Cameron's schoolboy gaffe

[lyonhibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10719739

This is basic, basic military history that David Cameron - as with any self respecting Bristish citizen IMO - should know, or if HE doesn't know it, then his speech writing team should CERTAINLY be doing their checking before going ahead with such ridiculous statements as

"We (UK) were the junior partner when we (UK + USA) were fighting the Nazi's in 1940"

Unreal, and allied to Michael Gove giving out that schools list wrong, not one, or two, but F I V E times erroneously, I get the impression that with this as with the previous "bad" Labour government, the presentation may be slick, but the calibre of the work/research in the background is absolutely woeful.

Imagine John Hughes coming out and saying "Our great club, founded in 1874............" :bitchy:

[heretoday]

Whit dae ye expect frae a Cameron laddie?

[bawheid]

The blatant pandering and a*se licking Cameron's been doing on this trip to Washington is quite revolting. I thought we might have seen the last of it with Blair.

A junior partner in 1940. What an utter moron.

[Hibbyradge]

Ignoramuses at large on here again, I see. :bitchy:

It's all very well having a go at your political opponents, but this time I think folk are being unduly harsh on Cameron. :agree:

It's actually historically accurate to say that Britain were the junior partner in WWII. In fact, the same applies to WWI. :agree:

Anyone who has spent any time at all studying the World Wars will acknowledge that the senior partner in both, was actually Homfc.

[Hibs Class]

Ignoramuses at large on here again, I see. :bitchy:

It's all very well having a go at your political opponents, but this time I think folk are being unduly harsh on Cameron. :agree:

It's actually historically accurate to say that Britain were the junior partner in WWII. In fact, the same applies to WWI. :agree:

Anyone who has spent any time at all studying the World Wars will acknowledge that the senior partner in both, was actually Homfc.


It is historically accurate to say Britain was the junior partner (although maybe a bit unnecessary to feel the need for a comparison. It isn't historically accurate to state that was the case in 1940, because the Americans didn't join the war until after Pearl Harbour in December 1941.

[Jonnyboy]

Why not just say we were partners?

Ass licking taken to a new level.

[CropleyWasGod]

It is historically accurate to say Britain was the junior partner (although maybe a bit unnecessary to feel the need for a comparison. It isn't historically accurate to state that was the case in 1940, because the Americans didn't join the war until after Pearl Harbour in December 1941.

whooooooooooooooooooooooooosh? :greengrin

Lesson 1. Please read all posts right to their end before commenting on them.

[--------]

Ignoramuses at large on here again, I see. :bitchy:

It's all very well having a go at your political opponents, but this time I think folk are being unduly harsh on Cameron. :agree:

It's actually historically accurate to say that Britain were the junior partner in WWII. In fact, the same applies to WWI. :agree:

Anyone who has spent any time at all studying the World Wars will acknowledge that the senior partner in both, was actually Homfc.


I wasn't actually aware that the US were fighting the Nazis in 1940. Nor in 1941.

FWIW, it was Germany that declared war on the USA in December 1941, not the other way round, though it's a fact that the Yanks were assisting us in a number of significant ways throughout the previous 12 months - Lend-Lease, the extension of no-combat zones in the North Atlantic policed by the US Navy, provision of naval intelligence, etc.

Furthermore, it's also a fact that the Soviet Union has a very solid claim to being considered the power that truly destroyed Nazi Germany - they were engaged at least a year before any effective American involvement, they suffered massively greater casualties than either the UK or the US, and it was undoubtedly the Red Army that broke the Wehrmacht's ability to resist the Western Allies' much smaller offensives in the West and in North Africa, Italy and the Balkans.

The primary US involvement in WW2 was in the Pacific, and in supplying war material to the UK and USSR - although much of what they sent to the USSR was unfit for use. Sherman tanks and Kittyhawks were suicide jobs against Panthers and FW190's.

On a lighter note, there's a nice wee true story about US Lend-Lease to the Soviets. The Yanks sent a consignment of condoms (or 'French Letters' as they were known in those days) for the Red Army. These articles were all size XL, but the Yanks had the boxes labelled "Medium".

(As if! :rolleyes: )

The Russians returned the whole lot to sender, explaining that they were all MUCH too small for the average Red Army Ivan.....

:devil:

[CropleyWasGod]

I wasn't actually aware that the US were fighting the Nazis in 1940. Nor in 1941.

FWIW, it was Germany that declared war on the USA in December 1941, not the other way round, though it's a fact that the Yanks were assisting us in a number of significant ways throughout the previous 12 months - Lend-Lease, the extension of no-combat zones in the North Atlantic policed by the US Navy, provision of naval intelligence, etc.

Furthermore, it's also a fact that the Soviet Union has a very solid claim to being considered the power that truly destroyed Nazi Germany - they were engaged at least a year before any effective American involvement, they suffered massively greater casualties than either the UK or the US, and it was undoubtedly the Red Army that broke the Wehrmacht's ability to resist the Western Allies' much smaller offensives in the West and in North Africa, Italy and the Balkans.

