Support NeoGAF

[peanutbutterlatte]

I have heard similar concerns from teachers as well.

I mean I remember really admiring Churchill till a couple of years ago, he's treated like some untouchable great saviour

I'd not really heard anything until that post that went around when the new fiver came out, but yeah, the guy's a disgusting racist.

 

[Theonik]

Their delay was based primarily on it being completely impractical to rejoin the continental war until they had built up sufficient forces to force a landing and secure a beachhead. They did a trial run in 1942 with the Canadians, the Dieppe raid, which was a colossal failure and taught them a lot of important lessons about what they would actually need to pull off something successful. They did invade Italy in 1943, but got bogged down. In any case, if Stalin had his way and the British attempt to open a second front in 1941-42 when he's begging for it desperately, it would have been a complete route. They didn't have the men or material, the Germans would have counterattacked and the British would have had to evacuate the continent again.

Side note though, the German switch to bombing London didn't actually save the RAF, although that is mentioned in basically every pop history and a lot of older sources. A statistical analysis of force strength indicates that the RAF were winning the Battle of Britain almost consistently, the Germans could not sustain their rate of loss and would have run out of pilots and aircraft sooner than the British would have. The Germans underestimated RAF strength, and the British overestimated Luftwaffe strength. Thus, the LW believed they were winning, and the RAF believed they were on the verge of losing at several points. However, after the fact, we can say that this was not true, particularly because the LW failed to make meaningful progress in knocking airfields or other installations out of action during the period where they were focused directly on that.

Oh, I know that invasion of Europe would have been impractical until later in the war. The Germans faced a similar version of the same problem with the Battle of Britain in that securing a British invasion basically necessitated them committing a bulk of their resources.

On my point about the Blitz and Britain capitulating, it's about perception more than actual fact. It's unlikely that the British could maintain public support with dropping morale for longer if the battle went on. But the bigger impact for the Germans wrt the Blitz is the sheer waste of resources they wasted on it the same resources they pursued the war with the British in the Middle East for and the USSR.

Whether the Soviets could have gone it alone is not really known. There's too many factors to say with reasonable certainty. The Soviets did manage to halt the Germans in 1941, and again in 1942, in both cases before huge amounts of Lend Lease aid had come online to really do anything meaningful. It's not likely that the Germans could have totally defeated the Soviets.

On the other hand, there were other less visible factors going on too. The British were an obstacle to the Germans securing all of the resources they needed, and the Germans as a result dealt with constant shortages. Additionally, there were factors like the loss of skilled pilots and aircraft in the Battle of Britain, as well as the various other commitments that the Allies forced on the Germans. The Germans needed to invest in their navy, then later their submarine arm in particular to attempt to strangle the British. They needed to maintain defensive formations along the Atlantic coast. They needed to invest in air defenses against bombers and maintain a portion of their strength for defensive operations. They needed to constantly repair things that were getting bombed, and this got worse and worse as the war went on.

While it's true that the German divisions on the ground were mostly defeated by the Soviets, in terms of aircraft lost, something close to 80% were lost on the Western Front.

Lend Lease was not required to halt the Germans, however it did never the less provide the Soviets with a huge quantity of resources, finished goods, trucks, locomotives, food, rifles, tanks, aircraft. Would the Soviets have been able to retake all of the land they lost and push into Germany without this support? That's unknonw. Maybe they would have, but just have paid a higher price in lives than they did. Maybe they wouldn't have. I can say for sure that without losing a lot of formations in the West in 1944, losing access to French resources and having to gamble the last of their strength in the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans could have held out in the East much longer than they did.

Total defeat of the Russians and an occupation of the USSR would not have been possible I think nor was it the intent. The Germans were hoping to seize Soviet oil reserves and on a capitulation that guaranteed at least some of their east european land gains. They fought their war as they did because they knew they lacked the resources to go on otherwise.

As an aside, Japan was in quite a similar position in the Pacific.

 

[derdriu]

I wonder how many Gaffers will pretend to feel sorry for the Scotch now, like they always do in a Brexit thread?

What!? do you believe that Scottish immigrants from 1700 are the same as the people currently living in Scotland? really? So they should embrace Brexit now because of this?

 

[PdotMichael]

Soviet Union was so badly outmatched by Germany in all aspects of the industry it wasn't even funny. There was also a long gap after moving plants and workers to the East where the SU had de facto no industry left.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I've felt it getting worse for a while, romanticising the war and wanking over anything related to it.

You think? I was gonna say that I thought this guy's views were pretty out of date. I know he's a ... Museum guy, but I wonder how often he goes into school history classes and sees what people today are taught? A lot of what he said is alien to me. Especially at A-Level, we spent a lot of time on decolonisation, Atlees government and, where we covered WW2, it was mostly asking questions about the morality behind nukes and Dresden.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

So far as imperialism goes, we were not only the best at it but also brought considerable advancement to the rest of the world. I'm not apologising for imperialism because I didn't have anything to do with it, but to say there aren't aspects of British hegemony that we should be proud of is a bit naive.

Obviously there is a lot of shameful stuff too, but if you were going to be a vassal of an empire the British empire was the one you wanted.

 

[Theonik]

Soviet Union was so badly outmatched by Germany in all aspects of the industry it wasn't even funny. There was also a long gap after moving plants and workers to the East where the SU had de facto no industry left.

