Far more serious was the fact that in WW1, all purchases of US arms and ammunition etc by France, Italy, Russia and most other belligerents on the Allied side were channelled through Great Britain because the US would not accept that the others could or would pay -only Britain had the wealth to back up the credit. So Britain ended up with massive debts incurred on behalf of Russia and Italy to name but two who never paid a bean but received plenty of American arms. Britain paid off all "her own debts" but not all the debts of the others. The cost to Britain of WW1 was enormous, far higher than any other belligerent on the Allied side, almost double that of France - the start of the slide to penury.
Britain and the Commonwealth put their hands up and held on after Germany went through Europe like a dose of salts. The failure of Britain to survive would have cost the US much more, so their money was well spent. When all is said and done, Britain and her people lost more than most "post war" and deserved better for their stand against Germany.
When Churchill made his 'finest hour' speech I think he knew Britain and the Empire was already on the slippery slope after the cost of WW1 and 2. There was no way the UK and Commonwealth could ever recover financially, even given the relatively generous terms of the US loans.
Saw a snip of information used as a prop for the present Eurozone crisis and comparing it with the 1929 Wall Street crash and its aftermath. In 1933 a US financier was shown declaring that France should be able to afford its $20 million annual instalment payment.(Presumabily from the Great War debt). At the time it looked as if France might default on the instalment.
We here in Britain did win the war.... Had we been defeated when we stood alone, then the whole of Western civilisation would've fallen under the heel of the Nazi jackboot. Our men to serve in their army, others to be worked to death for the good of the Fatherland. And God help our womenfolk.....The prettiest dragged off for the pleasure of the SS, the rest completely expendable.... It would seem that there is not really an understanding of how close we came to being a gigantic concentration camp......Believe it! What was in store for this land was plainly unspeakable.. And it was a close run thing, with elements in our Government calling for peace negotiations with Hitler... A few stout hearts stood in the way, as did the people of this land. Sapper
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I found this on wikipedia (yes I know ...but it shows stats) But what have statistics to do with anything- it just enables a journo like Simon Jenkins to out together a smart line to grab attention. Another way of approaching the "who won the war" question is to ask "but for " what action/inaction etc would the war have been lost. And that leads to new arguments.....
We here in Britain did win the war.... Had we been defeated when we stood alone, then the whole of Western civilisation would've fallen under the heel of the Nazi jackboot. Our men to serve in their army, others to be worked to death for the good of the Fatherland. And God help our womenfolk.....The prettiest dragged off for the pleasure of the SS, the rest completely expendable.... It would seem that there is not really an understanding of how close we came to being a gigantic concentration camp......Believe it! What was in store for this land was plainly unspeakable.. And it was a close run thing, with elements in our Government calling for peace negotiations with Hitler... A few stout hearts stood in the way, as did the people of this land. Sapper Well said that man! "but for " this jewel set in a silver sea we would indeed have been done for. But so many writers think patriotism a dirty word and seem to consider it their role to rubbish their country. Never understand it (nor do many foreigners).
Susan. Never heard it better. Why we are so unpatriotic I fail to understand. It does seem that only when the chips are down that the British come to life. Then often in the past, they left it dangerously late. It does seem to me that we lost our way over the last thirty years, We became lethargic and lazy.Too engrossed in our own belly buttons, while in the mean time, our land was invaded, peacefully ..But invaded none the less. This is not the England that I and many like me sallied forth for. As to what would have happened to this land had we lost?.... having seen some of the Nazi's work first hand..... the mind boggles at the thought. That our men would have fought in the German army, there is not the slightest doubt. All the nations that Hitler conquered had men serving under his command. As an example the place we used as camp in Holland was a badly shelled and mortared wooden hutted camp... A training camp for the Dutch youth to train and join as SS fighters. It happened everywhere they went. The power of propaganda is a mighty weapon. It can perssued people to do things, and endure the misery that they would never accept, were it not fr the out pouring and power of propaganda. You can see it every day in the national press here in the UK......Big Grin...
