Too much American 'culture' in the UK?

[buck]

You might WISH that I stick my foot in my mouth Harl but the truth is quite the opposite.

 

And how many times must you be reminded that this thread is about AMERICA'S contribution to the world - not Great Britain's - not any other country's - AMERICA'S.

 

Your attempts to exaggerate are so amusing; I have mentioned the fact that America is the biggest arms exporter in the world ONCE. So saying that I'm, ''Continually harping on about it'' is no more than a DELIBERATE LIE.

 

You talk down to people with such practised aplomb; pity that the content of your post's is largly a tissue of lies, misinformation and mis-quote.

 

You think you are such an authority on WW2 - when in fact you know nothing. My point was, as you well know, that GB came very close to being defeated MANY TIMES in WW2.

 

Are you saying that had we lost the bulk of our armies at Dunkerque the Nazis would NOT have invaded, one way or another? Even you are not clown enough to say that - surprise me. I wouldn't deprive you of using your little smilie faces Harl - I know they are a significant aid to your child-like methods of communication.

 

Why not ask Esme to say if I objected in any way to Bucks hideous use of smilies. You really must try much harder than that to disparage me Harl - it really doesn't become such a big tough motorcycling American to stoop THAT low.

Go to bed and sleep it off, you tiresome little man. We're all sick to death of you.

[Harleyman]

I'm not so sure here. I was 8 years old when the war started, and almost from day one we were subjected to intense rationing of those foods which we had to import to survive. The ration of meat like pork or beef was at one point down to 2 ounces per person per week. Food that was grown in UK was usually fairly plentiful like bread, but eggs were dried so you lived on powdered omelets. Bananas vanished for the war. You could get orange juice, and in fact the government issued free orange juice for the kids, plus a bottle of milk and a free lunch. All this would have been for nought if the Uboats had their way. When I joined the Fleet Air Arm in 1949, we were still carrying out extensive anti submarine training even as far as 1966, when I left the service. My last commision was on a small anti submarine frigate with a helicopter. This carried 2 torpedos which could home in on the propellor noise coming in from a submerged boat, my job among others was to ensure these torps were ready to fire. Enemy subs could escape from close surface attackers, but not helicopters, they couldn't hear them until too late.

 

 

Were anti-submarine ships corvettes or frigates? I thought corvettes.

[Harleyman]

Hard to believe that the Germans lost 800 U-boats by wars end and 75 percent of crews.

 

The best submarine movie bar none is the German "Das Boot"

[plekhanov]

I would see the complete success of the U-Boat campaign as bringing about a very major change in Britain's future as a nation in the context of it remaining culturally, democratic and traditionally British as it had always existed earlier.

 

Starved into surrender by the complete or almost complete annihation of it's convoys carrying vitally needed food and war supplies it would have had little choice but to surrender or let millions of it's citizens starve to death instead.

 

I dont think Hitler would have actually insisted on a full blown German occupation of Britain but the country would have become something of a lackey to the Nazis much along the lines of Vichy France

 

As for the US it would no longer have counted. Who knows which way it would have gone but there's also the fact to consider that Roosevelt by guile and cunning was determined to get the US into the war one way or another. The USS Greer incident was an example

 

The attack on Pearl Harbor was the answer to his prayers although obviously not the way he would have wished the entry of his country into the war to have happened

An extremely harsh settlement of the kind you outline would only have been possible if the Nazis had been luckier in the early battle of the Atlantic and then followed through expending the vast resources necessary to utterly defeat the UK. There's no reason to think they'd have done so, the Nazis simply wanted to pacify their potential enemies in the West, as quickly as possible with as little effort as possible so they could go about their business of conquering Lebensraum in the east.

 

Imposing an extremely harsh settlement on the UK would have taken time and diverted significant blood and treasure away from the Nazis overriding aim. A more moderate settlement of basically a non-aggression pact and a ceding of any attempts of influence in Europe to them would have been far more likely given the Nazis overall strategy. In fact as others have mentioned the supposed plans to invade the UK and so forth were very much aimed at trying to scare us into quick peace settlement so that the Nazis could turn their attention to the Slavs.