The problem was not really the Red Army, it's the sheer size of the USSR. The German line would be spread thin either way and trying to occupy a much more populous nation has never really been successful.

 

[Nabbis]

Probably has been said already in this thread, but this is not unique to Britain or US. I think the elephant in the room is the fact that any singular government and it's policy on education will always be biased towards itself when it comes to history. It's the same on the individual level, perhaps even worse.

 

[Screaming Meat]

You did.

Either I didn't communicate it properly or you misread my post. To clarify: I said that Manpower and Industrial power were crucial but were not the only factors. Perhaps if I had put 'not the only crucial factors', it would've been clearer.

America and Russia did not win WW2 alone. That's a gross oversimplification.

 

[blazeuk]

As a brit, I can say that we, unlike Germany, have not come to terms and are not truthful about our terrible past. Our wealth was based on enslavement, piracy and a terrible empire (which was based on racketeering). The industrial revolution was an excuse to get rich, like don corleone's olive oil factory. It was not the reason for our wealth, which was stolen. Because people don't accept the he truth, they yearn for something than never existed. Interestingly, students are barely taught about the empire here.

Interesting indeed, you mention about barely being taught about the empire and someone else had mentioned about the slave trade not being taught either - is this a very recent change? We were taught all about those things in detail when I was in school and it wasn't done in a way to suggest it was all rosy for everyone either.

 

[PdotMichael]

The problem was not really the Red Army, it's the sheer size of the USSR. The German line would be spread thin either way and trying to occupy a much more populous nation has never really been successful.

We don't know the dynamics of a SU which just lost Moskau, doesnt have a functional air force and isnt capable of feeding the own soldiers and providing them with the necenarry winter wear.

 

[GeordieMark]

Interesting indeed, you mention about barely being taught about the empire and someone else had mentioned about the slave trade not being taught either - is this a very recent change? We were taught all about those things in detail when I was in school and it wasn't done in a way to suggest it was all rosy for everyone either.

Agree with this. It's a while since I was at school, but we did cover the dark side of the Empire. We are talking school level, so it might not have been the deepest coverage, but it certainly my wasn't glossed over.

It's our media, rather than schools, who gloss over the sins of the past.

 

[Oriel]

The British have never truly atoned for the horrible, vile nature of its empire across the globe. As an Irishman I shake my head at the jingoistic shite being peddled across the sea by British ultra-nationalists who now believe a Brexit means a return to Rule Britannia. If anything it will lead to the UK's demise and, likely, a united Ireland.

 

[Salvadora]

The British have never truly atoned for the horrible, vile nature of its empire across the globe. As an Irishman I shake my head at the jingoistic shite being peddled across the sea by British ultra-nationalists who now believe a Brexit means a return to Rule Britannia. If anything it will lead to the UK's demise and, likely, a united Ireland.

Most certainly not.

Unionists are exactly the type of British ultra-nationalists that you, and others, have mentioned in this thread - and they are the majority.

 

[SuperHans]

Most certainly not.

Unionists are exactly the type of British ultra-nationalists that you, and others, have mentioned in this thread - and they are the majority.

True but demographics are trending the other way. A untied Ireland isn't going to happen any time soon but in the next 15-20 years this might change.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/demographic-shifts-force-change-on-ni-politicians-1.2190041

 

[AmFreak]

Soviet Union was so badly outmatched by Germany in all aspects of the industry it wasn't even funny. There was also a long gap after moving plants and workers to the East where the SU had de facto no industry left.

This is completely wrong.
The SU had more men, more tanks, more planes and more artillery when Barbarossa started.
We are talking about ratios for all these weapons of 3-4:1 in favor of the SU side.
The Germans started their attack on the SU with ~4000 tanks and ~700,000 ........ horses.
For the entirety of the war the SU produced more planes, more tanks and more artillery than Germany.
In tanks alone for every german tank the SU produced ~2.5.
The T-34 alone was build more often than all german tanks combined.
The SU produced as many tanks as the US.

There are many reasons for this:
- a far bigger population
- access to far more resources
- land-lease from the US
- saving factories from the germans and rebuilding them deep in russian territory
- "optimizing" their equipment on the expected time-span (if a tank on average only "lives" 1 month, it doesn't need high quality components that lasts years)
- the german industry being an unoptimized mess in the first years (to many factories and weapon types, endless battle between them for resources)
- the german industry not based on mass production, but compromised of high skilled workers
- the germans building their equipment in complete opposite of the SU style
- the german industry controlled by the army, often requesting changes that delayed completion of units

 

[Oriel]

Most certainly not.

Unionists are exactly the type of British ultra-nationalists that you, and others, have mentioned in this thread - and they are the majority.

They're a shrinking majority, with Irish nationalists (nationalism in Ireland tends to be of the civic, leftist type like that of the SNP) increasing in numbers. Unionism/Loyalism is a particularily far right strain of British ultra nationalism that promotes violent rhetoric towards the Irish (especially Catholics), immigrants, blacks, Asians, gay people, basically anyone who isn't a White, Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP).

Most hate crimes in the North take place in predominately Unionist areas, carried out by loyalist terrorists. Think of the very worst excesses of the Trumpists in the US and that's what you'll get from unionist politicians, day in, day out. TUV, DUP and UUP; all unionist parties that hold extremist right wing views. Not forgetting the tribalist and klanish Orange Order, a group that espouses hatred towards Irish Catholics.

