Prime Minister says that UK was 'junior partner in 1940'

perseus

Active member
David Cameron has been criticised after mistakenly saying the UK was the "junior partner" in the allied World War II fight against Germany in 1940.

He made the historical slip, neglecting the fact that the US had yet to enter the war, on the second day of his first trip to the US as prime minister.

Labour's David Miliband called it a "slight", while a veterans' group said it could "alienate" former troops.

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

Junior partner to whom? Perhaps a slip, since Britain and its empire were fighting the Nazis single handedly from June 1940 for a year. They were the junior army to France prior to this, but even this was still a slur to the Navy and Air force.

However, perhaps it betrays a submissive attitude to the US. He should be prepared to stick up for the UK, as Blair should have done as well.
 
Last edited:
The UK was a Junior partner to the French Army. After France's collapse the UK probably would have ended up in a stalemate with Germany. The Germans unable to invade the UK do to a tiny Navy & the UK unable to invade the Continent because of a tiny Army. Maybe by drafting large numbers of Indians & Africans there might have been a chance, but there is some question if the US-UK alliance could have beaten Germany if there was no Eastern Front. Odd that he'd say that though.
 
Britain only provided around 10 divisions out of the 144 allied divisions on the western front in 1940.
I think its safe to say we were indeed the junior partner in the alliance with France
 
The UK was a Junior partner to the French Army. After France's collapse the UK probably would have ended up in a stalemate with Germany. The Germans unable to invade the UK do to a tiny Navy & the UK unable to invade the Continent because of a tiny Army. Maybe by drafting large numbers of Indians & Africans there might have been a chance, but there is some question if the US-UK alliance could have beaten Germany if there was no Eastern Front. Odd that he'd say that though.

Thankfully Goering never completed his task of neutralizing the RAF. Once the RAF had been neutralized, the Luftwaffe could have concentrated on the Royal Navy. IF he had completed these tasks I think the outcome would have been quite different.
Remember that England bore the brunt of German attacks until Barbarossa kicked off in 1941. Then the attacks on England slowed as more and more forces were drawn off to be used on the eastern front. If Barbarossa had succeded, it would have given the germans a LOT of what they needed, mainly oil and strategic minerals. They also could have moved a lot of their industrial capacity out of range of allied bombers. We can what if this to death but the bottom line is that the PM mis spoke. With german attention focused on England, it enabled the allies to mass enough equipment for overlord.

England may not have contributed as many divisions, but they certainly did more than thier fare share.
 
Britain only provided around 10 divisions out of the 144 allied divisions on the western front in 1940.
I think its safe to say we were indeed the junior partner in the alliance with France

I agree, but the British shouldn't feel upset about it, the fact they were a junior partner was a blessing in disguise. The fact is the Germans were a step ahead of everybody in May-June 1940, and both the French and British were woefully unprepared for Blitzkrieg. Had the British contributed a larger force they very well might have been cut off as they were at Dunkirk. Except due to the larger size of the BEF, the "Miracle at Dunkirk" might have been the "Disaster at Dunkrirk"

Who would have been able left to defend England had the Germans decided to invade? The fact the British only contributed a fraction of their force allowed them time to study German tactics.
 
Slight? Each soldier's life is of highest importance, but if to compare overall British contribution to victory over the Axis with American or Soviet... What's so offensive about the truth?
 
Slight? Each soldier's life is of highest importance, but if to compare overall British contribution to victory over the Axis with American or Soviet... What's so offensive about the truth?

If you want to compare contribution in terms of pure numbers, the Russians win, hands down. I think that in this day and age, it is easier to be offended than to actually consider the statment and context it was made in.
 
Incidentally, I think Cameron wasn't referring to France but the USA. His Eton education perhaps wasn't up to scratch!

If we are taking about the overall western war, the UK was around the longest, it virtually destroyed the German and Italian surface fleet single handedly, neutralised the Uboats, killed or captured many of the experienced Luftwaffe pilots in 40/41 which would have ramifications later on in the airspace above Russia and Germany. They flew most bombing sorties causing German industry to de-concentrate industry thereby making their transport infrastructure vulnerable to more accurate US attacks and re-deploy manpower and guns which could have been used at the Russian front. Experienced Naval commanders such as Ramsey and Cunningham were vital particularly during the various amphibious landings. The physical presence of the country itself meant that Hitler had to keep troops back, particularly in France and Norway. Finally the UK contributed to important tactics and technologies, particularly convoys, short wave radar, powerful aircraft engines (early P-51s were useless) and intelligence decrypting. Without convoys, experienced crews and short wave radar the U boats would have won in the Atlantic, and blocked the Arctic passage to Russia as well.

Probably on a population basis they had a greater influence than any other Allied country.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, I think Cameron wasn't referring to France but the USA. His Eton education perhaps wasn't up to scratch!

If we are taking about the overall western war, the UK was around the longest, it virtually destroyed the German and Italian surface fleet single handedly, neutralised the Uboats, killed or captured many of the experienced Luftwaffe pilots in 40/41 which would have ramifications later on in the airspace above Russia and Germany. They flew most bombing sorties causing German industry to de-concentrate industry thereby making their transport infrastructure vulnerable to more accurate US attacks and re-deploy manpower and guns which could have been used at the Russian front. Experienced Naval commanders such as Ramsey and Cunningham were vital particularly during the various amphibious landings. The physical presence of the country itself meant that Hitler had to keep troops back, particularly in France and Norway. Finally the UK contributed to important tactics and technologies, particularly convoys, short wave radar, powerful aircraft engines (early P-51s were useless) and intelligence decrypting. Without convoys, experienced crews and short wave radar the U boats would have won in the Atlantic, and blocked the Arctic passage to Russia as well.

Probably on a population basis they had a greater influence than any other Allied country.
If it was Jr. partner in 44-45, yes. Before that, not really both were weak enough to have go after periferal targets(N. Africa) while building strenth. England was an unsinkable aircraft carrier/amphibious base. Not to mention all the other things you said, but a lot have Stalins view-How many Divisions does the Pope have?
 
Slight? Each soldier's life is of highest importance, but if to compare overall British contribution to victory over the Axis with American or Soviet... What's so offensive about the truth?
It has been said that, "In time of war, Truth is always the first casualty"

Funnily enough it doesn't get any better in peacetime especially where national pride is concerned, just take a look at what is going on around the world today. If people were to recognise the truth, we wouldn't be in the state we are, fighting spot fires all around the globe.
 
Well, i didn't mean to pamper my national pride or to offend some one else's. I suppose this theme should not become a field of political manipulations. Of course, when somebody like me is saying 'British were junior partner' that's one thing, but when a politician does that that's quite another. Somebody like prime minister just has to watch his language, because even if he says something without any negative connotation, that could be misinterpreted by pretty many people.
 
Back
Top