And what are the rights of sovereign states and who determines what is best for the world.

 

The Falkland are British and the USA should back Britain up over them.

 

They did? How did they do this? You tell me when the britts stopped the Germans without help.  Was this before or after Dunkirk?  What about the 50 destroyers we gave the UK and the complete resupply of the British forces after they left everything they owned on the beaches at Dunkirk.  My friend, you need to do some heavy reading.  And you would do well to read histories that aren't written by anyone from the UK.  And then thank your stars for the thousands of Merchant seamen that lost their lives bringing supplies from the US just to keep you folks alive.  

Afaik, The only assistance the British asked for in the Falklands was the use of the US base at Diego Garcia, which they recieved.  They were offered military aid, but declined, saying that they could handle things alone.  Which they did quite nicely.

 

The British empire with about 400 other European pilots from. Poland, France and czech republic won the battle of Britain. The USA sent 7 pilots and 4 planes. Canada sent 130 pilots and more than 500 planes, which nation did more to save Britain. Also Canada sent Britain more food, ships and planes than the USA untill mid 1941.

 

I do think your the one who needs to do some heavy reading and to stop listening to American writers.

 

I will thank the canadians because they are the ones who really saved Britain and Europe if anybody did.

 

Your undoubtedly young.  You quite possibly haven't known anyone who was alive then.  Your reading a lot of revisionist bulls***.  You have a strong national pride, that's good.  However your hatred of the US[for whatever reasons] is clouding your judgment.

It's a given fact, if it hadn't been for the US and the USSR,  German would be the language of the UK today. 

 

It is also a know fact that without Britain the USA could not have helped the USSR or take back Europe bacause the Germans would have had the Atlantic. Also Without the British empire fighting in Asia the USA/China/Russia would have lost millions more men. 

 

Also I think that ww2 needed everybody and that the British empire/USA/USSR/China should get 25% of the glory for winning the war each. If even one of them was not in the would it would have been very hard to win.

 

People will pay more attention if you provide sources for your ideas.  And making the claims you are, it's almost mandatory.  You might want to search the archives, as this has been hashed over many times.

And BTW- US war planners had already gone on the assumption that the UK would be over run and therefore unusable as a base. The war would have been won without you.

 

 

 

I also think Russia goes on to much about it's part in ww2, because without the USA and Britain sending them weapons, oil and food they would have been crushed between Germany and Japan. Also most of the Germans who died on the eastern front, died because of the weather and the Russia camps. Russia also played both side they can't ever be forgiven for killing so many polish and not stopping the Germans sooner.

I you know anything about British history post ww1 and to ww2 you will know that Churchill was a political outcast because of his military loses in ww1. Chamberlain in my mind is the worse PM in British history and if churchill had not been so bad in ww1 we may have stopped the war and done what he wanted. After ww2 Britain voted out churchill and got one of the best PMs we have ever had if not the best so we did the right thing. 

 

You do know the person who runs BP now was incharge of BP. USA. so it was his fault the rig low up. and I hope you American's will one day know how it's feel to have all you great companies taken over and your job go also and you can do nothing because you own so much money to that nation. O I forgot about China hahahahah.

 

Who said America could win the war by itself?  I sure didn't.  I said the war planners had assumed that the UK would be overrun. with that possibility in mind they went on as if the UK wasn't there.

The eventuality would be the war would be won without you.  It would have taken longer, but the complete mobilization of the US, Men weapons , wartime production, would not have reached it's max. until 1965.  I might point out at this time that by the end of the war, the British navy was no 2 to the US Navy. 

There are always people who cannot accept the fact that the US is what it is.  And there will always be people who, having had there collective butts pulled from the fire by the US military, will deny the fact that they were unable to do it alone. 

Regardless of your nationalistic pride, Britain did not win the War by herself.  Next time you go across the channel, make a stop at the Normandy Memorial.  Take a look at the thousands of white crosses.  Yes, there are British soldiers buried there, but about 1/2 as many as the US.

 

Germany- 320,000 killed wounded or missing.

US-           135,000 Killed wounded or missing.

UK-              65,000 Killed wounded or missing

Canada-    18,000  Killed wounded or missing.

    And this is just for D-Day.

Source-  Encyclopedia Britannica 

 

Britain had been engaged in the war for nearly 2 years before the US got involved militarily.  She had already taken a pounding from the air.  The excursions into Norway and France had severely weakened the British ground forces.  At the time, the only positive thing the Britts had going was the Royal Navy.