Thankfully this ugly, bigoted ideology is fading across the province, with only 2 of the 6 northern counties electing more unionist politicians than nationalists. Like the US Ireland, both North and South, is becoming more liberal, tolerant and open. A United Ireland is inevitable and with it we can benefit from England's embrace of petty isolationism/fervent ultra-nationalism.

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Yeah, I finished school last year and I can say that the way history is taught is bad. I noticed the trend of going from studying Romans, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians with British history mixed in (primary school - year 7) to everything being about Britain back in year 8. It was all British Empire this, World War II that. Absolute wankfest of Britain for the 2 years that followed.

 

[Salvadora]

True but demographics are trending the other way. A untied Ireland isn't going to happen any time soon but in the next 15-20 years this might change.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/demographic-shifts-force-change-on-ni-politicians-1.2190041

They're a shrinking majority, with Irish nationalists (nationalism in Ireland tends to be of the civic, leftist type like that of the SNP) increasing in numbers. Unionism/Loyalism is a particularily far right strain of British ultra nationalism that promotes violent rhetoric towards the Irish (especially Catholics), immigrants, blacks, Asians, gay people, basically anyone who isn't a White, Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP).

Most hate crimes in the North take place in predominately Unionist areas, carried out by loyalist terrorists. Think of the very worst excesses of the Trumpists in the US and that's what you'll get from unionist politicians, day in, day out. TUV, DUP and UUP; all unionist parties that hold extremist right wing views. Not forgetting the tribalist and klanish Orange Order, a group that espouses hatred towards Irish Catholics.

Thankfully this ugly, bigoted ideology is fading across the province, with only 2 of the 6 northern counties electing more unionist politicians than nationalists. Like the US Ireland, both North and South, is becoming more liberal, tolerant and open. A United Ireland is inevitable and with it we can benefit from England's embrace of petty isolationism/fervent ultra-nationalism.

Shrinking demographics/majority doesn't really mean all that much

It's not just a case of counting the Catholics/Protestants or Unionists/Nationalists and seeing who ends up on top.

Lots of people here are employed by the (British) State. A United Ireland would mean that a huge amount of people would lose their jobs. It would be a huge upheaval. Even tabling a proposal could lead to a re-ignition of The Troubles by a newly made minority.

It's a hugely complex issue that far too many simplify away for the romanticism of a United Ireland.

 

[PdotMichael]

This is completely wrong.
The SU had more men, more tanks, more planes and more artillery when Barbarossa started.
We are talking about ratios for all these weapons of 3-4:1 in favor of the SU side.
The Germans started their attack on the SU with ~4000 tanks and ~700,000 ........ horses.
For the entirety of the war the SU produced more planes, more tanks and more artillery than Germany.
In tanks alone for every german tank the SU produced ~2.5.
The T-34 alone was build more often than all german tanks combined.
The SU produced as many tanks as the US.

There are many reasons for this:
- a far bigger population
- access to far more resources
- land-lease from the US
- saving factories from the germans and rebuilding them deep in russian territory
- "optimizing" their equipment on the expected time-span (if a tank on average only "lives" 1 month, it doesn't need high quality components that lasts years)
- the german industry being an unoptimized mess in the first years (to many factories and weapon types, endless battle between them for resources)
- the german industry not based on mass production, but compromised of high skilled workers
- the germans building their equipment in complete opposite of the SU style
- the german industry controlled by the army, often requesting changes that delayed completion of units

It wasn't until 1945 when the GDP of the SU exceeded that one of Germany.

And except of crude oil Germany's output on war relevant ressources was so much higher than the SU it wasn't funny.
Your listed points about more tanks and stuff is rather pointless because it wouldn't have been possible without the Lend Lease Act.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

The amount of WW2 Soviet revisionism here is kinda weird. The Soviets in no way "won the war" by themselves, hell, they very nearly lost the war outright until the Western Front started pushing hard enough to relieve the pressure on the East. Sure they did the most fighting and the most dying, but unless you are the type of person who thinks a war, a modern war especially, is won by who killed the most people or paid the highest price then you are terribly mistaken. The Soviet numbers are so imbalanced because, for most of the war, they were fighting on their own land against a sustained German invasion. And doctrinal decisions dictating that they stand and fight to the last rather than retreat or surrender when outmatched like you typically saw in the Western Front until the last days of the war.

This isn't to discredit the Soviets in any way, they took the brunt of the Nazi war machine right on the chin and stayed standing which is pretty incredible in it's own right, even at the cost of so many lives. But to suggest that would have happened if the Western Front didn't exist, or even more ridiculously that they somehow would have WON the war without the other Allies is patently false.

 

[Oriel]

Shrinking demographics/majority doesn't really mean all that much

It's not just a case of counting the Catholics/Protestants or Unionists/Nationalists and seeing who ends up on top.

Lots of people here are employed by the (British) State. A United Ireland would mean that a huge amount of people would lose their jobs. It would be a huge upheaval. Even tabling a proposal could lead to a re-ignition of The Troubles by a newly made minority.

It's a hugely complex issue that far too many simplify away for the romanticism of a United Ireland.

Opinion polls consistently show the majority of Catholics (and an increasing number of Protestants) supporting reunification.