But so many writers think patriotism a dirty word and seem to consider it their role to rubbish their country. Never understand it (nor do many foreigners). I don't understand it either, Susan. Heck, even I experience a strong feeling of excitement when I hear a rousing rendition of Rule Britannia! and I'm not a Limey.
I'm sure Simon Jenkins, who has described England as "the most remarkable country in European history," will be surprised to learn from this thread that he in fact hates the place and everything about it. Wouldn't it be courteous to at least read his book before jumping to conclusions about it - and him? Best, Alan
I've no idea what this thread is about any more... allies, loans, patriotism, being ?invaded, or a book, rather a 5 sentence statement ..? Perhaps Grimmy might like to come back and direct it; his original post after all? This from the BBC website: World War II devastated half the globe, killing an estimated 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians. Instant histories of the war - not least Winston Churchill's own - depicted it as Britain isolated and alone against the might of Germany. This was true only for a period in 1941-1942, when little fighting was done. By the time of the Yalta Conference in February 1945, it was Roosevelt and Stalin who divided the world. Compared with the global total, British losses were comparatively modest. Some 375,000 service personnel were killed, just over half the number lost in World War I, and 60,000 civilians had died in air raids. Some 2% of the total war deaths were British, against 65% that were Soviet. The USSR and America won the war with Britain as something of an also-ran. A Short History of England by Simon Jenkins is published by Profile books. I'm sure no-one would argue that Britain won World War II alone, but I'm at a loss to understand why Mr Jenkins seems to dismiss Britain's contribution solely on the number of casualties sustained. Any observations?
Hang on! You ask Tom. Ron or myself: Sapper.... who won the war? Good Lord I should have thought that was obvious... We did .All the Vets here will agree I am sure. We did it....... I know I did What about Old codgers the Vets here? We did on our own ..Did we not? Bloody sure we did Onward ever onward... I certainly was of the belief that Tom single handedly re-captured Rome
Susan - I didn't think that anyone noticed - but I did have a lot of help from my best buddy - US Gen. Mark Clark -! Cheers
I've no idea what this thread is about any more... allies, loans, patriotism, being ?invaded, or a book, rather a 5 sentence statement ..? Perhaps Grimmy might like to come back and direct it; his original post after all? Hi Diane, I'm quite happy to let people have their say - there have been some interesting and heartfelt comments. My original 'gripe' (bearing in mind that, not having read the book, I was relying on the BBC summary), was that I found it astonishing that casualty figures could ever be a measure of which nations 'won' or 'lost' or the extent of their participation. Mr Jenkins seems to use Britain's 'modest' casualty figures to dismiss her as an 'also-ran'. Then, in almost the same breath, he awards the victor's laurel to the USSR because of her 65% casualty rate. It simply doesn't make sense. The outcome of WW2, in terms of winners and losers, is clear-cut (militarily at least). Who benefitted in the long run is, of course, a matter of debate, but casualty figures should play no part in determining who played their part. We all know that Britain (and her Commonwealth) allies gave their all. The fact that she had a comparatively low casualty rate is perhaps down to the fighting prowess of her troops - a possibilty Mr Jenkins seems to have ignored. I hope I'm not misrepresenting Mr Jenkins, because if I am then I'm going to look a right burke
Susan - I didn't think that anyone noticed - but I did have a lot of help from my best buddy - US Gen. Mark Clark -! Cheers We all know it was you Tom...you just didn't have the PR machine and your own press corps like Clark did......
I think Grimmy it'd be difficult indeed to represent Mr Jenkin's view if no one has read the book, especially if the thread continues to comment following on only from 5 sentences, author unknown. I have no idea if that is representative of his views, does anyone who has posted here know? I watched the video I linked to in post 2 and it intrigued me enough to download the book - only to find that my card had expired. I may yet download it despite losing interest in this thread. But, to be perfectly honest whatever the man has written, some here seem to have made up their minds to be 'outraged' by one line in a quote from a BBC site. His book is apparently from England's perspective and a lot of the talk here has been about Britain, her allies in the Commonwealth etc. So perhaps if the discussion is to continue from your original introductory post, as Alan has just recently suggested, some might do the author the courtesy of reading his full text.
