Why do Americans...

[Mr Changsha]

Just to remind you..... We could of still have won WWII without the Americans.
The American military isnt all that great.
The Americans find some little problem and use that as an excuse to go to war with someone......

Won WWII??? You barely held on to your own country - had to evacuate all of your fooking children to the countryside. Gimmeafuckingbreak! The Germans were about to azzrape the queen when we stepped in. Then you had your faggot general Montgomery getting in our way and fucking up the most simple maneuvers.

Honibaz

Churchill was certainly desperate for America to join the war completely. As we all know, Peal Harbour was an unusually good day for Churchill and Hitler's immediate declaration against America the icing on top. But that was to actually win the war, not to save Britain. Britain was capable of keeping Germany from crossing the channel, but certainly not capable of making a reasonable Western front without France.

So I don't think Germany could actually have invaded England. They certainly tried, and failed. Their attempts on Britain were pretty much done by 1941. Maybe if they had defeated Russia they would have then turned their full forces on Britain...but they didn't, so there is not much point discussing whether Britain would have needed America later.

Hitler SHOULD have ignored the Eastern front for one more year and attacked the British Empire with everything he had. He might well have beaten us then and I'm not sure America could have saved us anyway.

My point is that America didn't save England. We were saved because Hitler was a complete lunatic from about 1941 and got all the key decisions wrong. Therefore we were able to survive. If he had played his hand differently he would have crushed us and America couldn't have saved us anyway.

So, the U-boats sinking countless supply vessels on their way to GB were not putting incredible pressure on the British? The US stepped in and was shipping supplies to Britain escorted by battleships faster then the U-boats could destroy them. Air battle aside, the Naziswere winning the war of attrition at that point.

And the only reason why Russia was finally able to halt the Nazis was because the Japanese were finally forced to focus all of their attention on the US and other Pacific threats. Thus allowing the Russians to shift over divisions (quite a few troops actually) that had been waiting to fight off the Japanese. Oh, and the winter helped too.

You know part of being allies is doing some shit for your ally. I don't really understand your point. Are you suggesting that because Britain needed an ally, everything she did had no value? It was all the ally? That simply doesn't make sense. All great wars have numerous allies on all sides. I suppose it is just lucky that the Americans at the time didn't have such a myopic view of world affairs.

I could make the claim that because Britain was your ally against the Japanese you actually didn't win that war. We won it for you by taking on part of the effort.

Or you wouldn't have stalemated the Korean war without British troops being there to give you the extra muscle.

Or Afghanistan will not be YOUR victory as NATO forces are controlling large parts of the country.

Or Iraq was really Britain's win as we controlled the South. Without us you would have been overstretched militarily, diplomatically over-exposed etc etc.

Britain and America have fought side by side for generations and it is the mutual respect between the two nations that makes that alliance work. It is also in both our interests. I'll finally remind you that in the one war you most definitely lost (Vietnam), you had no British support.

America didn't win WW2 alone and neither did Britain. Neither did Russia. It was an alliance between those three nations and, in my view, all played an equal and gallant part in the victory. Britain held on alone until 42 against 3 powers, America provided the bulk of the force to invade France and Russia tied up large parts of the German army on the Eastern front.

There is absolutely no need for the "America won WW2" crap I'm reading here.

[Titanic]

You know part of being allies is doing some shit for your ally. I don't really understand your point. Are you suggesting that because Britain needed an ally, everything she did had no value? It was all the ally? That simply doesn't make sense. All great wars have numerous allies on all sides. I suppose it is just lucky that the Americans at the time didn't have such a myopic view of world affairs.

I could make the claim that because Britain was your ally against the Japanese you actually didn't win that war. We won it for you by taking on part of the effort.

Or you wouldn't have stalemated the Korean war without British troops being there to give you the extra muscle.

Or Afghanistan will not be YOUR victory as NATO forces are controlling large parts of the country.

Or Iraq was really Britain's win as we controlled the South. Without us you would have been overstretched militarily, diplomatically over-exposed etc etc.