All other things aside, the expenditure of wealth is another aspect of war expenses.  Just the cost of the Manhattan project was more than the UK spent on the entire war. [In todays money the Manhattan project would have cost approx. 100 Billion]

 

If it had become necessary, the US and the USSR would have eventually won the war alone, it just would have taken longer.  

 

 

 

USA 416,800

UK 383,600

British empire + UK 601,600

 

Non military deaths.

 

USA 1,700

UK 67,100

British empire + UK 2,384,900  

 

Total deaths

 

USA 418,500

UK 450,700

British empir + UK 2,986,500

 

As you can see the UK lost far more people as a % of it population and the British empire lost far more people. So the British empire payed far more of a price in ww2 than the USA in terms of lives lost.  Still China and Russia pay a far higher price for ww2 than the USA and British empire. We must not forget about China in ww2 as you and many others do.

My source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties  

 

Do you think the USA did the most to win ww2? if so you as a % you think that USA won ww2. To assum anything in war is bad planning, the USA knew that Canada, Australia, New zealand and other parts of the British empire would come and help the British stop the Germans. Also that there was free people of Europe who came to help Britain and thousands of men. Also the British had the best navy in the world at that time, the German navy was the weakest part of it's military so the British could not have just been taken fast like in France. We both know that the USA and Russia should have came into the war the hour after France was beaten. The fact is that ww2 could not have been won without the British empire, no matter what you say the British empire fought in every theatre in ww2 backing up the USA/Russia/China. Without the British navy and air force D day could not have happened for another year atleast and the Russia may have been beaten in that time. I know that the USA navy was bigger in the last 2 years of the war but the British empire still had more ships in Europe than the USA and thats what won the war in Europe and Asia Naval power the USA and British empire had the naval power and China and Russia the man power. I know that ww2 could not have been won without the USA but the USA did not save the world, 5 great powers did French empire/British Empire/USSA/China/USA. I have been to the ww1 grave yards and their is far more British than American's there.

 

The British even befor the USA came in were bombing Germany, even after the USA was in the war Britain was still getting bombed, when the USA air force had to stop bombing for 3 months because of your huge loses the British kept bombing. The British ground force were fighting in north African and other place, The British had enough men in Europe but there was not enough tanks to beat the Germans with thats what the USA gave the British Tanks. You do know that the total GDP of Britain at that time was 240 billion not including the rest of the British empire, the UK did not pass the debt on to it's empire something we get no credit for doing.  

 

The empire i am taking about is the one Britain had right after ww2.

 

If you know anything about British empire history you will know that the empire got bigger and better after the USA stole all that land. The Germans and then Russians all payed and so did France. Britain payed off it's debts just slow. British empire payed off the ww1 debt in 15 years. The USA came it to ww1 because they want that money back. Yes i know the Scotish helped the French thats why England started attacking Scotland, Wales is not a nation it was spilt in 2 England took out the Bottom part and then rest, Ireland war taken Because they poeple who owned Southern Wales moved and took most of Ireland.

 

So the desert rats were Indian slaves hahaha. The Scotish held the line so more men could get out of dunkirk, Irland did not help Britain in ww2.

 

The empire is something to be proud off it made 4 great nations USA/Canada/Australia/New Zealand. Spread Europe values all over the world the values of common law, democracy, land ownership. Also capitalisum, many new ways of killing disease and nw ways of growing things and building things. The British have give far more to the world than anyother empire or nation. Also all the bad things we did in Africa were their own leader fault and in north American France and Spain started it befor we did. And you do know that india attacked Britain and we fought back and won. Yes famines in India were made worse by the British killing 35 million people But British technology saved 80 million Indians. Yes Britain changed the India economy to make more money for Britain but it was their own fault they attacked Britain.

 

Thanks for calling me a red coat the army that made the biggest empire ever and a lime because we but limes in out ships so we could be at sea longer and made the best navy in the world at one point. So now i must call you yank or something like that you may thing but no it will call you. AMERICAN SCUM! 

 

Don't even try and say the British were really bad to American's because we both know it's bull. the American's were treated the same as any english man. but did we go and want independence no we stook with it and one day we got what we wanted you on the other hand still have not got want you wanted. infact you have became a new British empire. How does it fell to be part of the most powerfull nation on earth at the end of it power over everybody else.

