Ha, you sound like WW now....Quote:
Originally Posted by underworld
Printable View
Ha, you sound like WW now....Quote:
Originally Posted by underworld
As a footnote: remember the American war in independance [1775 ? 1783]? Here was this superior militarial technological country [Great Britain] possessing the most powerful empire the world has seen....who were defeted by local militia, who knew the terrain well, and employed unorthodox methods of fighting.
[/QUOTE]
Blimey your history wants brushing up, the French king had his head chopped
off for busting his country in this war. We were up against the Dutch and Spanish as well.They were all jealous of our empire.
Kingdom of France
Spain
Dutch Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Yes, but my example [a side footnote] was just highlighting the differences between tatics, in reponse to WW's post. ie: Germans only had horses to pull their guns, and soldiers had to march, whereas the British were more advanced and 'motorised' army. In the American War of Independence, we had a professional army, they had a militia. I didn't want derail on the whys and wherefores of all contributory factors underpinning what was a global conflict in all but name, fascinating nontheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by jobee
But I was twenty miles up the canal at el cap, bored stiff and looking for something to shoot at when the yanks and Russians started crying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
It was all over. There would have been no Suez if Nasser had kept his head.
Eden ask him for share compensation and Nasser replied " Let them choke on their tears".
We were the leading shareholders with France.
Before the Yanks said anything Nasser had already agreed to talks.
We were sitting there waiting for the withdraw command.
We didn't want the canal back, we wanted the monies due.
Which we eventually got.
Suez had a lousy press.
Quote.......As a footnote: remember the American war in independance [1775 ? 1783]? Here was this superior militarial technological country [Great Britain] possessing the most powerful empire the world has seen....who were defeted by local militia, who knew the terrain well, and employed unorthodox methods of fighting.
The British beat the Americans at Lundys Lane in Niagara.They were attempting to take over Canada, the Brits stopped them. Remember the British Army was fighting over three thousand miles away from their home bases across the wild North Atlantic, getting men and supplies across by sailing ship. The men were in a poor condition after one of those voyages.
Visit the Forts in Kingston, Niagara, and in Erie, all the history of the battles are there, with memorials to many Liverpool Regiments including the Kings and also the Lancashire Fusileers.
You totally missed it. It was political failure. The might of the British Empire was no more, the empire climbed down as it was clearly over.Quote:
Originally Posted by jobee
Eden's resignation marked the last significant attempt Britain made to impose its military will abroad without U.S. support.
..
..
Some argue that the crisis also marked the final transfer of power to the new superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union.
For a taster:
Suez Crisis
That quote is tripe. The UK pursed peace as they nothing to gain to keeping the colonies. The UK made more money from Jamaica alone than those 13 colonies.Quote:
Originally Posted by captain kong
Kong, you are confused here. Lundy's Lane was in the Anglo-American War of 1812, which took place on 25 July 1814. A different war. Another one the UK won.
Sir Gerald Templer was High Commissioner in Malaya duringthe emergency in Malaya. He was in charge when the British Army was given the go-ahead to round up civillians and re-settle them in camps, and to arrest union officials in Malaya who led strikes against this action. This gave the US military the idea that the same sort of thing might work in Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsette
In his book, 'Web of Deceit. Britain's Real Role in the World' Mark Curtis gives some details of SAS involvement alongside the Australian and New Zealand SAS in Vietnam. He also mentions MI6 helping the Malayan Government to tranfer arms and other supplies to South Vietnam, the British training US, Vietnamese and Thai troops at their jungle warfare school in Malaya during the late 1960s.
Intelligenge gathered from MI6 field hands in Hanoi was handed over to the US and the British monitoring station at Little Sai Wan in Hong Kong supplied information to the US until 1975 which was used to carry out air raids on North Vietnam.
Curtis does not name the British military advisor who went to Vietnam to assist with the fortified hamlet programme, but he supports his claim by giving reference to Hansard of April 1964 where the subject was brought up in parliament.
Britain also supplied the US with napalm and 500lb bombs during Harold Wilson's time as PM. The Conservatives simply carried on after Ted Heath became PM, no surprise there, but the idea that Wilson kept Britain out of Vietnam is a myth.
Mark Curtis mentions other British involvement in Vietnam in 'Unpeople-Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses'. Tory Blur does not come out of either book well, but how could he? He was only carrying out orders. :slywink:
As a historian of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 -- more the latter than the former, although I have written and lectured about the Revolution including on the participation of Liverpool's own Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton -- I have to say that the British were at a severe disadvantage in both wars because of the vast geographical distances that they had to march and keep properly supplied.Quote:
Originally Posted by captain kong
Thus it was not only the Americans' superior local knowledge... and even that was not always the case. American commanders complained in the War of 1812 that escaped slaves, seeking their freedom, sometimes guided the British to their targets and had better local knowledge than the militia.