[Harleyman]

An extremely harsh settlement of the kind you outline would only have been possible if the Nazis had been luckier in the early battle of the Atlantic and then followed through expending the vast resources necessary to utterly defeat the UK. There's no reason to think they'd have done so, the Nazis simply wanted to pacify their potential enemies in the West, as quickly as possible with as little effort as possible so they could go about their business of conquering Lebensraum in the east.

 

Imposing an extremely harsh settlement on the UK would have taken time and diverted significant blood and treasure away from the Nazis overriding aim. A more moderate settlement of basically a non-aggression pact and a ceding of any attempts of influence in Europe to them would have been far more likely given the Nazis overall strategy. In fact as others have mentioned the supposed plans to invade the UK and so forth were very much aimed at trying to scare us into quick peace settlement so that the Nazis could turn their attention to the Slavs.

 

 

Even if a moderate settlement had been achieved dont you think that eventually Hitler would have increasingly interfered in Britains affairs?

Would there have been demands on the Britsh government to turn over all Jews and others the Nazis considered to be unacceptable?

 

There might also have been heavy demands for raw materials from Britain's colonies in Africa. Canada would have gone it's own way and broken ties with London and Australia and New Zealand fallen to the Japanese but of course there is always the subject of America to consider which eliminates all probabilities considering that eventually they would have been in possession of the atomic bomb and the Germans in possession of V- Type rockets with an ever increasing range.

 

A very interesting situation indeed.

[buck]

Were anti-submarine ships corvettes or frigates? I thought corvettes.

When I mentioned my service, there were no corvettes left in service. So the Frigate ended up with the job. The traditional job of a frigate was to act as a messenger boat carrying orders between major ships. The Americans turned them into fast privateers of which USS Constitution is one, and still afloat and seaworthy. Corvettes were the mainstay of convoy protectioin along with destroyers during the war.

[buck]

An extremely harsh settlement of the kind you outline would only have been possible if the Nazis had been luckier in the early battle of the Atlantic and then followed through expending the vast resources necessary to utterly defeat the UK. There's no reason to think they'd have done so, the Nazis simply wanted to pacify their potential enemies in the West, as quickly as possible with as little effort as possible so they could go about their business of conquering Lebensraum in the east.

 

Imposing an extremely harsh settlement on the UK would have taken time and diverted significant blood and treasure away from the Nazis overriding aim. A more moderate settlement of basically a non-aggression pact and a ceding of any attempts of influence in Europe to them would have been far more likely given the Nazis overall strategy. In fact as others have mentioned the supposed plans to invade the UK and so forth were very much aimed at trying to scare us into quick peace settlement so that the Nazis could turn their attention to the Slavs.

I think that Hitler was very uneasy in his dealings with the British. He let Goering try to subdue the RAF so that the home fleet could be taken out of the equation. But landing a massive Wehrmacht on Britain was not in the cards. He wanted lebensraum, and there was precious little of it to spare in Britain. Russia had everything he needed, raw materials and oil, and he set out to get it. He might have tried to attack Britain if he had conquered Russia but it was not to be. By the time the Americans joined in the rot was beginning to set in on the third Reich. The Eighth Army would soon be driving Rommel out of North Africa, and the Germans had met the Russian winter for the first time. Welcome as the Americans were, they were not immediately ready and trained to fight in Europe, but were soon ready to start chasing the Japs out of the Pacific.

[SUPERTYKE]

Go to bed and sleep it off, you tiresome little man. We're all sick to death of you.

 

It seems that you're the **** artist around here buck - you're coming across like a hick high on hooch. And I wouldn't imagine you'd rate too highly around here in a popularity poll, the significant fact here is - I don't give a flying fig WHAT you or anyone else thinks of me - (unlike yourself) I'm well loved where it matters my friend.

 

I must admit slight surprise though in your sudden unwarranted attack - especially as Harl made an equally surprising attempt at civility in his last reply. Anyone might imagine you're trying to provoke me!

 

I didn't get back to you when you and your pals were discussing my user-name. I know you like to call me 'Superdyke' (amongst other things) you tiny minded meat-head. but didn't you know that we don't have a problem over here with homosexuality? So that one's a bit of a non-starter isn't it buck.