 

I agree your empire was more benevolent than that of Britain but it's not anymore in the last 10 years the USA has overtaken Britain into 6th place on which nation has killed the most people directly or indirectly. Nobody owes a debt gratitude to the USA because you have used them for your own gain like the British did put you have give little back the British gave all they could.

 

I am not ignorant of the past I know we could not have won WW2 without the USA or taken down the USSR but in doing so you wrecked you political reputation all around the world. It's your own stupied fault that your empire is falling after just 20 years as the hyperpower. The main reason that you are falling is because you act like an empire but you want and say you are a republic make your minds up and you may not fall so far.

 

European socialisum can work Germany and France prove that and the USA would work better under that system and with a lower jail population. Also the USA needs more men in it's army so send the people who are in jail to afghanistan.

 

Yes labour were crap for Britain they made the red tape worse and followed the USA into every war. But we now have a much better conservative goverment who will sort it out.

 

Now i know why the UN is crap because the USA controls it, The EU gives more aid to the world than the USA, fact so the USA does not give the most food aid. With this new infomation i can't  reconsider my last post

 

My next question is how come when the EU does something well GB is all ready to part of it, but when they are not they are quick to point out they are not in the monetary union.

 

BTW in terms of support for the UN and F Aid the US is the greatest single contribe..The EU is not a nation so it is not accurate to use combined EU figures. If you want to talk apples to apples comapre the US (a single sov nation) to France or germany (a single sov nation). Once again last I knew the EU was not a country but an Economic Union.

 

UK in the second Falklands war did not need bullets, but helicopters did the USA send them no, I am not even sure of we got bullets from the USA. I know the USA refueled UK ships but it was our fuel and we had to pay the USA $500,000 for their help. Also the UK did need help with logistics but we had no money to pay the USA with so you did not help the UK apart from the refueling. 

 

When the UK government says it's happy with the EU when the EU is doing or not happy when it's doing bad. It's just politics, like on the USA news if the war in afghanistan is going well they say USA troops won, But if is going bad they say ISAF troops lost. 

 

The EU gives aid as a government would. Also the EU is a political union not an economic one.

 

 

Not Economic??? We can't discuss this anymore. When you make statements like this I just lose the ability to give you any credibilty at all. There is a political aspect to the EU but it is first and formost an economic union

 

From the EU website:

 

The Treaty on European Union:

 

The Union shall set itself the following objectives: to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve balanced and sustainable development, in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17, to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union , to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime, to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it with a view to considering to what extent the policies and forms of cooperation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community. The objectives of the Union shall be achieved as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the conditions and the timetable set out therein while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Article 2 – The Treaty establishing the European Community

The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 4, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, a high level of employment and of social protection, equality between men and women, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance, a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States. Remarks on the Articles:  Non-inflationary growth means that rises in the level of wages and prices must not occur at the expense of a fall in real purchasing power. Convergence of economic performance means that the EU must endeavour to achieve consistency between the economic performances of the Member States

 

 

British Defence Secretary Sir John Nott

 

BTW Weinberger was knighted because of:

Honorary /wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire - Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1988, awarded in recognition for an "outstanding and invaluable" contribution to military cooperation between the /wiki/UK - UK and the US, particularly during the /wiki/Falklands_War - Falklands War of 1982.

The United States provided everything except for manpower. The American base at Ascension Island (ironically, leased from the British) was now the closest one to the combat zone, albeit still 3,800 miles away. Weinberger took steps to cut through the “infamous” Pentagon bureaucracy and deliver materiel to the British as quickly as possible, reducing the usual procurement time of six weeks to about twenty-four hours, with some even arriving within six hours of the initial request. He gives an account of the weapons and equipment being delivered:

The first requests were for missiles, particularly our Sidewinders, the AIM 9-L air-to-air missiles, with which the British wreaked such havoc on the Argentines, and aircraft fuel. But initially we had to, and did, add enormously to the facilities at Ascension to receive and deliver the fuel and other supplies to the British task forces’ ships and planes (we also sold them twelve of our F-4 fighter planes at a “bargain basement” price after the war, in order to allow the British to keep a Phantom squadron on the Falklands). http://automaticballpoint.com/2010/05/07/reagan-thatcher-and-the-tilt/#_ftn14 - [14]

The Sidewinders certainly were state-of-the-art; as one of the first all-aspect air-to-air missiles in the world, it allowed RAF pilots to shoot down Argentine planes from any angle in the sky. Between 1 May and 23 June, 27 Sidewinders were launched. 24 hit their targets. http://automaticballpoint.com/2010/05/07/reagan-thatcher-and-the-tilt/#_ftn15 - [15] No longer were the British confined to trailing behind enemy fighters.

