Who was the UKs worst PM and why.

[ChrisGeorge]

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.

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.

Chris

[dazza]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

A fair point. We where a fledgling empire, and didn't really get going until after 1815, with the defeat of Napoleon.

[jobee]

Phony Tony Bliar.
QUISLING and the cause of at least 100,000 deaths of Iraqi, Afghani and British Service people. The killing goes on.
Since leaving office has aquired a portfolio of ?18,000,000 of properties to live in, Earns 90,000 for an after dinner speech.
Yes a real good old fashioned Socialist is our Phony Tony.

He also today costs us who pay tax ?6,000,000 a year to keep him safe with Security, a lot more than it costs for Gordon Brown.

I liked Blair at first, but then he turned into a 'Jack the lad' killer.

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.

[Waterways]

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.

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.

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
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 war against its larger neighbours.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Waterways]

I liked Blair at first, but then he turned into a 'Jack the lad' killer.

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.

If Saddam was in power causing wars you would be saying, "why didn't they go in when they could have and got rid".

[pablo42]

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.

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.

[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 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.

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.

[Waterways]

There are many tyrants WW. Can't get them all.

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.

People should do a little more thinking and get it all into perspective.

[pablo42]

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.

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.

[RonnieW]

There were some on the ground WW. Not many, but some did serve in that theatre.

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.

[RonnieW]

More to do with oil and revenge. He was offset in the Gulf by Iran. He weren't much of a threat.

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.

[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.

Some of that is certainly true.

[pablo42]

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.

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.

[Waterways]

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.

It sounds like an opinionated crap book with an agenda, much like yourself. You must a grid of your sycophantic tendencies.
Tierra Del Fuego?

[Waterways]

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.

After the word order changed post cold war, getting rid of tyrants was right up the list.