Also there wouldn't be a return to the Troubles given there'd be little appetite among unionists for war, especially without a British state willing to arm them like it did back in the 1910's and again during the Troubles.

As for the economic arguments a UI would lead to better economies of scale as there'd be a single all-Ireland economy that does away with wasteful duplication of public services. This fear mongering is unhelpful and wholly untrue.

 

[CyclopsRock]

As for the economic arguments a UI would lead to better economies of scale as there'd be a single all-Ireland economy that does away with wasteful duplication of public services. This fear mongering is unhelpful and wholly untrue.

Is there a big duplication of public services? Surely on-the-ground duplication (busses, hospitals etc) only applies right along the border. More general things must be alleviated by the fact that much of it is done in the rest of the UK (for example NI uses the same DVLA infrastructure as the rest of the UK, not 'its own').

 

[Oriel]

Is there a big duplication of public services? Surely on-the-ground duplication (busses, hospitals etc) only applies right along the border. More general things must be alleviated by the fact that much of it is done in the rest of the UK (for example NI uses the same DVLA infrastructure as the rest of the UK, not 'its own').

Most public services in NI are separate from the rest of the UK, with many govt departments under the control of Stormont instead of London due to devolution. Health, education, policing, roads, public transport, etc differing from that of the UK. Having a single police service, single health system, single school system, common public transport services operating on an all-Ireland basis would make the most sense givem the small size of Ireland, both geographically and population-wise.

Only people from Ireland can truly understand how devastating partition has been for this country, and continues to be.

 

[AmFreak]

It wasn't until 1945 when the GDP of the SU exceeded that one of Germany.

And except of crude oil Germany's output on war relevant ressources was so much higher than the SU it wasn't funny.
Your listed points about more tanks and stuff is rather pointless because it wouldn't have been possible without the Lend Lease Act.

The SU had far more equipment before Lend-Lease even started, lost a big part of that equipment and then outproduced Germany in every category even if you subtract the units delivered by Lend-Lease.
7000 tanks were delivered by the US and 5000 by the UK through Lend-Lease, while the SU produced over 100,000 themselves, compared to 40,000 Germany produced.
The SU received 2.5 million tonnes of steel through lend-lease in comparison to ~46 million tonnes they produced themselves from 41-44.
I'm also not saying Lend-Lease wasn't a big help, but your point that "the Soviet Union was so badly outmatched by Germany in all aspects of the industry it wasn't even funny" just isn't true.
Yeah Germany (far) outproduced the SU in some resources like steel and coal, but in arms and the resource that Germany needed far more than anything the SU needed (oil) it was the complete opposite.

 

[entremet]

YouGov found 44 per cent were proud of Britain's history of colonialism while only 21 per cent regretted that it happened. 23 per cent held neither view.

But you could also argue that the Empire allowed for greater cultural diffusion as well. Yes I know there was some horrible stuff that happened.

But India has no extensive railway system without the British, nor do they have tea weirdly enough! Tea was cultural export to India.

 

[KillerMan91]

The amount of WW2 Soviet revisionism here is kinda weird. The Soviets in no way "won the war" by themselves, hell, they very nearly lost the war outright until the Western Front started pushing hard enough to relieve the pressure on the East. Sure they did the most fighting and the most dying, but unless you are the type of person who thinks a war, a modern war especially, is won by who killed the most people or paid the highest price then you are terribly mistaken. The Soviet numbers are so imbalanced because, for most of the war, they were fighting on their own land against a sustained German invasion. And doctrinal decisions dictating that they stand and fight to the last rather than retreat or surrender when outmatched like you typically saw in the Western Front until the last days of the war.

This isn't to discredit the Soviets in any way, they took the brunt of the Nazi war machine right on the chin and stayed standing which is pretty incredible in it's own right, even at the cost of so many lives. But to suggest that would have happened if the Western Front didn't exist, or even more ridiculously that they somehow would have WON the war without the other Allies is patently false.

You might want to read about Eastern Front once more. By June 1944 when Operation Normandy started Germans were already retreating on Eastern Front (had been for some time already). They had basically lost the war already. It would have just taken some extra time without Western Front. Of course considering the history after the war it was definitely a positive thing that whole continental Europe didn't fall to the hands of Soviets (without western front they would have rolled to the coast of France). Mind you that I don't want to belittle the efforts of western allies and without them the war could have definitely ended otherway but western contribution was more about supply of material than men on the ground (in European theatre).

But you could also argue that the Empire allowed for greater cultural diffusion as well. Yes I know there was some horrible stuff that happened.

But India has no extensive railway system without the British, nor do they have tea weirdly enough! Tea was cultural export to India.

Well with same reasoning you could say that Japanese Empire had positive influence for example in Korea....

 

[CyclopsRock]

Most public services in NI are separate from the rest of the UK, with many govt departments under the control of Stormont instead of London due to devolution. Health, education, policing, roads, public transport, etc differing from that of the UK. Having a single police service, single health system, single school system, common public transport services operating on an all-Ireland basis would make the most sense givem the small size of Ireland, both geographically and population-wise.

Only people from Ireland can truly understand how devastating partition has been for this country, and continues to be.

If you say so. I can't imagine it's due to a duplication in of health systems though.

 

[Chococat]

First of all, Stalin was a worse human being than Churchill. Yes, I will speak in relative terms, doesn't matter if you don't like it.

