It seems only old people remember this.
It was current events to them. People of more recent times get it from secondary sources. Gee I wonder who could be more accurate.

he-he. Accuracy? How about this. I was the only little kid allowed into the American camp on a daily basis; approval of the CO.

Why - guess who was my pal ? Hungry kid far from home - big guy pleased to get yesterday's Express nearly hot off the press ? Well, the Mess Sergeant of course! The big Aldo Ray character!

I invited him home to meet the family who looked after me, and he became their friend.

With the guys in the camp I threw horseshoes and boxed. After they left I was mates with the black troops who arrived. Same again.

I know my stuff guys, about the bond between England and the USA; as soon as I can, I will put up some photos ; my cus' became the American best-seller, Pauline Glen Winslow.

Nobody's perfect, but I luv the USA because it deserves to be loved, AND i SAY IT BECAUSE IT IS TRUE. Many have forgotten, I am here to remind them. When I am gone, you can tell 'em I told you. Thank you Redneck.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

The tide really turned when America intervened in both conflicts.

WW1- By 1917 the state of the German economy had reduced its chances of winning the war to nil, even the dimmest of politicians under stands that when your people are eating roots, rats and other small animals to sustain themselves while the authorities are ripping up the roads, stripping roofs and commandeering church bells to get copper, lead and brass to keep its guns firing you are not going to win a war against two well feed, well equipped nations such as France and Britain.
Here is what Admiral David Beatty had to say on Jan 27 1917

Imagine this country's sufferings after four years of blockade. The stock of pigs slashed 77 percent; that of cattle 32 percent. The weekly per capita consumption of meat reduced from 1,050 grams to 135; the amount of available milk by half. Women's mortality up 51 percent; that of children under five 50 percent. Tubercular-related deaths up 72 percent; the birthrate down by half. Rickets, influenza, dysentery, scurvy, ulceration of the eyes, and hunger edema a common occurrence. Malnutrition, smuggling, black marketing, and hoarding widespread. And 730,000 deaths attributed by the country's Health Office to the wartime blockade. This country is not "perfidious Albion," but rather Imperial Germany. The suffering caused was not by unrestricted submarine warfare, but rather by a surface blockade that, in the eyes of Jay Winter, did not fall short of being a war crime. Thus, we may well ask how "total" was Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare?

WW2 - By 1942 Germany was pinned within continental Europe, it couldn't cross the channel to Britain, was well on its way to being booted out of North Africa and had reached its zenith in Russia, its army was being ground down everywhere, its navy was sitting at the bottom of Norwegian fjords and its air force had lost air superiority over the channel and was well on the way to losing it in Russia. The very best Germany could hope for was a stalemate and within 8 months even that was gone, they had lost the war at sea, in the air and were well on the way to losing the war on land.


In each of these cases the savior of Britain in my opinion was primarily the Royal Navy.


This in no way should undermine the contribution or sacrifice of the United States in either WW1 or WW2 as once they became involved they went at it completely but if you want to attribute credit for saving Britain to anyone in two world wars the Royal Navy is where you should start and right behind them the Royal Air Force.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

It seems only old people remember this.
It was current events to them. People of more recent times get it from secondary sources. Gee I wonder who could be more accurate.

Nonsense its just as accurate to say that modern perspectives are not cluttered by emotion and 40 years of cold war propaganda.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

That cartoon is the truth even if The New Yorker said it wasn't.... He is going to be the downfall of this great nation.

Obama in '08 means Osama in '09....

Yeah, right. Obama's going to let Bin Laden have a parade on Pennsylvania Avenue. His wife's going to start another Genocide in Rwanda. You're going to sell your guns and vote for him, too.

What's the worst he could do; get attacked and start a war with the wrong country?

Originally Posted by MontyB

WW1- By 1917 the state of the German economy had reduced its chances of winning the war to nil, even the dimmest of politicians under stands that when your people are while the authorities are ripping up the roads, stripping roofs and commandeering church bells to get copper, lead and brass to keep its guns firing.

WW2 -
In each of these cases the savior of Britain in my opinion was primarily the Royal Navy.

This in no way should undermine the contribution or sacrifice of the United States in either WW1 or WW2 as once they became involved they went at it completely but if you want to attribute credit for saving Britain to anyone in two world wars the Royal Navy is where you should start and right behind them the Royal Air Force.

Now here I really do agree with MontyB. Initially our RN and RAF kept us alive and kicking, just.

As to the first point - here we were doing that at the BEGINNING of WW11. And as for emotion and cold war propaganda ; these things are not relevant if you were on the spot when it happenned and so do not have to swallow any nonsense.

Those may be true MontyB but the state of those fighting the Germans wasn't all that great either. The wars turned without a doubt with America's intervention.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Nonsense its just as accurate to say that modern perspectives are not cluttered by emotion and 40 years of cold war propaganda.

I have seen many cases where history was forgotten and some strange new truth came to substitute that I really can't agree with this one fully at all.
In Cambodia for example, the young generation have very little understanding of what the killings by Pol Pot were.
In South Korea they have forgotten about all the grief that the North Koreans had caused over the past sixty years.
In Europe I have seen many examples of people forgetting just how bad Stalin was and that Communism just doesn't work (unless you bang it beyond recognition like China did).
People forget over time. And then someone comes up with a new story to replace it.
Oceania was never at war with Eurasia.
Oceania was always at war with Eastasia.
That deal.

As for South Koreans forgetting of the grief caused by North Koreans, maybe so, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they have just been raised to hate the Japanese even more.

No, the Japanese were that bad.
Koreans may hate the Japanese but not as much as the Chinese. Now they HATE the Japanese.
In fact, no country that was ever colonized by Japan ever has a fond memory of them. Apparently this feeling of hate towards colonials isn't completely universal unless it comes to being colonized by Japan.

Japan was that bad. Remember the Bataan Death March? While that was going on, entire small towns were being forced to live in tiny camps with one real building in them.


Monty:
The British could have lasted until probably about 1944 without US intervention. Eventually they would have been worn down to the point of defeat, without being able to do any real damage to German Production (which, with a war in Russia, would have gone to wartime capacity).

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

Japan was that bad. Remember the Bataan Death March? While that was going on, entire small towns were being forced to live in tiny camps with one real building in them.


Monty:
The British could have lasted until probably about 1944 without US intervention. Eventually they would have been worn down to the point of defeat, without being able to do any real damage to German Production (which, with a war in Russia, would have gone to wartime capacity).

Umm I know this sounds odd but I have looked at the title of the thread and we are waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy off topic here so while I find the topic interesting and would love to continue it I think we would be better off moving "Who won WW2" to the WW2 forum and let this thread get back to Iraq.