As for the overall strategic picture, Anderson invokes the grim specter of a South Atlantic winter. “Without American logistic support, most of which was channeled through Ascension Island, the operation would have taken much longer, and would undoubtedly have been compromised by the onset of the southern winter.” Getting to Ascension in the first place would have been impossible without the 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel provided by the Pentagon. http://automaticballpoint.com/2010/05/07/reagan-thatcher-and-the-tilt/#_ftn16 - [16] Between the logistic, aviation, and intelligence requirements of British forces, the case is clearly weighted towards a decisive American contribution. It was significant in the sense that without the support, the British effort would have taken far longer, suffered many more casualties, and possibly affected Prime Minister Thatcher’s government in the UK general election.

Lets follow this up from AN address from the Iron Lady herself:

 

Margaret Thatcher’s address to the Conservative Party in October 1982.

But regardless of the consequences – or rather, because of them – the American tilt towards supporting Great Britain in the Falklands War came as a shock to Britain, the OAS, and indeed most of the world. The materiel, bases, and intelligence provided were invaluable in bringing the war to a swift end without an excess of casualties. The American position in the Falklands was most certainly significant, and to a large extent surprising. But perhaps the most startling aspect of this is that the support should have come as a surprise to anyone. It was just the newest incarnation of the 200 year-old special relationship.

---

http://automaticballpoint.com/2010/05/07/reagan-thatcher-and-the-tilt/ - Reagan, Thatcher, and the ‘Tilt’ May 7, 2010

As to WWII without the Americans there would be no Britians, and if it wasn't for the Britians the Americans would have been terribly outflanked and would have been beat.

 

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

As I previously stated, the war planners at the time had already assumed that Britain would be overrun.  Plans were formulated on that basis.  The war would have been won without the Britts.  So tell me, how would the US have been "outflanked".

And do you have sources?

 

 

No, we didn't start the war.  However, we did finish it. New Orleans is a wonderful place to visit.

 

 

Causes of the war of 1812.Ongoing impressment of American sailors into service on British Navy ships, an insulting breach of American sovereignty; Britain's navy "violating the rights and the peace of our coasts";
Britain's blockade of U.S. ports ("our commerce has been plundered in every sea");
Britain's refusal to repeal its Order-In-Council forbidding neutral countries to trade with European countries, and the British Navy's enforcement of this order;
Britain's incitement of Native Americans (conventionally referred to as "savages") to violence against the Americans.

 

So first of all you quit blaming others for your mistakes.

Second of all you talk for Britian something you have no right to do.

You can't just randomly start talking for all British against all Americans.

 

 

Mynoon, I can give you a lot of room on almost everything you've said to date, except for the food.  Both of my maternal grandparents were immigrants from the UK, and they put some of the worst god-awful things in their mouths.  My Grandmother was a wonderfully spooky old Scots woman who, in her mind anyway, was a wonderful cook.  She well might have been, I don't know for sure as I couldn't eat most of her fare.

And as for the UK in general, how the hell can someone take a beautiful piece of steak, and boil it.

 

Additional-  There isn't anyone in the entire Commonwealth that knows how to cook peas without turning them into acceptable grapeshot.

 

[In his best falsetto Monty Python]  But I don't like spam.

 

I live in the UK off and on.  I do a lot of home cooking.  It's either that or starve.

 

You must be a 12 year old, and an illiterate one at that.  Most 12 year olds I know of, know that "the guy in the wheelchair" was Franklin D Roosevelt.

The rest of it is just childish drabble, nonsense.   Wishful thinking by a nationalist nutcase.

Why don't you stop bothering the people who really do know history and go clean up your room like your mum wants.

 

 

 

FDR was the best friend the UK had.  He jepordized his entire presidency to assist Churchill.  To the point of facing impeachment if he was called down by the Congress.

 

Mynoon, someone is feeding you a bunch of BS.  Get your hands on a history of the early stages of WW2 written on a Uni level.

 

 

 

I think it goes- To everything, turn, turn. 

Mynoon,  [isn't that the title of a popular British Soap opera?]  What follows is History.  Facts supported by Documents, not hearsay. 

 

 

The source for this is the National Archives-

 

 

Teaching With Documents:
Documents Related to Churchill and FDR

Background

A close friendship and the excellent working relations that developed between U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill were crucial in the establishment of a unified effort to deal with the Axis powers. This working relationship was highlighted by many joint appearances and agreements that not only addressed the immediate needs of the Allies but also the planning for a successful peace following victory.