The primary US involvement in WW2 was in the Pacific, and in supplying war material to the UK and USSR - although much of what they sent to the USSR was unfit for use. Sherman tanks and Kittyhawks were suicide jobs against Panthers and FW190's.

On a lighter note, there's a nice wee true story about US Lend-Lease to the Soviets. The Yanks sent a consignment of condoms (or 'French Letters' as they were known in those days) for the Red Army. These articles were all size XL, but the Yanks had the boxes labelled "Medium".

(As if! :rolleyes: )

The Russians returned the whole lot to sender, explaining that they were all MUCH too small for the average Red Army Ivan.....

:devil:

And another one.... :greengrin

[TariqE]

Furthermore, it's also a fact that the Soviet Union has a very solid claim to being considered the power that truly destroyed Nazi Germany - they were engaged at least a year before any effective American involvement, they suffered massively greater casualties than either the UK or the US, and it was undoubtedly the Red Army that broke the Wehrmacht's ability to resist the Western Allies' much smaller offensives in the West and in North Africa, Italy and the Balkans.


I'm tempted to call is an almost certain claim for the USSR. The relationship between the USSR and the western allies (UK in particular) was not good. By the time of the D-Day landings there was a great deal of apprehension about what the USSR would take in terms of Europe after the war- this lead to a bit of a 'race' to Berlin. The re-invasion of Europe by the western allies was as much about freeing it before the Soviets did (cos they might well just keep it) as it was about freeing it from Nazi Germany.
Imagine how things would have been were the iron curtain along the eastern border of France rather than through central Europe, with the Soviet sphere of influence taking in all of Germany, Austria, the Low countries, Denmark, etc. They probably would've taken fascist Spain too. Most of Europe would have been part of a massive communist powerhouse and the ensuing cold war would've been a lot more imbalanced.

[(((Fergus)))]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10719739

This is basic, basic military history that David Cameron - as with any self respecting Bristish citizen IMO - should know, or if HE doesn't know it, then his speech writing team should CERTAINLY be doing their checking before going ahead with such ridiculous statements as

"We (UK) were the junior partner when we (UK + USA) were fighting the Nazi's in 1940"

Unreal, and allied to Michael Gove giving out that schools list wrong, not one, or two, but F I V E times erroneously, I get the impression that with this as with the previous "bad" Labour government, the presentation may be slick, but the calibre of the work/research in the background is absolutely woeful.

Imagine John Hughes coming out and saying "Our great club, founded in 1874............" :bitchy:

Was it the fault of his speech writers? Looked like an off-the-cuff remark/slip of the tongue.

We all know what he meant though:

If it wasn't for America, we would not have defeated Hitler never mind the Japanese.

Even before their troops joined the fighting, US supplies enabled us to make the breakthrough in North Africa and keep a) the Suez Canal and b) the oil fields.

The Soviet claim to being the main force in defeating Nazism is questionable considering a) they were allies of the Nazis until Hitler broke their pact and b) they replaced Nazism with their own brand of totalitarianism. It took another 45 years until that was defeated too/defeated itself.

[--------]

Was it the fault of his speech writers? Looked like an off-the-cuff remark/slip of the tongue.

We all know what he meant though:

If it wasn't for America, we would not have defeated Hitler never mind the Japanese.

Even before their troops joined the fighting, US supplies enabled us to make the breakthrough in North Africa and keep a) the Suez Canal and b) the oil fields.

The Soviet claim to being the main force in defeating Nazism is questionable considering a) they were allies of the Nazis until Hitler broke their pact and b) they replaced Nazism with their own brand of totalitarianism. It took another 45 years until that was defeated too/defeated itself.

If we're talking about the defeat of Nazi Germany (which is what Cameron was yammering about), then the Soviet Union's role was certainly decisive.

Neither the US nor the UK would have been prepared to take the level of casualties the Red Army took. Now would the Normandy landings have stood a snowball's chance against an undivided and undistracted Wehrmacht. And if the Nazis HAD defeated the Soviet Union in 1941-42, I doubt if the Western Allies would have had the will to fight on - even an atomic bomb campaign would have been of doubtful value against a Third Reich that stretched to the Urals and beyond.

The best way I've heard it summarised is that our refusal to seek peace terms in 1940, and our resistance through 1941, bought time and kept the fight going. The Soviet Union provided the man-power to grind the German Army down, and the Americans provided the weaponry and war-material.

I don't think the Americans would have declared war on Germany in December 1941 - isolationism and anti-British feeling were still too strong. Hitler declared war on them, and solved the problem for Churchill and FDR. I'm not minimising the US contribution - just trying to keep it in perspective. Contrary to what Hollywood and John Wayne told us, the Yanquis did NOT win WW2 all on their own - any more than the Jambos won the Great War single-handed.