When it comes to the topic of this thread, is British's view of history dangerous, I am not wrong. YOU'RE putting words into my mouth that I think Churchill is worse than Stalin. I am not. Stop it. Stalin is and was a terrible human. But after recent studies in Russia, WWI and WII, Churchill and Britain no longer come off as good as high school taught histories made them out to be. It no different than relearning about USA history. Yes, there are some great things. But there is a lot of terrible things that are glossed over.

In the European and North African theatres, the British Empire (most prominently including Canada, Australia, and India) did not have a "lesser contribution". You're objectively wrong Chococat.

Your twisting the words "lesser contribution" into an insult when that is not my point. Removing the help of say Canada, would not have changed the war much. Removing the USA or Russia would have drastically changed the outcome. That not an insult to Canada.

And then...so because everyone was spent after WWI, the UK wasn't a world power during WWII? Weakened after WWI quite a bit, yes, but only after WWII did the UK truly and entirely decline in influence. WWII was the last gasp of the British Empire.

Again, you're the one claiming I said Britain wasn't a power during WWII. I made no such claim. Britain was in power before WWII. They were the one's that hand a stranglehold on world trade and were preventing the USA sell their good in foreign countries. WWII was the reason for Britain's downfall because going into debt buying war supplies from America and Roosevelt refusing to let Britain draft a resolution that was purely good for the British.

Yes, Britain was spent after WWI. The public didn't want to go to war. That why Britain was willing to sign away the freedoms of other countries to the Nazi because they could not convince the public to fight another war. IT was only when their back was to the wall that Britain proper rose up to the challenge. Why you assume that is an insult is beyond me.

As for your fantasy view of Stalin's overtures, Stalin was not to be trusted.

First, I posted facts backed by documentation and historians. Stalin did try to rouse the Allies because the Nazi were a threat to Russia. Again, the topic of this thread is how Britain has a dangerous view of history. You're illustrating it by making Russia a purely evil entity with no nuance. there is more to Russia than Stalin. There is the people that just wanted to live their lives.

The following posters here already said what I was going to say:

Snip all the stuff that is about how wonderful and Great Britain was as an Empire. It is you who are not looking at Britain's history objectively.

You're reduced to talking about "feelings", as if they don't apply to the USSR. The British Empire was not spent until after WWII.

My stuff is not based on feelings. It based on the political maneuvering of the time. Britain lost it superpower status because it old Empire way of play other countries off each other failed. Its main power came from its colonies, not Britain itself. The USA rose because they were able to exploit the cracks in Britain's power and rose because by the end of the war they control 2/3s of the gold reserve in the world at the end of the war. Russia became a superpower cause of dramatic changes in its system of government aka- going from monarch serf system to supposed socialist system which really was a dictatorship under a madman. But even that madman understood you needed jobs to put bread in people's bellies, even with his purges. Paranoia, along with the West's crappy policies toward Russia lead to the build-up of Russian power. A war economy is a great way quickly build up one's society. Both the Russians and the USA learned this lesson to the detriment of the many lesser powers.

 

[bengraven]

I remember an NPR story (yes, that's America) about a decade ago about how Britain teens were forgetting more and more of their history. The main crux of the story was "will people remember Nelson?". As an American it was actually the first time I had even heard of Horatio Nelson.

 

[Pancake Mix]

that's a lovely way to refer to the Ulster Plantations.

Oh, I'm not defending how Ulster was actually colonised. It wasn't very nice. Technically though, the majority in the North are Unionists.

Indeed. The US+UK narrative of WW2 because of the Cold War is almost laughable when you read about the war. It was a German and Russia war at its core.

Bullshit, the US suffered greatly in its war in the Pacific and you're ignoring enormous Western European losses on the Western Front. This revisionist anti-British bullshit is not what the former British Museum director is talking about. You're discounting the enormous contributions of countries like Canada too. By the end of the war it had the world's 5th largest navy in spite of its population at the time.

Your twisting the words "lesser contribution" into an insult when that is not my point. Removing the help of say Canada, would not have changed the war much. Removing the USA or Russia would have drastically changed the outcome. That not an insult to Canada.

You're doing it again. Actually, the UK would have fallen without Canadian supplies and it was even used as a safe place to stash enormous quantities of British gold.

Removing the UK and the British Empire as a whole would have most likely caused the fall of Moscow, as the Atlantic Wall fortifications wouldn't need to be manned so heavily.

That Stalin threw ill-equipped forces at Hitler and was able to halt the Nazis at the suburbs of Moscow does not mean that the British Empire's role was a lesser contribution. The UK providing a safe haven for Jews, the Free French, and the Free Poles and surviving the Blitz is important.

D-Day wouldn't have happened in June 1944 at all if the UK wasn't still standing. The Russians would have turned Europe communist and raped and pillaged just like they did in Germany. The UK provided a safe place for the Western allies to penetrate Fortress Europe, other than going up the boot of Italy, which was also aided by the UK.

And yes, you were talking about "feelings."

 

[The Hamburglar]

Have to disagree with this museum guy. As someone who enjoys history, studied it at gcse, a level and has a degree in it. It isn't true that only the good parts are taught. If anything history in the U.K. Focuses too much on nazi Germany. You do it at gcse, a level and in Your first year of a degree normally.