I think Grimmy it'd be difficult indeed to represent Mr Jenkin's view if no one has read the book, especially if the thread continues to comment following on only from 5 sentences, author unknown. I have no idea if that is representative of his views, does anyone who has posted here know? I watched the video I linked to in post 2 and it intrigued me enough to download the book - only to find that my card had expired. I may yet download it despite losing interest in this thread. But, to be perfectly honest whatever the man has written, some here seem to have made up their minds to be 'outraged' by one line in a quote from a BBC site. His book is apparently from England's perspective and a lot of the talk here has been about Britain, her allies in the Commonwealth etc. So perhaps if the discussion is to continue from your original introductory post, as Alan has just recently suggested, some might do the author the courtesy of reading his full text. You are right Diane. So here is the man himself explaining his approach if the link is OK. English history: why we need to understand 1066 and all that | Books | The Guardian
Dear Grimmy, Well I too haven't read Jenkins' book, though I may try to get hold of a copy when I'm in Britain later in the month. So take anything I have to say about this with the appropriate pinch of salt. But what I think Jenkins was trying to say was this: traditionally, British accounts of WWII have tended to emphasize the British role in the war to the exclusion of all other factors. Churchill's wartime memoir, which is really the ur-text of British historiography about the war, is especially guilty of this - as pointed out by, for example, David Reynolds in his excellent book on Churchill's memoirs, In Command of History. All Jenkins is really pointing out is that Britain fought a different kind of war in 1939-1945 than it had done in 1914-1918. During the First World War, the British Army was engaged in almost continuous combat over 4 years with the bulk of the German Army. The result was that the BEF played a huge role in defeating the German Army, but at the cost of horrific casualties. For various reasons, some to do with chance, some to do with choice, the British Army did not engage with the German Army in the same way in the Second World War. The result was a much lower casualty figure. But this was not because defeating the Germans had somehow become easier over the intervening years; rather it was because another army - the Red Army, to be specific - was absorbing those casualties instead. I don't know why this commonplace observation is considered to be so outrageous. Actually, that's not true. I do know why. But it has nothing to do with history per se. It has to do with the obsession people have with seeing the war in terms of national prestige. It's a view in which history is a zero-sum ranking system, in which the object is to ensure that the side you emotionally identify with gets as much 'credit' as possible. This leads to many silly and pointless arguments about 'who really won the war' - which is a bit like arguing about whether it's the petrol or the engine oil which is more important to making a car go (I can assure you from sad personal experience that unless you have both, you're in trouble). But it's a parlour game which seems to have lost none of its popularity over the years, as this thread suggests. Best, Alan
Just looking at a range of what you might refer to as professional reviewers,Jenkins's work does not attract any comment in relation what has been discussed here. Did Jenkins quote "myth" in discussing English history which set the hares running?.The Germans would have included us all as Englisch,meaning British. Apparently the work was commissioned by the National Trust and Jenkins is its chaiman Price £25,discounted to £15.
And of course statistics can be misleading, for example, the Soviets executed an estimated 35,000 of their own people in/at Starlingrad in 1942. So, if you extrapolate this across all Eastern front battles/theatres throughout their relatively short involvement in WWII, the Soviets probably killed hundreds of thousands of their own people. Indeed, it is estimated that over 50,000 Soviets joined the Germans in the Stalingrad thing - some voluntary some forced no doubt - and if these were not killed helping the Germans they most surely would have been executed by the Soviets when captured. So, it is likley that the Soviets killed an enormous amount of their own people. So much for statistics. And so much for the great patriotic war. I am just very proud of our own Commonwealth veterans - those living and those dead - they all gave so much and for a long time they were on their own. And I don't like their contribution to final victory being relegated to the place 'also rans' or 'bit players'. Best, Steve.
