Re: LOTR and 20th Century Western European Prejudices

"Yuk Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "MasterDebater" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > I believe this is a very interesting point. Though Britain lost
> > her superpower status as a result of the actual war, it is clear
> > that American involvement in the actual war, if it didn't actually
> > save England from extinction (which it probably did), most
> > certainly allowed her a much more prominent role in the post-war
> > world, though with America as the new superpower. At least the
> > English are grateful (more or less), unlike the French.
>
> Erm, the US actively worked to deprive Britain of her Empire.


I am interested in continuing this subthread only if we can resist this
unrealistic pro-British, anti-American attitude. Britain lost her Empire
without any help from the US, and any other line of reasoning is, in my
opinion, quite biased. Britain's time had come and gone and it is now
America's time. Can you remember who the enemy was? Stop thinking and
talking as if America was the enemy, or I will ignore your future posts on
this subject, which I would rather *not* do. Germany and Japan were the
enemy. Germany and Japan 'actively worked to deprive Britain of her Empire'!
I don't wish to be rude, but to pursue your line of thought is ridiculous.


>  Read
> about Lend Lease, the loans that replaced Lend Lease,


Of course we are all aware that Britain became mostly bankrupt as a result
of financing the war effort and I realize that certain Americans took
economic advantage of Lend-Lease and the following loans. But that is beside
the point. Germany was the reason that England became bankrupt, not America.
Stop being biased. America may very well have saved England during WWII in
the sense that, as already outlined in this thread, it is arguably possible
that England may not have survived the war without American involvement.
Your Bro-British, anti-American attitude smacks of ingratitude and is likely
to instigate angry shouting matches rather than reasonable discussion.

It is exactly that sort of attitude that angers so many Americans, who often
lash out by claiming that 'We won WWII' or some such thing. I am always the
first to point out Britain's pivotal role in the war to those who seem to
think, due to ignorance, that she was somehow relegated to a somewhat minor
role.


>and her
> involvement in Britain's and France's colonies.


Britain and France managed to lose their colonies and Empires, during and
after the war, without any significant help from the US.


>  As I've said before,
> read up on Ho Chi Minh (your most notable example of 'blowback').
>


I have read some of Ho Chi Minh, more than once, thank you.


> And as for Britain without US economic aid; she would probably have
> diverted resources from other theatres instead.  The main reasons for
> winning the Battle of the Atlantic were British: British technology,
> British tactics.


I am usually very patient but you are taxing that quite successfully. If you
can not maintain an unbiased attitude, than my responses to your posts on
this subject will end.

You seem to know something about World War Two and so I am sure you are
aware of the rate at which America produced 'Liberty Ship' tonnage, as well
as the various classes of merchant ships which began to replace Liberty
Ships toward the end of the war. America's rate of tonnage produced is
greater than the rate of the world combined, for both merchant and military
vessels. This fact is evident in every treatise on the subject.

The fact that you blatantly ignore this most obvious and central fact
indicates to me that you are not being entirely honest in this discussion,
but are biased. I am not interested in continuing a biased discussion.

The Battle of the Atlantic was won for one reason and one reason alone.
Liberty Ships. So very many that the Germans couldn't sink them fast enough
and, therefore, Britain survived and was able to fight.

British technology and tactics, as well as her fleet, were, of course, very
important to the winning of the Battle of the Atlantic, but they were there
to defend the Liberty Ships. No Liberty Ships, no meaningful British threat
to Germany, and even, *probably*, no British survival.

Now, I do not wish to belabor this point much longer. I have had this
discussion a thousand times and I rarely run across someone who refuses to
pay America her due respect and credit for her involvement in WWII. Stop the
bias or stop the discussion.


>  If the US were properly neutral, the Empire's
> resources would have been devoted to keeping Britain alive, rather than
> mount abortive offensives.  Britain would still have been independent,
> just not victorious as in the OTL.


No. If the US were neutral, than what would have happened would have been
exactly what Churchill feared the most - that the Commonwealth would not be
able to supply Britain sufficiently, and that Britain's war effort and
perhaps her very survival would hang in the balance. He knew what the
U-Boats were doing and how serious the situation was. Churchill admitted
that, after hearing of Pearl Harbor, only then was he certain that Germany
would not win.