I see the threads turned into arguing about who contributed the most in ww2 lol.

 

[Chococat]

Bullshit, the US suffered greatly in its war in the Pacific and you're ignoring enormous Western European losses on the Western Front. This revisionist anti-British bullshit is not what the former British Museum director is talking about. You're discounting the enormous contributions of countries like Canada too. By the end of the war it had the world's 5th largest navy in spite of its population at the time.

Deaths as % of 1940 population

.32 % USA (both Atlantic and Pacific)
.94 % British including colonies
8.26-8.86 % Germany
13.7% Russia (not counting Stalin's own purges against his people)
16.93-17.22 Poland

So yes, it was definitely a war primarily between Russia and Germany with Poland stuck in the middle.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Deaths as % of 1940 population

.32 % USA (both Atlantic and Pacific)
.94 % British including colonies
8.26-8.86 % Germany
13.7% Russia (not counting Stalin's own purges against his people)
16.93-17.22 Poland

So yes, it was definitely a war primarily between Russia and Gemany with Poland stuck in the middle.

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Odd to include colonies like British Honduras in the British count, and something tells me that doesn't even include Hong Kong, which was devastated by the Japanese in a way similar to Poland but on a smaller scale. I also suspect that total doesn't include Canada, Australia, South Africa, or New Zealand, being independent dominions.

The UK was able to hold the Nazi advance at the Channel Islands. That the blitz didn't have the same number of casualties as throwing ill-equipped Soviet soldiers (including conscripts from the illegally annexed territories I might add) at waves upon waves of Nazi soldiers does not mean that the USSR had the most enormous contribution, just that it paid the highest price (other than Poland). Think of it this way, if you need to throw 2 Soviet soldiers at every Nazi to neutralise them, then that's what you have to do. That's a sacrifice, but the actual contributory effect on the war is equivalent to simply surviving a bombing campaign closer to the heart of Nazi Germany, providing a safe allied platform to re-enter Europe from, and as result, have most of your soldiers still standing by 1944. It's a different way to fight war and it's informed by the natural protection granted by the seas and oceans. Sadly, the Soviets and Poles didn't have that, and the Soviets had to play the long game. They performed admirably.

If the UK hadn't resulted in spent Nazi resources, both in guarding the Atlantic Wall and in The Blitz, then Moscow would certainly have fallen and Stalin would have to retreat even further towards Asia.

Poland was devastated by the war and sadly most of those were probably civilian casualties.

Also, US aside, you're ignoring Asia for some reason. It's called WWII for a reason. Everywhere the Japanese Army went, the people suffered enormously.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

You might want to read about Eastern Front once more. By June 1944 when Operation Normandy started Germans were already retreating on Eastern Front (had been for some time already). They had basically lost the war already. It would have just taken some extra time without Western Front. Of course considering the history after the war it was definitely a positive thing that whole continental Europe didn't fall to the hands of Soviets (without western front they would have rolled to the coast of France). Mind you that I don't want to belittle the efforts of western allies and without them the war could have definitely ended otherway but western contribution was more about supply of material than men on the ground (in European theatre).



Well with same reasoning you could say that Japanese Empire had positive influence for example in Korea....

You do know Operation Overlord wasn't the first Western front of the war, right? The U.S. and Britain were fighting in Africa and Italy from as early as 1942. Against the Germans, believe it or not. Hitler was forced to pull troops away from supporting the Eastern Front push because he was afraid of a breakthrough in Italy being exploited to push into Germany's southern flank.

 

[Pancake Mix]

You do know Operation Overlord wasn't the first Western front of the war, right? The U.S. and Britain were fighting in Africa and Italy from as early as 1942. Against the Germans, believe it or not. Hitler was forced to pull troops away from supporting the Eastern Front push because he was afraid of a breakthrough in Italy being exploited to push into Germany's southern flank.

People obsessed with only the Eastern Front in WWII like to ignore the Western Front and the Italian Campaign.

Also, apparently holding a well-oiled military machine to a stalemate on its doorstep at the same time to boot is not a major contribution to these people either.

 

[entremet]

You might want to read about Eastern Front once more. By June 1944 when Operation Normandy started Germans were already retreating on Eastern Front (had been for some time already). They had basically lost the war already. It would have just taken some extra time without Western Front. Of course considering the history after the war it was definitely a positive thing that whole continental Europe didn't fall to the hands of Soviets (without western front they would have rolled to the coast of France). Mind you that I don't want to belittle the efforts of western allies and without them the war could have definitely ended otherway but western contribution was more about supply of material than men on the ground (in European theatre).



Well with same reasoning you could say that Japanese Empire had positive influence for example in Korea....

Well yes.

I'm not ignoring injustice but analysis should look at two sides if the coin.

We can't undo injustice but shouldn't ignore the positives as well. Even the English languages spreading to India gave them unique advantages today in trade and commerce.

 

[Chococat]

Removing the UK and the British Empire as a whole would have most likely caused the fall of Moscow, as the Atlantic Wall fortifications wouldn't need to be manned so heavily.

You do understand that letting the Nazi and Russian fight was Churchill wanted. Churchill repeated denied aid to Russia when they were allies because he wanted his two enemies to bleed each other dry for Britain's sake. The Atlantic wall fortification was against to protect British interest. That some revision to claim they were open to help Russia in the war. It did nothing to protect Britain's allies on the European continent.

