tell you the same. More accurate to state that the United States of America was instrumental in making an Allied Victory possible - That is not the same as saying that America won both of them.

You ask what formidable opponent the UK has taken on alone and defeated without the backing of the United States of America in recent times. Now taking recent as being post-WWII, the one that immediately springs to mind is "The War of the Running Dogs", Malaya 1947 to 1964. The UK is down in the history books as being the only country during the "Cold War" era to successfully take on and defeat a communist inspired and backed insurrection - The United States of America faced with exactly the same type of conflict in Vietnam failed completely.

GUEST,rarelamb - 06 Oct 05 - 11:02 AM, I enjoyed reading your post.

During WWI, yes it was true you did ship substantial material aid - to both sides and the American Corporations doing the trading made a handsome profit out of it. US involvement on the side of the British and the French had more propaganda value than military value - the expeditionary force sent over from the US lacked everything that was required to take the field, from heavy artillery down to steel helmets, these were all supplied by the British and the French. The reality was that the Germans would have surrendered because the country was collapsing from the inside, the US entry into the war countered the German/Austro-Hungarian victory on the Eastern Front, without even one US GI having to go to the Western Front. Their blockaded and starving population fully realised that the allies facing them on the Western Front would grind them down and that talk of any victory was clearly a myth after the last German spring offensive failed to break through in France.

One thing that does stand in Great Britain's favour and shows the metal and integrity of her ministers is that the British Foreign Secretary, Earl Grey, immediately before the start of the First WOrld War received an offer from Germany of all the French Colonies if Great Britain remained neutral. Without recourse to consultation he immediately refused the offer and coined that phrase about the lights going out all over Europe.


On WWII, initially the same story but to a lesser degree, yes America provided aid, which Britain paid for. When Britan couldn't the Lend-Lease Agreement was made which did save us, it kept us in the war. But by the time all that had happened, one thing that Churchill had predicted had happened. "Hitler knows he must defeat us on this island or lose the war" - Hitler failed to defeat Britain because he has lost his navy in Norway and failed to win the Battle of Britain.

Two times the 'Wolfpack' tactics nearly succeeded - but nearly is not good enough - The Battle of the Atlantic was fought primarily between the Royal and Commonwealth Navies and the Germans, direct US involvement was slight in comparison. The 'second happy time' for the German U-Boats came when they could attack merchant shipping off the eastern seaboard of America. Early in the war the US might have given the UK, 50 old destroyers, during the 'second happy time' the UK gave the US personnel experienced in hunting U-Boats and escort vessels equipped with ASDIC (British invention).

Yes America was the 'arsenal of democracy' and the assistance sent to Russia did help, the Russians have only in the last 15 years acknowledged this. As a reciprocal gesture maybe those in the US should publically acknowledge the sacrifices and effort the people of Russia made in defeating Nazi Germany.

I disagree with your assessment that had the battle been left to one of Russia vs. the Germans, that the Germans would have won. General Heinz Guderian made the mistake of telling Hitler what required to be done before the gates of Moscow in 1941. What he said was correct, but he was dismissed for his pains - he knew then, that from that point on, the Germans on the Eastern Front were always going to be out-manned, out-gunned and out-fought - there was only ever going to be one result.

In the aftermath of Dunkirk, the Germans once again tried to buy Britain off, at that time Great Britain and her Empire/Commonwealth stood completely alone, once again those overtures were rejected.

Both World Wars of the 20th Century cost Great Britain her finest generations and her Empire, which in reality was already on the wane. The debt wracked up during the Second World War the UK repaid to America in 1972, we were one of the few countries to do that - among friends we tend to pay our tab, no matter the currency.