Britain and America have fought side by side for generations and it is the mutual respect between the two nations that makes that alliance work. It is also in both our interests. I'll finally remind you that in the one war you most definitely lost (Vietnam), you had no British support.

America didn't win WW2 alone and neither did Britain. Neither did Russia. It was an alliance between those three nations and, in my view, all played an equal and gallant part in the victory. Britain held on alone until 42 against 3 powers, America provided the bulk of the force to invade France and Russia tied up large parts of the German army on the Eastern front.

There is absolutely no need for the "America won WW2" crap I'm reading here.

QFT and best post so far.

[Frigidus]

Just to remind you..... We could of still have won WWII without the Americans.
The American military isnt all that great.
The Americans find some little problem and use that as an excuse to go to war with someone......

Won WWII??? You barely held on to your own country - had to evacuate all of your fooking children to the countryside. Gimmeafuckingbreak! The Germans were about to azzrape the queen when we stepped in. Then you had your faggot general Montgomery getting in our way and fucking up the most simple maneuvers.

Honibaz

Churchill was certainly desperate for America to join the war completely. As we all know, Peal Harbour was an unusually good day for Churchill and Hitler's immediate declaration against America the icing on top. But that was to actually win the war, not to save Britain. Britain was capable of keeping Germany from crossing the channel, but certainly not capable of making a reasonable Western front without France.

So I don't think Germany could actually have invaded England. They certainly tried, and failed. Their attempts on Britain were pretty much done by 1941. Maybe if they had defeated Russia they would have then turned their full forces on Britain...but they didn't, so there is not much point discussing whether Britain would have needed America later.

Hitler SHOULD have ignored the Eastern front for one more year and attacked the British Empire with everything he had. He might well have beaten us then and I'm not sure America could have saved us anyway.

My point is that America didn't save England. We were saved because Hitler was a complete lunatic from about 1941 and got all the key decisions wrong. Therefore we were able to survive. If he had played his hand differently he would have crushed us and America couldn't have saved us anyway.

So, the U-boats sinking countless supply vessels on their way to GB were not putting incredible pressure on the British? The US stepped in and was shipping supplies to Britain escorted by battleships faster then the U-boats could destroy them. Air battle aside, the Naziswere winning the war of attrition at that point.

And the only reason why Russia was finally able to halt the Nazis was because the Japanese were finally forced to focus all of their attention on the US and other Pacific threats. Thus allowing the Russians to shift over divisions (quite a few troops actually) that had been waiting to fight off the Japanese. Oh, and the winter helped too.

You know part of being allies is doing some shit for your ally. I don't really understand your point. Are you suggesting that because Britain needed an ally, everything she did had no value? It was all the ally? That simply doesn't make sense. All great wars have numerous allies on all sides. I suppose it is just lucky that the Americans at the time didn't have such a myopic view of world affairs.

I could make the claim that because Britain was your ally against the Japanese you actually didn't win that war. We won it for you by taking on part of the effort.

Or you wouldn't have stalemated the Korean war without British troops being there to give you the extra muscle.

Or Afghanistan will not be YOUR victory as NATO forces are controlling large parts of the country.

Or Iraq was really Britain's win as we controlled the South. Without us you would have been overstretched militarily, diplomatically over-exposed etc etc.

Britain and America have fought side by side for generations and it is the mutual respect between the two nations that makes that alliance work. It is also in both our interests. I'll finally remind you that in the one war you most definitely lost (Vietnam), you had no British support.

America didn't win WW2 alone and neither did Britain. Neither did Russia. It was an alliance between those three nations and, in my view, all played an equal and gallant part in the victory. Britain held on alone until 42 against 3 powers, America provided the bulk of the force to invade France and Russia tied up large parts of the German army on the Eastern front.

There is absolutely no need for the "America won WW2" crap I'm reading here.

Except nobody you quoted said America won WW2. We're saying that without us we, as a whole, wouldn't have won. The first guy basically said that they and Russia could have gone it alone, which is silly.