That Stalin threw ill-equipped forces at Hitler and was able to halt the Nazis at the suburbs of Moscow does not mean that the British Empire's role was a lesser contribution.

Again you keep framing "lesser contribution" as if it is an insult to Britain. Lesser contribution does not equal no contribution. Yes, they did stuff during the war. But they simply were not the lynch pin that decided the war. I once believed the western narrative WWII that heavily downplayed Russia and made Churchill out to be some great unflawed savior. I've learned better since then. Stalin is still a terrible man, but Russia does not get the credit it deserves in WWII because of lingering Cold War mentality.

And you continue to dismiss Russia role in defeating Germany. Hitler's biggest blunder was to attack Russia when the had a nonaggression pact. He could have steam-rolled over the rest of Europe, including Britain if he had focused on one front. Yes, Russia was ill-equipped. But it had the population, determination, and the winning strategy from the Napoleonic war burn and retreat until winter, then crush the invading army on their terms. For being an oppressed people, they did a phenomenal job. But that doesn't count to you because: Britain=Good and Russia=Evil. And you accuse me of being subjective because of "feelings". Look in the mirror.

 

[EMT0]

But you could also argue that the Empire allowed for greater cultural diffusion as well. Yes I know there was some horrible stuff that happened.

But India has no extensive railway system without the British, nor do they have tea weirdly enough! Tea was cultural export to India.

That's some amazing spin you've got there. Britain actively suppressed the economic development of India during the duration of their reign there. Just look up the history of Indian steel if you want just one example of the fuckery Britain engaged in. I'll be honest, I'm still surprised that to this day, Great Britain isn't held by an arm's length by the rest of the world for the shit they pulled combined with the utter lack of remorse or atonement.

 

[Vivalaraza]

Have to disagree with this museum guy. As someone who enjoys history, studied it at gcse, a level and has a degree in it. It isn't true that only the good parts are taught. If anything history in the U.K. Focuses too much on nazi Germany. You do it at gcse, a level and in Your first year of a degree normally.

I see the threads turned into arguing about who contributed the most in ww2 lol.

What kinds of things did you study at GCSE/A-Level which shed a negative light on British history and the Empire?

I studied it at both levels as well and in the core syllabus there was very very little which offered a wider perspective and it was only because of good teachers that I was taught to consider alternative perspectives.

That's some amazing spin you've got there. Britain actively suppressed the economic development of India during the duration of their reign there. Just look up the history of Indian steel if you want just one example of the fuckery Britain engaged in. I'll be honest, I'm still surprised that to this day, Great Britain isn't held by an arm's length by the rest of the world for the shit they pulled combined with the utter lack of remorse or atonement.

Unfortunately you hear that kind of argument far too often.

What the British did in the Caribbean is even worse.

The other element to this is how rarely British history pays homage to the efforts of people across the Empire. Indian forces in WW2 is a good example.

 

[Chococat]

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Odd to include colonies like British Honduras in the British count, and something tells me that doesn't even include Hong Kong, which was devastated by the Japanese in a way similar to Poland but on a smaller scale. I also suspect that total doesn't include Canada, Australia, South Africa, or New Zealand, being independent dominions.

Either post some numbers of your own to contradict my sources or shut with YOUR feeling of what is right. The source I quickly pulled up said it counted all Britsh colonies. Do you have a source you could post? Your constant insulting of my intelligence, studies, and question my motives is tired some.

Otherwise, I'm done. You clearly have a myopic view of the war that makes Britain out to great. You diss communism as out right evil, yet love to reference British control India contributions on Britain's behalf. The irony is thick.

 

[Noirulus]

They built their entire kingdom on the backs off others. Millions of Indians lost their lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars of India's wealth was stolen because of their greed. Obviously this isn't the fault of the current britons, but at least acknowledge what a destructive country you were in the past.

But you could also argue that the Empire allowed for greater cultural diffusion as well. Yes I know there was some horrible stuff that happened.

But India has no extensive railway system without the British, nor do they have tea weirdly enough! Tea was cultural export to India.

Lol. India was the wealthiest country in the world before the Brits took over. India could have easily created its own railway system. And what culture did they bring in? The culture of rape, murder, theft, and taxing every citizen 400% on all goods?

 

[Cocaloch]

Lol. India was the wealthiest country in the world before the Brits took over. India could have easily created its own railway system.

No it wasn't. The richest place in the world around Plassey, let alone when the EIC took control of most of the country, was clearly Britain by a large margin with the United Provinces as its only real competition.

I think it's really interesting how whenever British history comes up on GAF people trot out these really odd external narratives for industrialization and British economic achievement. Britain's imperial adventurism is clearly the result of its economic strength and centralization, not the other way around.

I wonder how many Gaffers will pretend to feel sorry for the Scotch now, like they always do in a Brexit thread?

In a thread about atrocities committed by the English and British states I don't understand why the "Scotch" (??????) wouldn't come up. The English and British states, the Scottish state was never really in a position to do much but I'm sure would have if it could, inflicted terrible atrocities on Scottish people. Coincidentally those states also did very bad things to Welsh and English people.

 

[CyclopsRock]

What kinds of things did you study at GCSE/A-Level which shed a negative light on British history and the Empire?