In the War of 1812, as in the Revolution, Britain and the Canadian militia were lucky to retain Canada -- having to defend thousands of miles of territory, but in the later war they were aided by the fact that the Americans despite their several attempts to "grab" Canada were not prepared to fight a war, were badly led at the beginning of the war, and suffered because of their over-reliance on poorly trained militia -- some New York Militia refused to cross the Niagara River to invade Ontario in October 1812, since they maintained that the law said they should only defend their own state.
Chris
It was not poppycock. Germany was no super industrial power. The UK alone stripped in in many fields of production. Economies win drawn out wars. Germany should not have won in 1940 as everything was against Germany winning. Allied ineptitude won it for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by dazza
The 1933 German census gave 56.8% of the population in rural areas (towns less than 20,000 population) - Tooze, page 167. Tooze emphasises how backward German agriculture was. Tooze describes Germany as a medium sized workshop economy dependent on imported food. A situation Hitler did not like, as to him Germany had to be self sufficient in food and have as much natural resources as possible to compete on a world industrial scale. Hence the drive to steal land.
Cheap fast transportation, the steam ship and trains, had meant food could be transported between continents. This also prevented European famines. The USA and Canada were pouring out cereals super cheap which affected European agriculture setting it back. German, French and UK agriculture was mainly outdated to North America's. Global food production was in the hands of the USA and UK using the UK's sea lanes and massive merchant fleet to transport food - animal and human consumption. The UK produced food around its empire and other countries like the USA and Argentina linking it to the UK and empire with cheap to run and fast merchant ships. Liverpool was a massive grain importing and processing port.
This contrasts Germany with its smallholdings, who had more in common with backward agricultural nations as Ireland, Bulgaria and Romania, as Tooze emphasises. The UK had a backward agricultural system in parts, however controlled food importation across continents.
Germany would have been far better off making their backward agricultural system state-of-the-art in technology, rather than focussing its leading brains on war technology, then they would have had no need for war and grab other lands. This simple notion appears never to have occurred to them too much.
Anglo-French Alliance
In 1940 the Anglo-Franco alliance was that the French would provide the bulk of the land forces as their army was much larger. The UK would concentrate more on the navy and air - although France was large enough in these. The RN blockade of Germany was highly effective all through WW2 - Germany could not obtain essential alloys and rubber. At one time considering de-motorising the army because of no rubber.
Collectively the Anglo-French force dwarfed Germany's in 1940.
Only about 1/3 of the British Army went to France, the BEF. The French complained of the British luke-warm response. Those left in the UK had the latest off the production line equipment, which was not available to most in France. Also, the UK had a just introduced a tank in the Matilda 2 that the Germans could not knock out. A handful were used in France to great success. Canadian troops were bolstering the UK troops and the recruitment boot camps were turning out troops like wildfire. UK industry, which was bigger than Germany's in 1939, was working 24/7 to make up loses, as well as equipment bought from the USA.
US Aid:
Which was not aid as it had to be paid for and in gold initially stripping the UK of its gold reserves.
The UK pre-war did much trade with the USA and owned about 1/5 of US industry. The industry had to be sold off top US interests. Pre-war nearly 100% of the UK wheat came from the USA. Post 1939 they regarded this as war aid. Anything that was supplied as war aid. Deduct the normal trade and the so-called "aid" was not so great.
In 1775 the UK did not have much of an empire. The UK pulled out as there was little to gain from retaining the 13 colonies. They made more more money from Jamaica than all of the 13 colonies.Quote:
As a footnote: remember the American war in independance [1775 ? 1783]? Here was this superior militarial technological country [Great Britain] possessing the most powerful empire the world has seen....who were defeted by local militia, who knew the terrain well, and employed unorthodox methods of fighting.
The US declared war on the UK. The UK went over to their country and took the war right to them even sacking the White House. When Canada was secure the UK pulled out as the had desires on US territory. Job done - the UK won. It was not a draw as many perceive the war to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge
This poppycock. Supplying some arms - the US also used Canberra bombers made by Martin in the US - and giving some advice and intelligence is not committing British forces. British troops were not on the ground, in the air or the seas around fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieW
Wilson kept us out. Many reading this would have been crawling through those jungles only for Wilson. And few would not have been reading this either.