 

But just for you -; A 'tyke' is according to the OED a miscreant child. Therefore a 'super'tyke is an extremely misbehaved child. O.K?

 

You see I don't need to have a tough sounding name in a feeble attempt to impress. I can take the pee out of myself - something you seem to find somewhat hard to do. Did you lose your sense of humour in the crossing buck? Or maybe you never had one.

 

And though I'm getting seriously bored with this aspect of the thread I'll make my reply to Harl and Plek here.

 

Are you saying that had we lost our armies at Dunkerque - as we very nearly did; and had we lost our airforce during the B.of B. - as we nearly did, the nazis WOULD NOT HAVE INVADED?

[plekhanov]

And though I'm getting seriously bored with this aspect of the thread I'll make my reply to Harl and Plek here.

 

Are you saying that had we lost our armies at Dunkerque - as we very nearly did; and had we lost our airforce during the B.of B. - as we nearly did, the nazis WOULD NOT HAVE INVADED?

Well before I shared the prevalent opinion amongst historians that:

 

1. the Nazis didn't want to invade the UK they wanted us out of the war so they could turn their attention to the east
   
2. large scale amphibious invasions are really rather difficult & require total air and sea superiority
   

 

But your in no way delusional argument that German paras alone would conquer the UK after which the Nazis would move on the USA totally changed my mind

[Harleyman]

It seems that you're the **** artist around here buck - you're coming across like a hick high on hooch. And I wouldn't imagine you'd rate too highly around here in a popularity poll, the significant fact here is - I don't give a flying fig WHAT you or anyone else thinks of me - (unlike yourself) I'm well loved where it matters my friend.

 

I must admit slight surprise though in your sudden unwarranted attack - especially as Harl made an equally surprising attempt at civility in his last reply. Anyone might imagine you're trying to provoke me!

 

I didn't get back to you when you and your pals were discussing my user-name. I know you like to call me 'Superdyke' (amongst other things) you tiny minded meat-head. but didn't you know that we don't have a problem over here with homosexuality? So that one's a bit of a non-starter isn't it buck.

 

But just for you -; A 'tyke' is according to the OED a miscreant child. Therefore a 'super'tyke is an extremely misbehaved child. O.K?

 

You see I don't need to have a tough sounding name in a feeble attempt to impress. I can take the pee out of myself - something you seem to find somewhat hard to do. Did you lose your sense of humour in the crossing buck? Or maybe you never had one.

 

And though I'm getting seriously bored with this aspect of the thread I'll make my reply to Harl and Plek here.

 

Are you saying that had we lost our armies at Dunkerque - as we very nearly did; and had we lost our airforce during the B.of B. - as we nearly did, the nazis WOULD NOT HAVE INVADED?

 

So....... Army lost and RAF eliminated? That still leaves the matter of the Royal Navy far greater in numbers and power than the Kriegsmarine and neither defeated nor neutralized? What then? How do you move a force of some 200,000 troops or more across a channel 22 miles wide without the cover of a large neval escort? The German navy in 1940 didnt have that many subs to put to sea and as for their surface fleet the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Gneisau etc were bottled up in Norwegian Fjiords. It had already suffered a number of lost ships during the invasion of Norway.

 

Even in June 1944 at the time of D-day when the Allies had complete air supremacy the mighty armada was still escorted by a huge naval force.

 

The preparation for the invasion of Britain were amateurish anyway. Not at all typical of the usual practice of German efficiency and know how.

All they had was a fleet of old barges and no troop transports whatsoever.

 

That's why it's believed that Hitler was never serious about invading. Just carrying out his usual policy of intimidation by the threat of force

 

BTW I'm a reasonable enough bloke if treated politely. I react to the way people approach me. I try not to let myself be blinded by false assumptions. America has it's faults as much as it's many blessing just as any other country has. The country has been very good to me. I worked hard to get to the good life I now enjoy but the opportunities were there also which were not available to me before I moved here.

 

I'll always put in a good word for the country when it's unfairly portrayed in a negative light