I studied it at both levels as well and in the core syllabus there was very very little which offered a wider perspective and it was only because of good teachers that I was taught to consider alternative perspectives.

Not who you quoted, but one of my A-Level modules was on Kenyan independence (Kenyatta and co).

 

[Pancake Mix]

Either post some numbers of your own to contradict my sources or shut with YOUR feeling of what is right. The source I quickly pulled up said it counted all Britsh colonies. Do you have a source you could post? Your constant insulting of my intelligence, studies, and question my motives is tired some.

Otherwise, I'm done. You clearly have a myopic view of the war that makes Britain out to great. You diss communism as out right evil, yet love to reference British control India contributions on Britain's behalf. The irony is thick.

Whoa, don't turn "feelings" around on me, that was all your doing. I'm not denying that those are the figures for war dead, but I'm not sure why you're equating civilian deaths to contributing to the Allies success. Those are just tragic non-combatant deaths, so your figures for Poland are irrelevant for the topic. Ill-equipped Soviet soldiers also died in higher quantities than members of other militaries, and the Soviet people in Europe also suffered enormous civillian casualties that are included in that figure. We could (and should) have a whole thread on how badly Poland suffered in World War II, but that's a topic for another time. It was easiest to die on the Eastern Front, partially because of the Nazi's racist ideology, and Soviet abuse. The Nazis generally treated the lands they conquered west and north of Germany slightly less poorly than their non-allies to the East, while the Soviets didn't treat people very well either. I don't think I'll get through to you, but I wanted to state that one last time.

You're bringing up irrelevant data and becoming belligerent when you're called out on it.

As for India, I'm merely stating that India was an enormous contributor to the British war effort in World War II. The British Raj in India certainly isn't something to be proud of on principle or in the way it operated, but let's not disparage India's achievements.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You think? I was gonna say that I thought this guy's views were pretty out of date. I know he's a ... Museum guy, but I wonder how often he goes into school history classes and sees what people today are taught? A lot of what he said is alien to me. Especially at A-Level, we spent a lot of time on decolonisation, Atlees government and, where we covered WW2, it was mostly asking questions about the morality behind nukes and Dresden.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't think the problem is the history syllabus, which for A-level history at least I thought was pretty raw/unvarnished. I did the United Kingdom 1867-1914, and it was pretty uncompromising about the brutality of the British in Ireland and the horrors of the Boer War. The jingoistic image definitely comes more from the societal perception, particularly the perception encouraged by the political class. Unfortunately, that's much harder to change than the school syllabus...

 

[Theonik]

Personally I think the British museum is probably one of the biggest standing examples of how unapologetic Britain is about its history tbh.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Personally I think the British museum is probably one of the biggest standing examples of how unapologetic Britain is about its history tbh.

No other country on this Earth would return those valuables. You'd have to be an absolute madman.

At least they're well protected, well secured, and completely free to access. It's not just any nation's history in there, it's the history of human civilisation in general.

 

[Quixzlizx]

I find it amusing that there are a bunch of posts mocking provincialism on the first page while simultaneously acting like WW2 was just the European theater.

 

[kharma45]

Opinion polls consistently show the majority of Catholics (and an increasing number of Protestants) supporting reunification.

Also there wouldn't be a return to the Troubles given there'd be little appetite among unionists for war, especially without a British state willing to arm them like it did back in the 1910's and again during the Troubles.

As for the economic arguments a UI would lead to better economies of scale as there'd be a single all-Ireland economy that does away with wasteful duplication of public services. This fear mongering is unhelpful and wholly untrue.

Er, no. Not in the short term. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34725746

As for the economic argument, there isn't one. There was one study done by some American think-tank that had a lovely headline of Irish unification would generate €36.5bn for the economy, forgetting the fact that breaking that figure down YoY it doesn't even pay for NI's welfare bill.

There is no argument for unification at the minute economically nor any real desire from the public, north or south. What's quite telling is that 66% in the south wanted unification at some point but if it led to higher taxes ala Germany when it unified that figure dropped by over half, and taking on NI will mean higher taxes with the economic black hole that it is.

True but demographics are trending the other way. A untied Ireland isn't going to happen any time soon but in the next 15-20 years this might change.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/demographic-shifts-force-change-on-ni-politicians-1.2190041

Only if you wrongly make the assumption that Catholic = Nationalist and Protestant = Unionist. Things aren't so black and white any more.

If you say so. I can't imagine it's due to a duplication in of health systems though.

It affected some areas and not others. Those in the west such as Derry suffered a lot due to the sectarian politics of Stormont and others. It also had a knock on affect to towns across the border like Letterkenny that relied on Derry as an economic hub.

Shrinking demographics/majority doesn't really mean all that much

It's not just a case of counting the Catholics/Protestants or Unionists/Nationalists and seeing who ends up on top.

Correct.

Lots of people here are employed by the (British) State. A United Ireland would mean that a huge amount of people would lose their jobs. It would be a huge upheaval. Even tabling a proposal could lead to a re-ignition of The Troubles by a newly made minority.

It's a hugely complex issue that far too many simplify away for the romanticism of a United Ireland.

28% of the population to be exact are public sector employees, with hefty pensions attached to that. You're right on the idea that a United Ireland now is a wholly idealogical and there's no logical basis for it. Maybe in 10 years time when we see how the UK's exit from the EU affects it there might be a case, but as of now there isn't.