There were some on the ground WW. Not many, but some did serve in that theatre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Apart from assisting in intelligence etc, the UK committed none.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
Don't you believe it WW. There weren't many granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
To set you right, the Britain successfully defended Canada which leaves Canada to celebrate today what is still regarded as a great patriotic war. The United States successfully defended Baltimore and got a national anthem out of it. The British of some 8,000 under Major General Sir Edward Pakenham were soundly defeated at New Orleans on January 8, 1815 by a ragtag army under Major General Andrew Jackson. Pakenham's forces were devastated, some 2,000 casualties including Generals Pakenham and Gibbs mortally wounded, when the Americans behind defenses at the Rodriguez Canal fired at the British as they came over open land. The British attack strategy had gone totally awry when a feint on the western side of the Mississippi failed to occur as planned and the 44th Regiment under Col. the honorable Thomas Mullins failed to bring up the fascines (bundles of sticks) to fill in the canal, for which Mullins was court martialed. The defeat occurred after peace was signed at Ghent on Christmas Eve 1814. The Treaty of Ghent in effect held up the status quo, no one won. In fact, the war had arisen mostly because of maritime difficulties that were an outgrowth of the Napoleonic Wars. By late 1815, after Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo, those difficulties no longer existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Chris
The idea that Britain was 'prepared' for a long drawn out conflict was poppycock!!! The OP was me rubbishing Chamberlain as an inept PM, and was not directed at the off-tangent essay you gave on the lack of German technological development [at the offset]. You say that 'economies win wars', well Britain was almost bankcrupt by early 1941. After March 1941 our gold reserve had dwindled to such a state that the U.S were 'lending' us goods and supplies - to be paid for after the end of the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Yes, the British Government decided to sell its gold reserves and dollar reserves to pay for munitions, raw materials and industrial equipment from American factories. By the third quarter of 1940 the volume of British exports was down 37% compared to 1935.
Although the British Government had committed itself to nearly $10,000 millions of orders from America, Britain's gold and dollar reserves were near exhaustion. The American Government decided to prop up Britain as it neared bankruptcy, so on 10 January 1941 they produced a Bill entitled an "Act to promote the defence of the United States" (its number, H.R. 1776, was the year of American independence) which was put before the United States Congress and which was enacted on 11 March 1941. This Act became known as Lend-Lease, whereby America would lend Britain equipment which she would pay for once the war had finished. One month later British gold and dollar reserves had dwindled to their lowest ever point, $12 million.
Under this new agreement with the American Government, Britain agreed not to export any articles which contained Lend-Lease material or to export any goods?even if British-made?which were similar to Lend-Lease goods. The American Government sent officials to Britain to police these requirements. By 1944 British exports had gone down to 31% from 1938.
A fair point. We where a fledgling empire, and didn't really get going until after 1815, with the defeat of Napoleon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
I liked Blair at first, but then he turned into a 'Jack the lad' killer.Quote:
Originally Posted by captain kong
He got flash, big headed, the 'Yanks will look after me' thing.
He doesn't seem to realize that most Brits want him to FO.---over there.
This country is not America.
As I have written, the UK/Franco GDP was 60% larger than Germany/Italy. Fact! The UK economy was as equal to Germany's economy in facing a drawn out war. The economy could cope with a drawn out conflict it would not collapse and history proves that was the case. At least the UK had a fully in place navy and a large bomber fleet. Germany was no more geared for a long war than the UK, and probably less, relying on reckless gambles that in France paid off. Hence why Speer was lauded as the industrial miracle makers in keeping German industry working under severe air attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by dazza
In 1940 the UK did not envisage France falling, so sharing any economic war burden.
Tooze page 454:
"It was poor because of the incomplete industrial and economic development(The economy and industry of Germany was deficient - silly to wage war)
of Germany".
These points, point to the foolishness of the Germans as they did not have
the ability to wage war against its larger neighbours.
The gold dwindled because the USA saw an opportunity to asset strip the UK, whose buying ended the US soup lines. They would only take gold, while pre-war they never. 1941 is not 1940.Quote:
After March 1941 our gold reserve had dwindled to such a state that the U.S were 'lending' us goods and supplies - to be paid for after the end of the war.
The British were doing the fighting for the USA using much of their materials, and they charged for them. To be fair the UK mainly used its own manufactured arms. The US mainly provided industrial machinery, raw materials and food.Quote:
Although the British Government had committed itself to nearly $10,000 millions of orders from America, Britain's gold and dollar reserves were near exhaustion. The American Government decided to prop up Britain as it neared bankruptcy, so on 10 January 1941 they produced a Bill entitled an "Act to promote the defence of the United States" (its number, H.R. 1776, was the year of American independence) which was put before the United States Congress and which was enacted on 11 March 1941. This Act became known as Lend-Lease, whereby America would lend Britain equipment which she would pay for once the war had finished. One month later British gold and dollar reserves had dwindled to their lowest ever point, $12 million.
There was a reverse lend-lease, where the UK provided goods the USA could not produce themselves.