In late December 1941, shortly after entry of the United States into World War II, Churchill met in Washington, D.C., with Roosevelt in what became known as the First Washington Conference, code name "Arcadia." The conference placed first priority on the Atlantic theater and the defeat of Germany and Italy. On December 24, 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill delivered Christmas greetings to the nation and the world from the South Portico of the White House during the lighting of the National Community Christmas Tree. FDR closed his short message with the following passage, "And so I am asking my associate, [and] my old and good friend, to say a word to the people of America, old and young, tonight, -- Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain." These words clearly describe the relationship that these two leaders of the "Free World" had struck.

FDR had begun the long-term correspondence that developed into a close working friendship with Winston Churchill in early 1940 while Churchill was still first lord of the admiralty. The initial interaction was to encourage a neutral America to take a more active anti-Axis role.

In July 1940 newly elected Prime Minister Churchill requested help from FDR, after Britain had sustained the loss of 11 destroyers to the German Navy over a 10-day period. Roosevelt responded by exchanging 50 destroyers for 99-year leases on British bases in the Caribbean and Newfoundland. A major foreign policy debate erupted over whether the United States should aid Great Britain or maintain strict neutrality.

In the 1940 presidental election campaign Roosevelt promised to keep America out of the war. He stated, "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Nevertheless, FDR wanted to support Britain and believed the United States should serve as a "great arsenal of democracy." Churchill pleaded "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job." In January 1941, following up on his campaign pledge and the prime minister's appeal for arms, Roosevelt proposed to Congress a new military aid bill.

The plan was to "lend-lease or otherwise dispose of arms" and other supplies needed by any country whose security was vital to the defense of the United States. This Lend-Lease Act, proposed by FDR in January 1941 and passed by Congress in March, went a long way toward solving the concerns of both Great Britain's desperate need for supplies and America's desire to appear neutral. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the debate over lend-lease, "We are buying . . . not lending. We are buying our own security while we prepare. By our delay during the past six years, while Germany was preparing, we find ourselves unprepared and unarmed, facing a thoroughly prepared and armed potential enemy."

In August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill met for the first of nine face-to-face conferences ( http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/exit.html?link=http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/ww2con95.html - http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/ww2con95.html ) during the war. The four-day meeting aboard a ship anchored off the coast of Newfoundland at Argentia Bay was devoted to an agreement on war aims and a vision for the future. The document created at this meeting was the http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/fdr-churchill/images/atlantic-charter.gif - The Atlantic Charter , an agreement on war aims between besieged Great Britain and the neutral United States. The charter set forth the concepts of self-determination, end to colonialism, freedom of the seas, and the improvement of living and working conditions for all people. Many of the ideas were similar to those proposed by Wilson's http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/exit.html?link=http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/ww1/fourteenpoints.html - Fourteen Points , but not accepted by our allies at the Versailles Conference at the close of World War I.

From 1941 when they first met until FDR's death in 1945, Roosevelt and Churchill sustained a close personal and professional relationship. Playwright Robert Sherwood later wrote, "It would be an exaggeration to say that Roosevelt and Churchill became chums at this conference. . . . They established an easy intimacy, a joking informality and moratorium on pomposity and cant, -- and also a degree of frankness in intercourse which, if not quite complete, was remarkably close to it." Roosevelt cabled Churchill after the meeting, "It is fun to be in the same decade with you." Churchill later wrote, "I felt I was in contact with a very great man who was also a warm-hearted friend and the foremost champion of the high causes which we served."

Two of the documents featured in this lesson, the typewritten drafts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill's Christmas Eve greeting from the White House in Washington, D.C., on December 24, 1941, and the remarks of the president and Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands are housed at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, NY.

 

Chruchill and F.D.R. did not have a close friendship we all the what F.D.R. was saying about Chruchill and Britain behind his back. to the Russians.

 

What exactly is your point? Okay, so Britain doesn't owe the USA anything. So what? Nobody attacked Britain on the forums. WW2 is over. Why the hostility?

 

I do agree that FDR treated Churchill very badly though.

 

You are going against known facts.  It's your responsibility to provide sources.  Verifiable facts from reputable peer reviewed sources.  I have provided mine, now it's your turn.  You can't just mumble some ideas and then pass them off as fact.  Or as we say in the states, "put up or shut up".