[Mr Changsha]

Except nobody you quoted said America won WW2. We're saying that without us we, as a whole, wouldn't have won. The first guy basically said that they and Russia could have gone it alone, which is silly.

Well yes and no but I was responding in the main to this quote:

Won WWII??? You barely held on to your own country - had to evacuate all of your fooking children to the countryside. Gimmeafuckingbreak! The Germans were about to azzrape the queen when we stepped in. Then you had your faggot general Montgomery getting in our way and fucking up the most simple maneuvers.

I mean apart from the fact that the Germans were not even close to ass-raping the Queen or any other English beauty, even the concept of 'we got your supplies through so we saved your ass' is flawed. America helped get the supplies through (and remember the British navy was far superior to anything else on the water at that time), but they did so because, as allies, it wouldn't be much good for them if they lost their only reliable landing point in Western europe. Remember that England became the world's largest aircraft carrier for a time, it would have been impossible to take back Western Europe if Britain had fallen. So it is not a case of 'saving Britain's arse', it was a case of America saving its own arse by not allowing their main ally to be starved to death by a homicidal maniac.

I will maintain that the effort and achievement of the allies should be evenly split 33/33/33. If any of Russia, Britain or America had fallen the game would have been up. Thus they all worked together (and all had their weaknesses they needed help with) to make sure none did fall.

[AAFitz]

... think they're are the center of the world and keep posting about american media, american politics, american celebrities, etc, etc, etc.. ?


This is an invitation to all the monkey community who are not americans to post related to your country, or whatever else that's not merely american.

Probably because they are American and care about it more. You are free to post your countries interesting stories as well of course. Ultimately their reasons for posting about their country, are similar for the reasons you seem annoyed about them doing so.

You may want to take another look at the map though. America is a pretty big place, and while there are some very basic similarities between Americans, there are some serious regional and cultural differences. Had it been colonized 1000 years ago, and not just a few hundred, there is no doubt it would be more than one country as Europe is comprised of many countries.

However, the timing of the colonization/conquest was just right, that it allowed for it to become one country, almost as much by chance as anything else.

There are many parts of the US that are regional, and have their own unique stories, much like any single European nation, but you dont see many of those posts either, and surely they do not flood the posts.

Also, in America, the media is very, very weighted towards one region and one business almost primarily, and that is Hollywood California, and the Motion Picture Industry. More media is devoted to that than any other.

I of course am not bothered by this, because, while nearly every magazine is filled with info about movies stars...or some other subject im not interested in.

I DONT REALLY CARE, BECAUSE IM NOT CRAZY, AND I DONT HAVE TO READ ANYTHING I DONT WANT TO.

[AAFitz]

I will maintain that the effort and achievement of the allies should be evenly split 33/33/33. If any of Russia, Britain or America had fallen the game would have been up. Thus they all worked together (and all had their weaknesses they needed help with) to make sure none did fall.

I think that would highly depend upon the definition of "fall". Is it even possible that the axis had enough resources to permanently hold control the people of Britain, America, or Russia?

I think more likely, if one did fall, it would not mean the game was up, but that it would extend for quite some time.

[nietzsche]

Should I change the topic to "America saved the world in WWII" ?

[BigBallinStalin]

I will maintain that the effort and achievement of the allies should be evenly split 33/33/33. If any of Russia, Britain or America had fallen the game would have been up. Thus they all worked together (and all had their weaknesses they needed help with) to make sure none did fall.

I think that would highly depend upon the definition of "fall". Is it even possible that the axis had enough resources to permanently hold control the people of Britain, America, or Russia?

I think more likely, if one did fall, it would not mean the game was up, but that it would extend for quite some time.

[nerd]Permanently hold? Of course not, they'd keep the Lebensraum and install puppet regimes. Jeez, dood, you ever played Hearts of Iron before?[/nerd]

[jefjef]

Should I change the topic to "America saved the world in WWII" ?

Better yet re-title it. : America saves and protects the world.

[AAFitz]

I will maintain that the effort and achievement of the allies should be evenly split 33/33/33. If any of Russia, Britain or America had fallen the game would have been up. Thus they all worked together (and all had their weaknesses they needed help with) to make sure none did fall.

I think that would highly depend upon the definition of "fall". Is it even possible that the axis had enough resources to permanently hold control the people of Britain, America, or Russia?

I think more likely, if one did fall, it would not mean the game was up, but that it would extend for quite some time.

[nerd]Permanently hold? Of course not, they'd keep the Lebensraum and install puppet regimes. Jeez, dood, you ever played Hearts of Iron before?[/nerd]

Im not even sure if youre making fun of me, but its funny just the same

[AAFitz]

Should I change the topic to "America saved the world in WWII" ?

Better yet re-title it. : America saves and protects the world.

No, I think, Why do non americans complain so much about americans talking about america and not realize they are talking about america at the same time, and making a thread about america complaining about americans making threads about americans?

I feel like that question, is actually a non self-evident one at least...although the answer is obvious, and one word.

Jealousy.

Deny it all you want. To others and yourself, but anyone who spends this much time complaining about a group...wants to be in it. And I dont blame ya. It is just a great place to live.

[Nobunaga]

Should I change the topic to "America saved the world in WWII" ?

Better yet re-title it. : America saves and protects the world.

No, I think, Why do non americans complain so much about americans talking about america and not realize they are talking about america at the same time, and making a thread about america complaining about americans making threads about americans?

I feel like that question, is actually a non self-evident one at least...although the answer is obvious, and one word.

Jealousy.

Deny it all you want. To others and yourself, but anyone who spends this much time complaining about a group...wants to be in it. And I dont blame ya. It is just a great place to live.

... We rock. Somebody sing me the Star Bangled Banner!

...

[englishboy77]

Should I change the topic to "America saved the world in WWII" ?

No, because they did not.

[nietzsche]

You know part of being allies is doing some shit for your ally. I don't really understand your point. Are you suggesting that because Britain needed an ally, everything she did had no value? It was all the ally? That simply doesn't make sense. All great wars have numerous allies on all sides. I suppose it is just lucky that the Americans at the time didn't have such a myopic view of world affairs.

I could make the claim that because Britain was your ally against the Japanese you actually didn't win that war. We won it for you by taking on part of the effort.

Or you wouldn't have stalemated the Korean war without British troops being there to give you the extra muscle.

Or Afghanistan will not be YOUR victory as NATO forces are controlling large parts of the country.

Or Iraq was really Britain's win as we controlled the South. Without us you would have been overstretched militarily, diplomatically over-exposed etc etc.

Britain and America have fought side by side for generations and it is the mutual respect between the two nations that makes that alliance work. It is also in both our interests. I'll finally remind you that in the one war you most definitely lost (Vietnam), you had no British support.

America didn't win WW2 alone and neither did Britain. Neither did Russia. It was an alliance between those three nations and, in my view, all played an equal and gallant part in the victory. Britain held on alone until 42 against 3 powers, America provided the bulk of the force to invade France and Russia tied up large parts of the German army on the Eastern front.

There is absolutely no need for the "America won WW2" crap I'm reading here.

Finally some sense

[Mr Changsha]

I will maintain that the effort and achievement of the allies should be evenly split 33/33/33. If any of Russia, Britain or America had fallen the game would have been up. Thus they all worked together (and all had their weaknesses they needed help with) to make sure none did fall.

I think that would highly depend upon the definition of "fall". Is it even possible that the axis had enough resources to permanently hold control the people of Britain, America, or Russia?

I think more likely, if one did fall, it would not mean the game was up, but that it would extend for quite some time.

To understand the problem with that concept you need to read 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' by William L. Shirer. IF Germany had actually managed to 1. Invade and 2. Subdue the British forces their plans were in place to exterminate the upper and upper-middle classes and ship off to Europe as slaves all men between the ages of 16 and 50. It is not a question of 'holding', they would have destroyed Britain as an entity.

I call that a 'fall'. One must remember that the Nazis didn't care a hoot about the long-term interests of the countries they occupied. Theoretically, if you kill or displace all the natives then it isn't all that hard to permanently control the land !

So yeah, Germany WAS capable of controlling Russia or Britain in perpetuity. If you kill all the inhabitants of a place and fill it with Germans then it is quite possible.

Now with any other war in history (at least in Europe) I wouldn't make that claim. Could France have controlled Russia over the long-term? No. Could Germany have controlled France (in their WW1 era guise)? No. Could Russia even control Eastern Europe over the long-term? Again no. But none of these conquests involved the mass exterminations of the conquered people. The Nazis were pretty much unique in that...at least in Europe.

Nonetheless, the record suggest to me that Britain actually could have held out against Germany without America as long as Germany turned against Russia. It would have been harder without America to be sure, but I think the British navy was capable of keeping control of the seas and, if it had to, it could have escorted those American merchant ships across. But at that point you get into a weird alternative history, in which America sends its merchant ships for trade, the Germans blow them up and the Americans sit on their hands?

Or are the Americans here suggesting that it wasn't even in America's interest to trade with Britain in 1940-1941? Because once the Germans started sinking American ships, the American navy was bound to attempt to protect them.

[muy_thaiguy]

Aren't you going into a bit of alternate history too, with the idea that Britain could have held without American aid? That in and of itself is speculation as well. And Germany didn't have to concentrate their U-boats on Russia, as they were doing that to Britain, and doing a damn good job of hurting the British Fleets, which included the merchant vessels.

[Mr Changsha]

Aren't you going into a bit of alternate history too, with the idea that Britain could have held without American aid? That in and of itself is speculation as well. And Germany didn't have to concentrate their U-boats on Russia, as they were doing that to Britain, and doing a damn good job of hurting the British Fleets, which included the merchant vessels.

I am saying it is a hell of an alternate history if you suppose America wasn't going to at least trade war material with Britain in that period. As Hitler was a grade 1 nutter, the Germans were always going to attempt to sink those American ships. Thus the American navy would have to protect them.

But yes, Britain is an island and really is very, very difficult to invade. It would have been a hell of a job for the Germans EVEN IF they didn't have a second front with Russia. Their casualties would have been immense (Stalingrad-like) and I don't think they were prepared to lose those kinds of numbers in 1940.

[muy_thaiguy]

Aren't you going into a bit of alternate history too, with the idea that Britain could have held without American aid? That in and of itself is speculation as well. And Germany didn't have to concentrate their U-boats on Russia, as they were doing that to Britain, and doing a damn good job of hurting the British Fleets, which included the merchant vessels.

I am saying it is a hell of an alternate history if you suppose America wasn't going to at least trade war material with Britain in that period. As Hitler was a grade 1 nutter, the Germans were always going to attempt to sink those American ships. Thus the American navy would have to protect them.

But yes, Britain is an island and really is very, very difficult to invade. It would have been a hell of a job for the Germans EVEN IF they didn't have a second front with Russia. Their casualties would have been immense (Stalingrad-like) and I don't think they were prepared to lose those kinds of numbers in 1940.

You are missing what I am talking about (and what you were), which is whether Britain would have still stood without US supplies, Hitler being a "nutter" or not. Since obviously the Battle of Britain failed, Germany decided just to go with the War of Attrition and sunk countless British vessels, including those of the Merchant fleet.

[Mr Changsha]

Aren't you going into a bit of alternate history too, with the idea that Britain could have held without American aid? That in and of itself is speculation as well. And Germany didn't have to concentrate their U-boats on Russia, as they were doing that to Britain, and doing a damn good job of hurting the British Fleets, which included the merchant vessels.

I am saying it is a hell of an alternate history if you suppose America wasn't going to at least trade war material with Britain in that period. As Hitler was a grade 1 nutter, the Germans were always going to attempt to sink those American ships. Thus the American navy would have to protect them.

But yes, Britain is an island and really is very, very difficult to invade. It would have been a hell of a job for the Germans EVEN IF they didn't have a second front with Russia. Their casualties would have been immense (Stalingrad-like) and I don't think they were prepared to lose those kinds of numbers in 1940.

You are missing what I am talking about (and what you were), which is whether Britain would have still stood without US supplies, Hitler being a "nutter" or not. Since obviously the Battle of Britain failed, Germany decided just to go with the War of Attrition and sunk countless British vessels, including those of the Merchant fleet.

I point you to the second paragraph. I mean that in the context of without American supplies. The first paragraph refers to what a weird counter-history you would have to create for America to not supply Britain.

[muy_thaiguy]

Aren't you going into a bit of alternate history too, with the idea that Britain could have held without American aid? That in and of itself is speculation as well. And Germany didn't have to concentrate their U-boats on Russia, as they were doing that to Britain, and doing a damn good job of hurting the British Fleets, which included the merchant vessels.

I am saying it is a hell of an alternate history if you suppose America wasn't going to at least trade war material with Britain in that period. As Hitler was a grade 1 nutter, the Germans were always going to attempt to sink those American ships. Thus the American navy would have to protect them.

But yes, Britain is an island and really is very, very difficult to invade. It would have been a hell of a job for the Germans EVEN IF they didn't have a second front with Russia. Their casualties would have been immense (Stalingrad-like) and I don't think they were prepared to lose those kinds of numbers in 1940.

You are missing what I am talking about (and what you were), which is whether Britain would have still stood without US supplies, Hitler being a "nutter" or not. Since obviously the Battle of Britain failed, Germany decided just to go with the War of Attrition and sunk countless British vessels, including those of the Merchant fleet.

I point you to the second paragraph. I mean that in the context of without American supplies. The first paragraph refers to what a weird counter-history you would have to create for America to not supply Britain.

Nonetheless, the record suggest to me that Britain actually could have held out against Germany without America as long as Germany turned against Russia. It would have been harder without America to be sure, but I think the British navy was capable of keeping control of the seas and, if it had to, it could have escorted those American merchant ships across. But at that point you get into a weird alternative history, in which America sends its merchant ships for trade, the Germans blow them up and the Americans sit on their hands?

I am saying it is a hell of an alternate history if you suppose America wasn't going to

And Germany didn't have to concentrate their U-boats on Russia, as they were doing that to Britain, and doing a damn good job of hurting the British Fleets

Need I go on? Or should I point out that Britain really could not have stayed resilient to Germany without supplies and support from the US? You take out that one factor, and Britain is starved into submission.

[Phatscotty]

On behalf of all Americans with any sense of modesty, I apologize for jefjef.

Also in accordance with having no balls

Also in accordance with not being an arrogant twat.

well, who's better in your opinion?

Dear Moron,

The retort did not imply a concession that Frigidus has balls. He made it abundantly clear that he was of the opinion that, rather than having no balls, he was simply not being an arrogant twat, unlike yourself.

I have my doubts as to your complete recovery from your most unfortunate condition of stupidity. Hopefully this post helps to prove myself wrong, however.

With an excess of good will,

InkL0sed

you fail to even begin to understand anything about the previous conversation up until the last 4 lines. This is what happens when you stumble into the middle of a discussion. I won't correct you, call you names, or beat my chest.

Just a slap on the back of the head. Get lost

[Mr Changsha]

Aren't you going into a bit of alternate history too, with the idea that Britain could have held without American aid? That in and of itself is speculation as well. And Germany didn't have to concentrate their U-boats on Russia, as they were doing that to Britain, and doing a damn good job of hurting the British Fleets, which included the merchant vessels.

I am saying it is a hell of an alternate history if you suppose America wasn't going to at least trade war material with Britain in that period. As Hitler was a grade 1 nutter, the Germans were always going to attempt to sink those American ships. Thus the American navy would have to protect them.

But yes, Britain is an island and really is very, very difficult to invade. It would have been a hell of a job for the Germans EVEN IF they didn't have a second front with Russia. Their casualties would have been immense (Stalingrad-like) and I don't think they were prepared to lose those kinds of numbers in 1940.

You are missing what I am talking about (and what you were), which is whether Britain would have still stood without US supplies, Hitler being a "nutter" or not. Since obviously the Battle of Britain failed, Germany decided just to go with the War of Attrition and sunk countless British vessels, including those of the Merchant fleet.

I point you to the second paragraph. I mean that in the context of without American supplies. The first paragraph refers to what a weird counter-history you would have to create for America to not supply Britain.

Nonetheless, the record suggest to me that Britain actually could have held out against Germany without America as long as Germany turned against Russia. It would have been harder without America to be sure, but I think the British navy was capable of keeping control of the seas and, if it had to, it could have escorted those American merchant ships across. But at that point you get into a weird alternative history, in which America sends its merchant ships for trade, the Germans blow them up and the Americans sit on their hands?

I am saying it is a hell of an alternate history if you suppose America wasn't going to

And Germany didn't have to concentrate their U-boats on Russia, as they were doing that to Britain, and doing a damn good job of hurting the British Fleets

Need I go on? Or should I point out that Britain really could not have stayed resilient to Germany without supplies and support from the US? You take out that one factor, and Britain is starved into submission.

I think you are debating with me on a fairly minor point, as I suspect my main point, that of America not saving Britain's arse, but rather simply acting as an ally and doing there bit seems now to be accepted.

However, with regards to this more narrow point (whether Britain could have survived without any American support at all), I think the case can be made. Remember that we did manage to create counter measures against the U Boat threat eventually, to the extent in fact that U Boats had to give up as they were losing 1 U Boat for every ship sunk. The British navy was still far superior to the German. They would have undoubtably been dark days without American merchant shipping, but I'm not sure it is correct to say the British couldn't have got their supplies in from America, and shipped the stuff over themselves, with British merchant shipping and British fleets to protect them.

Also one would have to find the evidence for the percentage of shipping related to food stuffs compared to war materials. Britain isn't agriculturally self-sufficient, but then it is hardly a desert either. But again, that is a whole other issue!

[tzor]

... We rock. Somebody sing me the Star Bangled Banner!

No kidding! Can you name another nation who didn't grab a well known drinking song to use for the tune for their anthem?

(Note: J.S. Bach often stole drinking tunes for use in his religious hymns; so it is "classical.")

(Note 2: P.D.Q. Bach was often too drunk to remember the drinking tunes to be able to steal them for anything.)

[Falkomagno]

[muy_thaiguy]

I think you are debating with me on a fairly minor point, as I suspect my main point, that of America not saving Britain's arse, but rather simply acting as an ally and doing there bit seems now to be accepted.

It was both, plain and simple.

However, with regards to this more narrow point (whether Britain could have survived without any American support at all), I think the case can be made. Remember that we did manage to create counter measures against the U Boat threat eventually, to the extent in fact that U Boats had to give up as they were losing 1 U Boat for every ship sunk. The British navy was still far superior to the German. They would have undoubtably been dark days without American merchant shipping, but I'm not sure it is correct to say the British couldn't have got their supplies in from America, and shipped the stuff over themselves, with British merchant shipping and British fleets to protect them.

Yes, after (keyword here) the US began helping out, pulling more than our fair share. And it was also the US that came up with the strategy in the first place, to have the escort of ships around the merchant/supply vessel. And it was the U-boats that were putting enormous pressure on the British. Other than that, yes, the British Navy was far superior (other than the one German Battleship whos name I forget that ravged the British forces), but it just wasn't doing well.

Also one would have to find the evidence for the percentage of shipping related to food stuffs compared to war materials. Britain isn't agriculturally self-sufficient, but then it is hardly a desert either. But again, that is a whole other issue!

War materials and food supplies were first being heavily transported by the British to the Islands, then when the U-boats came in, far more British vessels were being sunk then delivering their supplies. That is historical fact.