Before the USA entered the war the UK was teaming up with the USA to build the A bomb. The UK MAUD Committee predicted the UK could build the bomb by itself ion around two years. One member disagreed and then they moved to get the financial support of the USA. The bomb was seen as an economic way of winning the war - despite the fear the Germans may be advanced in A bomb technology, which they were not.
During WW2 the UK economy "grew" 60%. Tooze: "It was poor because of the incomplete industrial and economic development
of Germany".
(The economy and industry of Germany was deficient - silly to wage war)
These points, point to the foolishness of the Germans as they did not have the ability to wage sustained war against its larger neighbours.
Being proactive in eliminating a tyrant who gasses people you mean. People were saying after WW2 that we should have done the same with Hitler in the mid 1930s.Quote:
Originally Posted by jobee
If Saddam was in power causing wars you would be saying, "why didn't they go in when they could have and got rid".
There are many tyrants WW. Can't get them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
The New Orleans debacle was "after" the war was officially over. The British did not reply to the reversal as the war was over. If the UK pursued the 100% subjugation of the USA they could have. The army that defeated Napoleon was now free. The UK never, as the UK had no desires on US territory. The UK did not declare war on the USA. When the situation was to the UK's liking they drew up a treaty and went home. The USA was in no position to win any war. Trade with North America was more in the minds of the UK once Canada was secure and the USA not a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge
You do not have occupy a country to win the war. Napoleon was defeated yet France largely went back to being France again. The British did not control France, nor did they want to. The threat was eliminated.
The point is Iraq and one tyrant was got rid of. He was in a part of the world where the world's energy largely exists. He could screw up the world as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
People should do a little more thinking and get it all into perspective.
More to do with oil and revenge. He was offset in the Gulf by Iran. He weren't much of a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
Much the same as there were Soviets and Chinese helping the NVA and VC. In his books Curtis give more examples of the British helping the US in Vietnam under the Labour Government.
He also mentions Blair sending SAS detachments to Colombia to arm and train fascist death squads, technical experts to help keep Colombian helicopters flying (in the name of the anti-drugs war, but in reality to attack Colombian trade unionists), the chapters on Blair supporting Bush in starving the ordinary people of Iraq and denying them medicines are quite illuminating. How Labour Governments sold out the population of Tierra Del Fuego gets a long mention, how the Hawker Hunters used by the fascists in Chile to bring down the elected government of Allende were supplied by Harold Wilson's Government is in there.
All in all, the Labour Party are a total shower, but socialists have known this for generations.
Quite right. I notice no Labour Government was ever up for removing the racists running South Africa, the maniacs running Korea, the head cases running Israel, so this business of getting rid of a tyrant is nothing more than a fig leaf for the poodle like behaviour of Tory Blur using British forces as a tool of American foreign policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
Some of that is certainly true.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieW
You bet. They never went for Mugabe neither. That was a travesty. I was in Rhodesia and it was a very rich country before Mugabe.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieW
It sounds like an opinionated crap book with an agenda, much like yourself. You must a grid of your sycophantic tendencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieW
Tierra Del Fuego?
After the word order changed post cold war, getting rid of tyrants was right up the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieW
Don't hold back WW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
I suspect this one is some sort of Tory plant - election coming up. All his post have been predominately anti- Blair and the Labour party. When given the record of Blair, what he did, the results, he ducks it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieW
I suspect he is some sort of plant. I have seen it many times. The forums with big hits attract them at election times. The He could be a member of one of the local Tory branches or BNP or whatever. Oil and car companies clearly infiltrate the eco, energy forums. They are easy to spot - they deny man is effecting the climate. They deny non-fossil fuel energy is viable, they say there is no alternative to the inefficient, filthy internal combustion engine, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
I can't see what the demented clows has written! This 'Ignore' facility is superb! I've always supported 'No Platform for fascists' and here we have a message board with a 'No Platform for Deluded Blairites'!Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
Blair and Straw, what a pair! I'm glad my kids never got involved in drug dealing or collapsing in the street like theirs have.
I notice some left-wing people call Blair a fascist! That's not fair. The fascists made the trains run on time. Nobody could accuse New Labour of doing that!
Ha, you're right about the trains.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieW
I do't believe man is altering climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
He reads everything I write I am certain. He carps on about Blair and largely out of domestic politics and is not PM, and offers nothing except wild opinons on him. As time goes on he will gravitate to Brown. Watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieW
His tactic is negative, negative, negative, as they know that is what people vote on. Floating voters largely vote on whims on what they do not like.
Er, What was the question?
I do and so do most scientists. Natural events, like large volcano eruptions, affect the climate for sure. Historical data proves that. The crap we are putting up there 24/7, and it is increasing because of India and China, must make an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
It also makes air filthy in urban areas. So cleaning it all up to clean up cities is well worth it - whether climate change is real or not.
Give us a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse