PDA

View Full Version : Did Britain Gain Anything from WW2?



MB_Avro_UK
01-19-2009, 05:37 PM
Hi all,

WW2 lasted almost six years for Britain and her Commonwealth.

Were there any plus factors for engaging in WW2?

Britain could have remained neutral in 1939 when the German Army invaded Poland.

Hitler did not want a war with Britain and was fixated on a war with Russia.

When Japan attacked the USA in December 1941, maybe Britain and the Commonwealth should have remained neutral?

After ww2 Britain was bankrupt.

I'm proud that Britain stood up to the Nazis but what was the gain in the end?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
01-19-2009, 05:41 PM
A vast catalogue of war films for the sunday papers to give away, for starters.

But seriously...a sense that Britain stood up when it mattered, and didn't give up when it looked grim.

DrHerb
01-19-2009, 05:44 PM
Rolls Royce being owned by BMW? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kinda ironic in a way...

Low_Flyer_MkIX
01-19-2009, 05:52 PM
Ironic perhaps, but whilst it should never be forgotten, WWII should not be the benchmark by which we measure a nation and its' acheivements in the 21st century.

Bremspropeller
01-19-2009, 06:03 PM
I'm proud that Britain stood up to the Nazis but what was the gain in the end?

I'd tend to say that Britain propably was THE loser of WW2.
Look at the Empire as it was pre '39 and have a look at how it disintegrated after the war.

The initial victories of Axis-powers really took their toll upon the Empire's integrity.

Though being a victor in the war itself, Britain quickly lost it's power and importance to the US.

That is for a couple of reasons.

- no cash after the war
- colonies that had seen the British colonialists crumble under the force of Japan
- polarisation of the post-war world; the block-thinking clearly cut into the idea of the Empire
- change of mind; colonies weren't "up to date" anymore

Quite a pity.
I really like the victorian-style houses whereever I come across them in "former colonies".

leitmotiv
01-19-2009, 06:25 PM
The two world wars were an absolute disaster for the UK. The first one consummated her decline vis-a-vis the German industrial colossus on the continent and the vulpine USA across the sea eager to grab markets and trade, but she was still a powerful international trading player with the world's largest merchant marine. The second foreclosed any hope of maintaining the Empire and sapped the will to do so even if the means had existed. The USA grabbed her markets and mercilessly demanded her acceptance of American Imperium throughout the world. Suez 1956 made it clear beyond any doubt that strategically the UK was an American vassal state. The results of the two world wars were classic examples of Pyrrhic victories, or "One more victory like that and we are finished!" As one historian put it (John Lukacs), the result at the end of WWII was that two very immature and hypertrophied nations, the USA and Russia, ruled the world, for better or for worse.

Ba5tard5word
01-19-2009, 06:26 PM
They stood up for what was right, honored their alliances, and after Germany declared war on the UK, they saved their nation from being taken over, unlike a lot of other Western European nations.

The aftermath of the war was definitely a harsh blow to the UK though, they lost their colonies and economically were basically in a form of recession for much of the next 40 years or so. I would think that even had the UK somehow stayed out of war in Europe, Japan would have still gone after all their Far East colonies.

WTE_Galway
01-19-2009, 06:31 PM
The other question is ... what would have happened if they stood up to Hitler earlier - such as in Munich.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
01-19-2009, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The other question is ... what would have happened if they stood up to Hitler earlier - such as in Munich.

Then the Hawker Fury would have won the Battle of Britain. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
01-19-2009, 06:42 PM
Far more instructive is to study the remarkable world war the British fought against the French from the 18th century until 1815 which established their world-wide hegemony. Personalities as diverse and brilliant and erratic as Nelson, Clive, Pitt the Younger, Wellesley and more had no peers in the 20th century which was marked by critically flawed personalities and hideously flawed political and military decisions in peace and war.

stalkervision
01-19-2009, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

WW2 lasted almost six years for Britain and her Commonwealth.

Were there any plus factors for engaging in WW2?

Britain could have remained neutral in 1939 when the German Army invaded Poland.

Hitler did not want a war with Britain and was fixated on a war with Russia.

When Japan attacked the USA in December 1941, maybe Britain and the Commonwealth should have remained neutral?

After ww2 Britain was bankrupt.

I'm proud that Britain stood up to the Nazis but what was the gain in the end?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Excellent question.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

roybaty
01-19-2009, 07:48 PM
They still would've needed oil, rubber, and other resources in the European Pacific colonies, unless Britain cooperated they would've lost the colonies anyway. Add to the fact the Japanese militarists wanted to control enough land and resources to prosper, and supply the military.

Buzzsaw-
01-19-2009, 08:01 PM
Salute

Britain lost economically, her Empire was destroyed, but the world should thank her for standing up to Tyranny and Genocide.

Without Britain fighting off Hitler, Europe would have fallen completely, as likely would the Soviet Union in the dark days of '42. British Lendlease to the Soviets played a significant part in its survival through '42. At that time, next to no American supplies were available.

Without Britain and its Mediterranean possessions as a base for the invasion forces, the Americans would have had a nearly impossible task in launching an invasion from Iceland (?) and liberating Europe. In addition, the Germans would have required a much smaller garrison in Western Europe, no German divisions required in N Africa, none in Italy, much fewer in the Nordic countries, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, since the resistance in those countries was supplied through British paradropped munitions. Probably the Italians could have provided the garrisons.

All of this would have freed up many more German divisions, aircraft and supplies which could have been committed against the Soviets.

You ask what was the gain?

Freedom.

PanzerAce
01-19-2009, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The two world wars were an absolute disaster for the UK. The first one consummated her decline vis-a-vis the German industrial colossus on the continent and the vulpine USA across the sea eager to grab markets and trade, but she was still a powerful international trading player with the world's largest merchant marine. The second foreclosed any hope of maintaining the Empire and sapped the will to do so even if the means had existed. The USA grabbed her markets and mercilessly demanded her acceptance of American Imperium throughout the world. Suez 1956 made it clear beyond any doubt that strategically the UK was an American vassal state. The results of the two world wars were classic examples of Pyrrhic victories, or "One more victory like that and we are finished!" As one historian put it (John Lukacs), the result at the end of WWII was that two very immature and hypertrophied nations, the USA and Russia, ruled the world, for better or for worse.

That isn't entirely fair to the US. The reason that the British empire disappeared after the war was that they didn't WANT an empire any more. Look at India/Pakistan and the Mandate in Palestine. They could have held on if they had really wanted, but in the end the brit leaders decided to focus inward (which probably was a good idea).

Also, the real issue that the US had with British and French actions in the Suez was that at the same time Russia was busy smacking the Hungarians around, and it was hard for Ike to make the Russians stop if our own allies were doing essentially the same thing in the Suez.

If you want to point at something that above all else showed that the Brits were a vassal state, you would have been better off picking Skybolt or when the Brits were simply cut out of the US nuclear program.

Kongo Otto
01-19-2009, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

WW2 lasted almost six years for Britain and her Commonwealth.

Were there any plus factors for engaging in WW2?

Britain could have remained neutral in 1939 when the German Army invaded Poland.
<span class="ev_code_RED">No they could not, after Munich in 1938 it was clear that the next victim is Poland.</span>
Hitler did not want a war with Britain and was fixated on a war with Russia.
<span class="ev_code_RED">Yeah, he also said he didnt want to occupy the Czechs. Never trust an patologic liar!</span>
When Japan attacked the USA in December 1941, maybe Britain and the Commonwealth should have remained neutral?
<span class="ev_code_RED">No, because the Japanese also attacked the British Colonies, just remember The Invasion of the Malaian Peninsula began the same Time as the Pearl Harbor Attack. </span>

After ww2 Britain was bankrupt.

I'm proud that Britain stood up to the Nazis but what was the gain in the end?
<span class="ev_code_RED">Theres never a gain in War. War is always just a waste of good men, nothing more. </span>

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

My Comments are in Red Colour.

leitmotiv
01-19-2009, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The two world wars were an absolute disaster for the UK. The first one consummated her decline vis-a-vis the German industrial colossus on the continent and the vulpine USA across the sea eager to grab markets and trade, but she was still a powerful international trading player with the world's largest merchant marine. The second foreclosed any hope of maintaining the Empire and sapped the will to do so even if the means had existed. The USA grabbed her markets and mercilessly demanded her acceptance of American Imperium throughout the world. Suez 1956 made it clear beyond any doubt that strategically the UK was an American vassal state. The results of the two world wars were classic examples of Pyrrhic victories, or "One more victory like that and we are finished!" As one historian put it (John Lukacs), the result at the end of WWII was that two very immature and hypertrophied nations, the USA and Russia, ruled the world, for better or for worse.

That isn't entirely fair to the US. The reason that the British empire disappeared after the war was that they didn't WANT an empire any more. Look at India/Pakistan and the Mandate in Palestine. They could have held on if they had really wanted, but in the end the brit leaders decided to focus inward (which probably was a good idea).

Also, the real issue that the US had with British and French actions in the Suez was that at the same time Russia was busy smacking the Hungarians around, and it was hard for Ike to make the Russians stop if our own allies were doing essentially the same thing in the Suez.

If you want to point at something that above all else showed that the Brits were a vassal state, you would have been better off picking Skybolt or when the Brits were simply cut out of the US nuclear program. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FDR was pressuring Churchill to disestablish the Empire throughout the War. FDR's personal view was that the British Empire was evil. FDR wanted British markets for U.S goods. Fair has nothing to do with it. FDR made a power play while the British could not argue. FDR was a great President. He created the American Imperium. As for the British being happy to disestablish the Empire, well, outside of the Labour Party, this idea was repulsive. Suez is the crucial watershed where British freedom of action in the Middle East was publicly shown to be over, and that British strategy had to be linked to the U.S.

ImpStarDuece
01-19-2009, 09:09 PM
To answer the question ďDid Britain gain anything from WW2Ē you have to look at the British motivations for fighting.

Initially, she was honouring her treaty commitments to Poland. However, was more of a trip wire than an actual reason for fighting. Think of its as justification, rather than cause.

In my opinion Britain entered WW2 for the reason she has always historically gone into land wars on the Continent Ė to prevent any one power gaining a majority control of Western Europe. Thatís the reason she went to war against Napoleon, and the reason that she got involved in the Crimean war and had been the general objective of her foreign policy for the previous 200 years.

To allow any one power to dominate Europe would essentially allow that power to dictate trade terms with the UK, prevent her from feeding herself and deny her access to the raw materials that she needed,

Immediately after the capitulation of France, this was the reason to continue fighting.

It was reinforced by the temporary threat to the survival of Britain as a country in 1940, when Germany attacked her as well as her trade.

The third is preservation of her Empire. While WW2 hastened the end to this, the fall of empire was inevitable. Look at the wracking struggles that France had to hold Algeria and Vietnam, and you realise that perhaps the (relatively) peaceful transition of the British colonies to independence was not as bad as it could have been.

Preservation of empire was one of the major reasons to go to war against Japan. The other was that it had attacked the only other Anglo-Saxon power in the world, the US, and you donít let that sort of thing happen to your nearest relative, even if youíve both played a little rough with each other over the years.

Japan took control of Britianís colonies, and threatened her dominions (New Zealand and Australia). That is like abducting someoneís cousins and threatening to do the same to her children.

So, what did Britain gain out of WW2?

1. Preservation of a multi-power Europe. The alternative, a Europe dominated by an aggressive totalitarian regime, was probably far worse that the current system, even if itís a bit of a mess.
2. Self-preservation. Elimination of a threat to her security, trade and access to raw materials.

3. Preservation of Empire. The was only temporary, but it still ensured that the UK had 10 years of empire remaining to help with rebuilding/continue to trade with.
To answer the question ďDid Britain gain anything from WW2Ē you have to look at the British motivations for fighting.

Initially, she was honouring her treaty commitments to Poland. However, was more of a trip wire than an actual reason for fighting. Think of its as justification, rather than cause.

In my opinion Britain entered WW2 for the reason she has always historically gone into land wars on the Continent Ė to prevent any one power gaining a majority control of Western Europe. Thatís the reason she went to war against Napoleon, and the reason that she got involved in the Crimean war and had been the general objective of her foreign policy for the previous 200 years.

To allow any one power to dominate Europe would essentially allow that power to dictate trade terms with the UK, prevent her from feeding herself and deny her access to the raw materials that she needed,

Immediately after the capitulation of France, this was the reason to continue fighting.

It was reinforced by the temporary threat to the survival of Britain as a country in 1940, when Germany attacked her as well as her trade.

The third is preservation of her Empire. While WW2 hastened the end to this, the fall of empire was inevitable. Look at the wracking struggles that France had to hold Algeria and Vietnam, and you realise that perhaps the (relatively) peaceful transition of the British colonies to independence was not as bad as it could have been.

Preservation of empire was one of the major reasons to go to war against Japan. The other was that it had attacked the only other Anglo-Saxon power in the world, the US, and you donít let that sort of thing happen to your nearest relative, even if youíve both played a little rough with each other over the years.

Japan took control of Britianís colonies, and threatened her dominions (New Zealand and Australia). That is like abducting someoneís cousins and threatening to do the same to her children.

So, what did Britain gain out of WW2?

1. Preservation of a multi-power Europe. The alternative, a Europe dominated by an aggressive totalitarian regime, was probably far worse that the current system, even if itís a bit of a mess.
2. Self-preservation. Elimination of a threat to her security, trade and access to raw materials.
3. Preservation of Empire. The was only temporary, but it still ensured that the UK had 10 years of empire remaining to help with rebuilding/continue to trade with.

leitmotiv
01-19-2009, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Kongo Otto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK

Britain could have remained neutral in 1939 when the German Army invaded Poland.
<span class="ev_code_RED">No they could not, after Munich in 1938 it was clear that the next victim is Poland.</span>

Hitler did not want a war with Britain and was fixated on a war with Russia.
<span class="ev_code_RED">Yeah, he also said he didnt want to occupy the Czechs. Never trust an patologic liar!</span>

I'm proud that Britain stood up to the Nazis but what was the gain in the end?
<span class="ev_code_RED">Theres never a gain in War. War is always just a waste of good men, nothing more. </span>

My Comments are in Red Colour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course Britain and France could have reneged on their promise to defend Poland. War in 1939 was not popular in Britain, France, or Germany. Strategically, going to war over Poland was meaningless because, with Russia as an ally of Germany, the traditional British blockade weapon was rendered nugatory---Britain had no means of attacking Germany (Bomber Command was tiny, untrained and technologically unready for a strategic offensive). Had the French been willing or able to mount an offensive into Germany in 1939 there would have been a strategic purpose to going to war in 1939. The French government was not inclined to go on the offensive against Germany (In fact, until the Germans attacked France in May 1940, the French were absorbed by ways to attack Russia, not Germany. They were ready to support the Finns in their war---even ready to march across Sweden to do so, as were the British. The French wanted to raid the Baku oilfields with aircraft!). The French and British thought they were safe behind the Maginot Line, and that they could devote their energies to building up for a 1942 offensive.

The most telling matter was that the only way to deter Germany in August 1939 was a coalition with the USSR, and this fell apart due to no enthusiasm for such a treaty in the British government, lukewarm enthusiasm in the French government, and stark horror on the part of the Polish government which refused to allow the USSR freedom of passage through Poland to attack Germany.

Britain and France were militarily unready for war in 1939. Both calculated on being in a state of readiness in 1942. Hitler, as we now know, calculated the British and French would not declare war because his foreign minister, v.Ribbentrop, had assured him neither would go to war over Poland. Hitler was flabbergasted by the declarations of war, and furious with v.Ribbentrop. He had planned on dealing with the USSR next, not France and Britain. His fleet was not ready for a maritime war. He, too, needed time.

Thus, aside from the rue Chamberlain felt about having been snookered by Hitler over Czechoslovakia, and the public clamor among some Conservatives and the Labour Party for a stand against Hitler, there really wasn't a sane reason for going to war in 1939. The Communists in France were towing the Comintern line to support the German-Soviet pact, and were not in favor of war. In fact, the brilliance of this pact was that it took the true, loyal to the Comintern Communists out of action. They would not go against the Comintern's orders to be friendly to Germany.

As for nothing good coming from war, well, the United States had 60 years of incredible prosperity, and almost (until 9/11) perfect security coming out of WWII. After 1815, the British enjoyed 99 years of security after knocking out France as their competitor.

LEBillfish
01-19-2009, 11:23 PM
Did they do it for gain?......Besides, Britain could of claimed neutrallity till doomsday....Hitler didn't care. If it had gone on long enough you would of either fought and hopefully won (history), fought and lost being conquered, or been neutral and eventually conquered.

Who cares what you did or didn't gain.....You didn't lose the right to call yourselves British.

K2

Fledermaus578
01-20-2009, 12:17 AM
""They stood up for what was right, honored their alliances, and after Germany declared war on the UK...""
Sorry, Ba5tard5word...
It was England that declared war on Germany.

Prior to the war, Churchill wrote about threats to England's foreign markets by Germany's growing economy. Sure, they declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland... but two weeks later when the Russians invaded Poland... did Britain declare war on Russia, too?
Nope.
Odd, isn't it?
So, as far as honoring their alliance with Poland, they didn't.
Guess the war was about economics and market shares, as Leitmotiv pointed out.
As for "Standing up for what was right...", It's a little hypocritical for a country who (through invasions, colonies, possessions and mandates) almost controlled 75% of the planet, to preach to someone else what they can or cannot do with regards to their own people, such as the Sudenten Germans or the Germans in the Polish corridor, etc.

The Poles were no innocents, either. They were doing quite a bit of saber-rattling... and after the Munich Agreement, also moved in and occupied their little chunk of Czechoslavakia.
I suggest research and study, instead of just relying on "The Hitler Channel", for building one's knowlege of history.

leitmotiv
01-20-2009, 02:19 AM
Right, the Poles had pretty much squandered their status as a victim after dining on their bit of Czechoslovakia.

Another question must be: Was the Polish control of "The Danzig Corridor" worth a war? I attended a seminar with the leading German diplomatic historian of the day, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, and a number of University of California professors in 1979. Jacobsen and the "Germans" of the UC professoriat flatly blamed WWII on the Poles for fighting over the Corridor. A Serb UC professor was aghast and disagreed strenuously.

The Germans, on a pure Machtpolitik---power politics---level, had a point. Was the discomfiture of Poland worth a world War? What they didn't explore was that we all know Hitler never would have stopped with the Corridor.

OD_
01-20-2009, 04:11 AM
The NHS and the Welfare State...well maybe the second has gone too far now, but the NHS in my opinion has been something that we gained.

(EDIT) I've also thought about a seat on the UN Security Council giving it, potential, diplomatic influence far beyond it's realistic potential for over 60 years.

I sometimes wonder why people confuse England and Britain though...England hasn't declared war on anyone for quite sometime...in all probability the last country England went to war with was probably Scotland or Ireland.

ImpStarDuece
01-20-2009, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Fledermaus578:
""They stood up for what was right, honored their alliances, and after Germany declared war on the UK...""
Sorry, Ba5tard5word...
It was England that declared war on Germany.

Chamberlain expressly warned Hitler that an invasion of Poland would be considered an unacceptable act of agression, and would lead to a state of war between Germany and the UK. Hitler delayed the invasion of Poland for a week while he dithered over diplomatic attempts to try and subvert


The clause in the British-Polish defence pact stated that Britain was obliged to declare war on any nation that had committed to hostilities against Poland, and that Poland had declared war on. As Poland did not declare war on the Soviet Union, this gave the British an excuse not to declare war on the Russians.

As it was, there was a very strong tide of public opinion that Britain should declare war on Russia, with the Admiralty even forming plans for attacks on Soviet naval bases. Chamberlain realised that, when fighting one bully, you don't stick your head out for the other one to hit, particularly when you can't effectively hit back.


Prior to the war, Churchill wrote about threats to England's foreign markets by Germany's growing economy. Sure, they declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland... but two weeks later when the Russians invaded Poland... did Britain declare war on Russia, too?
Nope.
Odd, isn't it?
So, as far as honoring their alliance with Poland, they didn't.
Guess the war was about economics and market shares, as Leitmotiv pointed out.

Britain had always gone to war to protect its economic interests? What is unusual about that? Economic intrests are national interests.



As for "Standing up for what was right...", It's a little hypocritical for a country who (through invasions, colonies, possessions and mandates) almost controlled 75% of the planet, to preach to someone else what they can or cannot do with regards to their own people, such as the Sudenten Germans or the Germans in the Polish corridor, etc.

The British Empire hardly controlled 75% of the planet. Try less than a third of that. Bald faced exaggeration does your arguments no good. Germany had made her own stab at acquiring an empire too, "our place in the sun" ring any bells?

OD_
01-20-2009, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by Fledermaus578:
As for "Standing up for what was right...", It's a little hypocritical for a country who (through invasions, colonies, possessions and mandates) almost controlled 75% of the planet, to preach to someone else what they can or cannot do with regards to their own people, such as the Sudenten Germans or the Germans in the Polish corridor, etc.

Interesting...are you trying to claim that Britain, and the other European Empires, built them up with the idea of going in a exterminating a large chunk of the population due to religious belief or due to being sub-humans?

I'm not denying that in all of the Empires there were attrocities and occasional masacres but not large scale extermination or millions on an industrial scale.

As has been stated Britain's foreign policy has always been based on economics and the securing of it's trade. Being an island dependent on imported food and resources it can not allow one power to dominate the coast of mainland Europe and threaten it's entire wellbeing. This was the whole reason Britain was involved in WWI, an old pact with Belgium just gave it some kind of legitimacy in law.

The Battle of the Atlantic shows exactly why it is not in Britain's interest to allow one nation to dominate Europe.

Bremspropeller
01-20-2009, 09:05 AM
Hitler never had serious interest in Britain.

He might have accepted a neutral Britain - maybe even a neutral France.
But history went differently.

Whirlin_merlin
01-20-2009, 11:12 AM
Well if not for WW2 my grandfather wouldn't have left Ireland to volunteer, he would not have met my English grandmother and so I would never have been born.

So what did Britain gain.....ME!!!!!

You lucky blighters.

sgilewicz
01-20-2009, 11:35 AM
Lots of kids with "dubious" pedigree? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

foxyboy1964
01-20-2009, 11:39 AM
My uncle Thomas gained a very nice Italian accordian that he "liberated" somewhere north of Monte Casino. His son, my cousin, still has it. On the debit side, my uncle Jack gained several pieces of shrapnel and a walking stick after jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft somewhere over Normandy, one night in June '44. Ah well, swings and round-a-bouts, eh?

JG52Uther
01-20-2009, 11:46 AM
We gained a lot of new names on war memorials.
Heres one: Captain Horace Brookes
A handsome man by all accounts,killed fighting the Japanese.My late Grandmothers younger brother.The family never really got over it apparently,and VE/VJ day had a rather hollow ring to it.

foxyboy1964
01-20-2009, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
We gained a lot of new names on war memorials.


Indeed. ~S~ Cpt. Brookes.

Kurfurst__
01-20-2009, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The two world wars were an absolute disaster for the UK. The first one consummated her decline vis-a-vis the German industrial colossus on the continent and the vulpine USA across the sea eager to grab markets and trade, but she was still a powerful international trading player with the world's largest merchant marine. The second foreclosed any hope of maintaining the Empire and sapped the will to do so even if the means had existed. The USA grabbed her markets and mercilessly demanded her acceptance of American Imperium throughout the world. Suez 1956 made it clear beyond any doubt that strategically the UK was an American vassal state. The results of the two world wars were classic examples of Pyrrhic victories, or "One more victory like that and we are finished!" As one historian put it (John Lukacs), the result at the end of WWII was that two very immature and hypertrophied nations, the USA and Russia, ruled the world, for better or for worse.

My thoughts exactly - Britain was a trading empire first and foremost, the colonies were the basis of cheap resources and easily exploitable manpower, and a trade fleet the carry the goods. Wars are devastating for trade: U-boots sent a very large portion of the merchant navy to the bottom of the Atlantic (twice during the century!), trade was agonizing during the war years, the country got indebted to the US which took away its markets, and Britain invested vast amounts of capital into very expensive weapon systems and their inftrastructure (battleships and heavy bombers and their bases) which produced no returns and were basically dead investment as soon as the war stopped. Most of the bombers were scrapped and most of the battleships of the WW1 Royal Navy ended up with scrappers. It left an industry behind that was strongly deformed in production profile, and unable to compete on the markets in the post-war enviroment, in a country that was impoverished by the war and did not have the capital investments and modernisation. Ironically, the Germans even profited from their bombed down factories and those that were stripped down by the victors and taken as a war prize; as soon as the capital was available, starting fresh, the whole industry was rebuilt and modernized at the same time with the latest machinery, infrastructure and industrial know-how.

In contrast of the British the other hand the US invested heavily into Liberty ships and C-47 transports, and these items of war could be turned immediately to make profit after the war stopped, while the aircraft and shipbuilding industry kept profiting from the investments and developments it made during the war to produce these items en masse - and to make it worse, they billed the British for their efforts as soon as the papers were signed and as the guns went silent.. just take a look at the domination by the large American aviation giants, Douglas, Boeing etc. after the war - they smashed their competition.

Friendly_flyer
01-20-2009, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by OD_:
I sometimes wonder why people confuse England and Britain though...

It's because in quite a few languages (mine among them) the term "Britain" does not exist, "England" being the term in use for the whole nation.

Blutarski2004
01-20-2009, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The two world wars were an absolute disaster for the UK. The first one consummated her decline vis-a-vis the German industrial colossus on the continent and the vulpine USA across the sea eager to grab markets and trade, but she was still a powerful international trading player with the world's largest merchant marine. The second foreclosed any hope of maintaining the Empire and sapped the will to do so even if the means had existed. The USA grabbed her markets and mercilessly demanded her acceptance of American Imperium throughout the world. Suez 1956 made it clear beyond any doubt that strategically the UK was an American vassal state. The results of the two world wars were classic examples of Pyrrhic victories, or "One more victory like that and we are finished!" As one historian put it (John Lukacs), the result at the end of WWII was that two very immature and hypertrophied nations, the USA and Russia, ruled the world, for better or for worse.

My thoughts exactly - Britain was a trading empire first and foremost, the colonies were the basis of cheap resources and easily exploitable manpower, and a trade fleet the carry the goods. Wars are devastating for trade: U-boots sent a very large portion of the merchant navy to the bottom of the Atlantic (twice during the century!), trade was agonizing during the war years, the country got indebted to the US which took away its markets, and Britain invested vast amounts of capital into very expensive weapon systems and their inftrastructure (battleships and heavy bombers and their bases) which produced no returns and were basically dead investment as soon as the war stopped. Most of the bombers were scrapped and most of the battleships of the WW1 Royal Navy ended up with scrappers. It left an industry behind that was strongly deformed in production profile, and unable to compete on the markets in the post-war enviroment, in a country that was impoverished by the war and did not have the capital investments and modernisation. Ironically, the Germans even profited from their bombed down factories and those that were stripped down by the victors and taken as a war prize; as soon as the capital was available, starting fresh, the whole industry was rebuilt and modernized at the same time with the latest machinery, infrastructure and industrial know-how.

In contrast of the British the other hand the US invested heavily into Liberty ships and C-47 transports, and these items of war could be turned immediately to make profit after the war stopped, while the aircraft and shipbuilding industry kept profiting from the investments and developments it made during the war to produce these items en masse - and to make it worse, they billed the British for their efforts as soon as the papers were signed and as the guns went silent.. just take a look at the domination by the large American aviation giants, Douglas, Boeing etc. after the war - they smashed their competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Excellent commentary, K. To add one item, I recently read a report on the adoption of the 40mm Bofors gun and its production by the US. The difference in manufacturing efficiency between US and UK factories, as measured in man-hours per production unit, differed by an order of magnitude - just an amazing degree of difference.

Friendly_flyer
01-20-2009, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by OD_:
I'm not denying that in all of the Empires there were attrocities and occasional masacres but not large scale extermination or millions on an industrial scale.

The Australian aborigine may not quite agree to that. While it certainly was no "industry" to eradicate them, the Empire lost more men in Australia fighting the natives than in the Great War. A simple comparison of the estimated number of Australian aborigines in, let's say 1800 and 1900 would make the term "extermination or millions" rather apt.

Bremspropeller
01-20-2009, 03:54 PM
Excellent analaysis, leit and Kurfy!

I'd sign that.
The "Economical Wonders" of Japan and Germany were nothing but a logical process.

Same applies to South Korea, thoug in a slightliy different scale.

leitmotiv
01-20-2009, 04:09 PM
Kurfurst nailed the industrial story 1000%.

MB_Avro_UK
01-20-2009, 04:28 PM
Hi all,

Great posts here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I think that it took quite a few years for the British people to realise that WW2 had had a devastating effect on the British economy.

Yes, they had done the right thing to stand against the Nazis and this was some comfort at the time.

Britain tried to be a world power after WW2 but she no longer had the political or economic influence. The Suez debacle was an example.

Even today, Britain is punching above her weight as regards Iraq and Afghanistan IMO.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
01-20-2009, 04:42 PM
Great topic, MBA!

ImpStarDuece
01-20-2009, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_:
I'm not denying that in all of the Empires there were attrocities and occasional masacres but not large scale extermination or millions on an industrial scale.

The Australian aborigine may not quite agree to that. While it certainly was no "industry" to eradicate them, the Empire lost more men in Australia fighting the natives than in the Great War. A simple comparison of the estimated number of Australian aborigines in, let's say 1800 and 1900 would make the term "extermination or millions" rather apt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to provide some sources or statistics to back this up?

Tab_Flettner
01-20-2009, 06:39 PM
Actually I have an article from "Signal" that deals exactly with this topic. If I can dig the book out I'll scan it and post it. The gist of the article is that the UK is going to lose everything, and the US and the soviets are going to run the world, etc, etc. Makes for weird reading.

leitmotiv
01-20-2009, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_:
I'm not denying that in all of the Empires there were attrocities and occasional masacres but not large scale extermination or millions on an industrial scale.

The Australian aborigine may not quite agree to that. While it certainly was no "industry" to eradicate them, the Empire lost more men in Australia fighting the natives than in the Great War. A simple comparison of the estimated number of Australian aborigines in, let's say 1800 and 1900 would make the term "extermination or millions" rather apt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to provide some sources or statistics to back this up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being a student of massacres, this is news to me, and, I too, would like some credible evidence.

D1J1
01-21-2009, 01:44 AM
Yoi and double yoi!!!!!!!!!!

This one is for Myron! Go <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">STEELERS!!!</span>

IMO the Pats will still be strong next year, but need to beware of age. That bugaboo has haunted a lot of team including my Steelers. Hanging on to too many guys who have lost a fraction of a step shows up very, very quickly and in a nasty way.

Some of the Pats elder statesmen are in that stage.

Friendly_flyer
01-21-2009, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Being a student of massacres, this is news to me, and, I too, would like some credible evidence.

I'll go looking for the source. It is more than 10 years ago, so don't expect an answer in a jiffy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Whirlin_merlin
01-21-2009, 10:33 AM
What went on in Australia was horrific, especially in Tasmania.Google 'The black line',
for the circumstances of the time the term 'industrialised' isn't that inaccurate to describe such an orchestrated attempt at ethnic cleansing.

Not that it has any relevance to the topic mind.

MB_Avro_UK
01-21-2009, 12:55 PM
Hi all,

IMO WW2 helped to break down the 'class system' in Britain which was a good thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Churchill, the wartime Conservative Prime Minister was voted out of office in 1945 at the war's end and a Labour Government elected.

This was a shock to Churchill!!

Theose who had served in the Brit military perhaps did not want to go back to the 'old class system' and voted for change.There had been a break down of the historic class system due to the war.

Maybe some historical resonance with the recent US election?

Maybe this was a gain?


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

OD_
01-22-2009, 05:06 AM
I'm not sure that I could agree with that. I think that there is still very much a class system in the UK, though in some cases it can be less obvious.
You're right in that it caused a shift, but I think that it took a long time to be able to filter through to a lot of people. I don't feel that we can be free of a class system until the Monarchy and the House of Lords are removed as instruments of the British State. They still epitomise the Class system, though the Heriditary Lords are now practically gone the fact that people can 'buy peerages' shows there is still a class system. It is innevitable in society that there is some kind of heirachical structure like that. There will always be those that have and those that have not.
I think one of the biggest things that has changed with regards to class is peoples perceptions of what class they are in have changed. If you watched John Prescott's programme recently he went to a Council estate, I think in Hull, and asked some girls whether they thought they were working class their response was:

"No, we're not working class...we don't work!"

I think people are less likely to 'know their place' than they were before and have the idea along the lines of the American Dream that anyone can do anything if they put their mind to it. I'd say this is more true than it was but there is still a class system. I also feel that private schools such as Eton et al will continue to create a divide, whether this is good or bad is another matter.

I'd still say the NHS was the biggest single thing that Britain gained from WW2...though it never helped the economy!

leitmotiv
01-22-2009, 09:07 AM
Don't be fooled; there is a class system in the U.S. At the top is old money, the patrician class who have been around for ages. They know the ropes and pull the levers of power. Then there is new money, lots of new money, which commands respect because it has power and political influence. Next, the elite managerial class which believes it is superior to all and sundry by virtue of their Ivy League educations and high positions in the Federal Government, business, and finance. Below them is the professional class of doctors, lawyers, journalists, and university teachers who are smug and hubristic as any British toffs. Then there is the middle class which can still be pretty arrogant and self-satisfied. Next, the working stiffs who aren't quite at middle class and who return middle class smugness with their own contempt. At near the bottom, those who are wards of the state or worse. At the rock bottom, the vast seething, violent and nasty all-American criminal class which has their own arrogance and esprit de corps thanks to being glamorized by dozens of gangster films and violent rap music. Literary critic Paul Fussell tackled the American class system 20 years ago with his book CLASS. Very much worth a read even if you are American. Paradoxically, the Democrats love American aristos like the Kennedys---as long as they play the game of pretending to be like everybody else, which they are not. Look at this incredible gush about President Obama:

"He is our first (in the best sense of the word) aristocratic president," author and journalist Malcolm Gladwell told The Times. "Bush was a buddy. Clinton was the kindly uncle. Obama is a prince."

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...an21,0,7261927.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-inaug-literati21-2009jan21,0,7261927.story)

Republicans, on the other hand, approve of self-made men who have risen to power by dint of hard work, but, they, too, have their patricians like the Bush family.

Ba5tard5word
01-22-2009, 08:01 PM
At the top, the vast seething, violent and nasty all-American white-collar criminal class

Fix'd that for ya http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


The US isn't that different societally from say the UK or France but definitely in those two nations in particular, the same small group of people have been running the government and big business for the last several centuries. That's true to a point in the US but I think it's easier for outsiders to break into the top, but it's still hard to do. I'm not sure that a geeky mixed-race child of a single mother who grew up on food stamps could become PM of Britain or President of France, but who knows.

And I'm sure leit will chime in by saying Obama is elitist now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

unreasonable
01-22-2009, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At the top, the vast seething, violent and nasty all-American white-collar criminal class

Fix'd that for ya http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


The US isn't that different societally from say the UK or France but definitely in those two nations in particular, the same small group of people have been running the government and big business for the last several centuries. That's true to a point in the US but I think it's easier for outsiders to break into the top, but it's still hard to do. I'm not sure that a geeky mixed-race child of a single mother who grew up on food stamps could become PM of Britain or President of France, but who knows.

And I'm sure leit will chime in by saying Obama is elitist now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem... this is incorrect, at least about the UK.

For example, a few Prime Ministers:

Disraeli - Jewish bankrupt
Thatcher - Female/lower middle class
Major - lower middle class
Wilson - Grammer school boy
Callaghan - Trade Union organizer
Lloyd George - little welsh git (lawyer)

....actually the majority of PMs every party in the last century have come from classes other than the old aristocracy. (Interesting that one of the few exceptions, Churchill, was by far the greatest.....)

By contrast we have had Bush I and Bush II, now we have another Clinton hanging around, Kennedys everywhere you look, wealthy investment bankers buying senate seats with mass advertising spending...

The British political system destroyed class as a meaningful indicator of power arguably as long ago as WWI and certainly after WWII. The old aristocracy was destroyed by agricultural depression and death duties. The mercantile/manufacturing class was always open to new talent.

Nowdays, being seen as a toff is a major political liability. The county set may enjoy preserving some of the values of the old aristocracy but the idea that they have any power is ludicrous. They could not even prevent their favourite sport - foxhunting - being banned in a blatantly petty and vindictive example of class hatred by the currently ruling government.

That is not to say a new self perpetuating ruling class could not develop, given that the destruction of the grammer schools has taken away the main mechanism by which gifted children from poor families could rise to the highest positions in the land. We will seee when we get a Harry Harmann, Margaret Mandelson etc in the cabinet.

SeaFireLIV
01-23-2009, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Don't be fooled; there is a class system in the U.S. At the top is old money, the patrician class who have been around for ages. They know the ropes and pull the levers of power. Then there is new money, lots of new money, which commands respect because it has power and political influence. Next, the elite managerial class which believes it is superior to all and sundry by virtue of their Ivy League educations and high positions in the Federal Government, business, and finance. Below them is the professional class of doctors, lawyers, journalists, and university teachers who are smug and hubristic as any British toffs. Then there is the middle class which can still be pretty arrogant and self-satisfied. Next, the working stiffs who aren't quite at middle class and who return middle class smugness with their own contempt. At near the bottom, those who are wards of the state or worse. At the rock bottom, the vast seething, violent and nasty all-American criminal class which has their own arrogance and esprit de corps thanks to being glamorized by dozens of gangster films and violent rap music. Literary critic Paul Fussell tackled the American class system 20 years ago with his book CLASS. Very much worth a read even if you are American. Paradoxically, the Democrats love American aristos like the Kennedys---as long as they play the game of pretending to be like everybody else, which they are not. Look at this incredible gush about President Obama:

"He is our first (in the best sense of the word) aristocratic president," author and journalist Malcolm Gladwell told The Times. "Bush was a buddy. Clinton was the kindly uncle. Obama is a prince."

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...an21,0,7261927.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-inaug-literati21-2009jan21,0,7261927.story)

Republicans, on the other hand, approve of self-made men who have risen to power by dint of hard work, but, they, too, have their patricians like the Bush family.

Very, very interesting, but not surprising. Every society seems to have it`s hierarchy from the Prince to the Pauper. I`ll probably insult a thousand people here, but when i used to live in london, the `middle-class` who wanted to be, and some were, Doctors, journalists, etc were far more annoying and empty than any working class person I knew up north with. They were very good at catergorising people to suit their own prejudices which they pretended not to see.

Annoyed the hell outta me. I have more respect for a refuse collecter than those pompous people.

I`d rather stick with a group of poor northerners\ midlanders and beer anyday.

D1J1
01-23-2009, 03:59 AM
How about its existence as a free nation? You don't seriously think the ratzis allow an economic rival like Britain to stand?

Not to mention the need to get rid of that pesky Royal Navy if one-nut gets the urge to go "global?"

Blutarski2004
01-23-2009, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by unreasonable:
...the destruction of the grammer schools has taken away the main mechanism by which gifted children from poor families could rise to the highest positions in the land.


... ??? Details please?

Friendly_flyer
01-23-2009, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Care to provide some sources or statistics to back this up?

Here's a few sources:
The unrelenting struggle for idigenous Australians: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/australians.html (http://www.cwo.com/%7Elucumi/australians.html) (summary)

Books:
Pepper, P. & De Araugo, T (1985): What Did Happen to the Aborigines of Victoria, Volume 1: The Kurnai of Gippsland. Hyland House pbl.

Turnbull, C (1965): Black War: The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Clive Turnbull. Cheshire: Lansdowne. Summary here: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/tasmania.html (http://www.cwo.com/%7Elucumi/tasmania.html)

I'm still looking for the losses of the British Army in Australia during the 19th century, but have so far found no reliable sources.

Very, very little of what actually went on in Australia during 19th century has been made known. The reason for this has been treated in Raymond, Saunders & Cronin (1993): Race Relations in Colonial Queensland:
A History of Exclusion, Exploitation and Extermination, a review here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/j...993/61.html#Heading1 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1993/61.html#Heading1)

leitmotiv
01-23-2009, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At the top, the vast seething, violent and nasty all-American white-collar criminal class

Fix'd that for ya http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


The US isn't that different societally from say the UK or France but definitely in those two nations in particular, the same small group of people have been running the government and big business for the last several centuries. That's true to a point in the US but I think it's easier for outsiders to break into the top, but it's still hard to do. I'm not sure that a geeky mixed-race child of a single mother who grew up on food stamps could become PM of Britain or President of France, but who knows.

And I'm sure leit will chime in by saying Obama is elitist now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops unreasonable beat me to this---

You forget about Disraeli (Jewish), Lloyd George (poor boy), and MacDonald (illegitimate son of a laborer and a house maid)---all of these gentlemen were PM long before "Cool Britannia".

As for thugs who murder babies in front of their parents because they failed to make a loan payment being the moral equivalent of rich b------s who made their money in commerce, I leave that to anybody free of doctrine to judge.

Airmail109
01-23-2009, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:

I'm not sure that a geeky mixed-race child of a single mother who grew up on food stamps could become PM of Britain or President of France, but who knows.



Uhhh yeah he/she could, as of the moment were not quite as diverse as the USA. Certain cities are and thats why I think we'll have a black London mayor in the future. Maybe not a PM but I don't think that would have much to do with racism. Although it is there but no more than in the US.

Also talking about social mobility, let me remind you who's country it is where some 15,000 people die each year from a lack of access to even basic medical care.

leitmotiv
01-23-2009, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Care to provide some sources or statistics to back this up?

Here's a few sources:
The unrelenting struggle for idigenous Australians: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/australians.html (http://www.cwo.com/%7Elucumi/australians.html) (summary)

Books:
Pepper, P. & De Araugo, T (1985): What Did Happen to the Aborigines of Victoria, Volume 1: The Kurnai of Gippsland. Hyland House pbl.

Turnbull, C (1965): Black War: The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Clive Turnbull. Cheshire: Lansdowne. Summary here: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/tasmania.html (http://www.cwo.com/%7Elucumi/tasmania.html)

I'm still looking for the losses of the British Army in Australia during the 19th century, but have so far found no reliable sources.

Very, very little of what actually went on in Australia during 19th century has been made known. The reason for this has been treated in Raymond, Saunders & Cronin (1993): Race Relations in Colonial Queensland:
A History of Exclusion, Exploitation and Extermination, a review here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/j...993/61.html#Heading1 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1993/61.html#Heading1) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the number of people exterminated given by you was "millions". We all know there were several thousand murdered.

leitmotiv
01-23-2009, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:

I'm not sure that a geeky mixed-race child of a single mother who grew up on food stamps could become PM of Britain or President of France, but who knows.



Uhhh yeah he/she could, as of the moment were not quite as diverse as the USA. Certain cities are and thats why I think we'll have a black London mayor in the future. Maybe not a PM but I don't think that would have much to do with racism. Although it is there but no more than in the US.

Also talking about social mobility, let me remind you who's country it is where some 15,000 people die each year from a lack of access to even basic medical care. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And even more die through access to what passes for health care in the West. Care to grace us with a source for this statistic?

Airmail109
01-23-2009, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:

I'm not sure that a geeky mixed-race child of a single mother who grew up on food stamps could become PM of Britain or President of France, but who knows.



Uhhh yeah he/she could, as of the moment were not quite as diverse as the USA. Certain cities are and thats why I think we'll have a black London mayor in the future. Maybe not a PM but I don't think that would have much to do with racism. Although it is there but no more than in the US.

Also talking about social mobility, let me remind you who's country it is where some 15,000 people die each year from a lack of access to even basic medical care. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And even more die through access to what passes for health care in the West. Care to grace us with a source for this statistic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ill try to find it on youtube but its a documentary I recorded, the figures actually 23000, 47 million people without health insurance and the footage of people lining up in huge lines at 5AM to see a British medical charity that was originally setup for third world countries makes the NHS look positively futuristic.

Bremspropeller
01-23-2009, 06:43 AM
I finally found something, the Brits gained:


Weight.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ffb
01-23-2009, 02:49 PM
We won the war... they won the peace

Ba5tard5word
01-23-2009, 04:48 PM
Disraeli was definitely a master politician, he was able to blend into the British ruling classes and lead them very effectively.

I would agree with you Aimail that Obama being president has more to do with the US being very diverse--he really awakened politically the huge number of non-white Americans--not just blacks--who are usually very apathetic about politics. (though I think he's made a lot of whites in, say, Oklahoma, very apathetic all of a sudden)

My post about Obama's rise being impossible in France and the UK was more about my (probably flawed) sense that the governments of the UK and France are ruled by a large bureaucratic elite. This is very true in Washington DC however--there is a huge class of very clubby, very powerful people who control most of the DC bureaucracy whether a Dem or Republican is in charge. It was very difficult for Obama to break into their club but he has accomplished it. But we still don't quite have institutions like Sciences-Po in the US, though Sarkozy (a guy of Hungarian and Jewish ancestry) didn't go there and has been politically succesful.

Bo_Nidle
01-23-2009, 07:12 PM
WW2 destroyed Britain as world power.

We had to trade off large sections of our Empire to the USA as part of the pay-off for war aid.

We were too weak to keep hold of other sections and found it easier to just let them return to home rule.(The fact that the majority of them kept a system of Government,Law and Military based very closely on the British equivalents, tends to suggest that maybe we weren't quite the evil Imperialists that todays PC revisionist "historians" would try and have you believe?)

Britain was bankrupt (sound familiar?) and has never really recovered. In fact we have only recently finished paying off the cost of the aid supplied by the USA

I would put forwards that the longterm winners were Germany and Japan both of whom had their economies rebuilt with American money in order to provide the USA with a strategic position against the Soviet Union.

Of course the USA was the main winner financially and politically, benefiting hugely from the ensuing territorial gains once Britain had been effectively removed from the world stage.

Morally we did the right thing in standing up against the forces of tyranny but in the end we have the European superstate and it was accomplished without the need for weapons, just a few corrupt politicians. Edward Heath took us into that on a big fat lie. ("Teflon" Tony took us into Iraq on a far nastier and dirty lie, so the Tories don't have the monopoly on dishonesty!) IMO Britain should stand up again and get out of the EU.

Like my mum always said: "The English Channel is there for a reason".

That said, the fact that Britain stood up when the rest of the world backed off will always be a source of pride for me.

I sum it up by saying to people "I am fiercely proud of what this country was, but utterly ashamed of what it has become!"

huggy87
01-23-2009, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:


Of course the USA was the main winner financially and politically, benefiting hugely from the ensuing territorial gains once Britain had been effectively removed from the world stage.



Name one territory we gained from Britain.

R_Target
01-23-2009, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
In fact we have only recently finished paying off the cost of the aid supplied by the USA

What was recently paid off was the Anglo-American loan, which covered lend-lease equipment retained by the UK, at a 90% discount. It doesn't appear to be the massive drain on the Royal Treasury that's so chronically howled about around here.

Lord McIntosh in the House of Lords:


My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us.

unreasonable
01-23-2009, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by unreasonable:
...the destruction of the grammer schools has taken away the main mechanism by which gifted children from poor families could rise to the highest positions in the land.


... ??? Details please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, in outline at least, if you want data you will have to look it up yourself:

(BTW my fault, it is grammar - I blame my failing eyesight...)

In medieval times many nobles and church worthies founded grammar schools to teach latin, primarily to provide a supply of clerics. These were charity schools. In the Victorian era the system was gradually formalised with three types of school:

- Public schools (private in US parlance)
- Grammar schools (state supported, able to select their own pupils)
- Everything else, from technical/trade schools through to non selective state primary and secondary schools.

The point about Grammar schools was that they were open to everyone, being part of the state system of compulsory education, but able to select their own pupils through an examination system that in my day at least was called the 11+, taken at about age 11 oddly enough. Unlike today's exams, this was not a test in which all must have prizes. I do not know the exact proportion - but I would guess about 10-20% of those taking the tests got places at a grammar, the others would go to a state secondary school of some kind.

Since they were selective for pupils with academic prowess, grammar schools also tended to attract good teachers. The academic results of grammar schools in general were better than many of the public schools, with a very high rate of success in "O" and "A" levels - (which then, unlike now, stood for standards you would want your teenage daughter to achieve), and a very high rate of access to and success at university, including Oxford and Cambridge. This in turn led to access to careers in politics, academia, the civil service and even the less fashionable parts of the armed services.

Because this system was nationwide in England and Wales (the Scots having their own system), poor but clever children everywhere had an excellent chance of getting onto the ladder that would make them middle class. If you look through a Who's Who of the British establishment you will see more grammar school entries than public school.

The problem with this system, some argued, was that it neglected the needs of those left in the non selective state secondary schools by channeling resources disproportionately to the gifted few. You can view this argument in two ways:

- An honest belief that non selective education would raise standards all round without significantly adversely affecting the gifted (a false belief)

- A red herring, concealing the real agenda which was the destruction of petit bourgeois society (which is what has happened).

Anyway, through a combination of changes in educational dogma and financial pressure during the great progressive years of the seventies the grammar schools were gradually forced by successive governments (Labour and Conservative) to merge with nearby state secondary schools, forming the vast "comprehensive" schools so loved today. Unsurprisingly, when you mix 200 studious myopic types with 1800 shall we say less studious types, the classroom culture of the majority wins out. It is extremely difficult for a working class boy with a serious interest in science or literature to survive in this type of culture. With modern knife and gang youth culture, I mean "survive".

The public schools continued in their old form, since even Labour governments could see that the parents of public school boys would simply send their offspring abroad to be educated rather than allow them to be torn limb from limb in the state system.

Selection never went away completely - now parents pay huge premiums to buy houses in the catchment areas of "good" schools, while avoiding the areas of "bad" schools. As the "good" schools had more middle class pupils with books at home and a culture of study and success, so their results inproved, attracting yet more middle class parents to their area. So now the progressive class warriors in the educationalist establishment are advocating a form of bussing, since in their view any difference in results are prima facie evidence of unfairness and exclusion.

Anyway the upshot of all this is that social mobility has decreased greatly in the last couple of decades, despite all the resources thrown at "underprivileged" groups in society.

Personally I have no patience with it anymore - the British people deserve their slow descent into a hellish east german style state since they are en masse perhaps the most stupid and uncultured bunch in Europe, as a glance at the BBC will confirm. That some people can still blame the ills of British society on the actions of alleged "toffs" is so staggeringly obtuse that one can only throw up one's well manicured hands in despair.

End rant.

leitmotiv
01-23-2009, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:


Of course the USA was the main winner financially and politically, benefiting hugely from the ensuing territorial gains once Britain had been effectively removed from the world stage.



Name one territory we gained from Britain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

100 Year lease on bases got at fire sale prices in 1941.

roybaty
01-23-2009, 09:57 PM
Yeah there's that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.


Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:


Of course the USA was the main winner financially and politically, benefiting hugely from the ensuing territorial gains once Britain had been effectively removed from the world stage.



Name one territory we gained from Britain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

100 Year lease on bases got at fire sale prices in 1941. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ba5tard5word
01-23-2009, 10:40 PM
Of course the USA was the main winner financially and politically, benefiting hugely from the ensuing territorial gains once Britain had been effectively removed from the world stage.

I wouldn't call establishing a few far-flung bases around the world to guard against Japanese/German nationalism to be on the level of taking over territory from the British.

Quite frankly, the US found a smarter way of building an empire than the British: the economic empire. We didn't incur the costs of having to take care of giant swathes of land occupied by people who hated us. We controlled a few bases here and there and traded with everyone.

Of course Bush kind of screwed up this brilliant scheme by invading Iraq and all, but at least we haven't annexed it like the British did.

But the British Empire simply wasn't sustainable past the 1930's, and you can't blame it on the US, sorry. WW2 accelerated the Empire's demise for better or worse.

leitmotiv
01-24-2009, 03:27 AM
You are, of course, forgetting we maintained a very large military force in West Germany for over forty years and still maintain a garrison in South Korea. Our fleet took on the role of the Royal Navy during Pax Britannia and still is the most important defender of (our) trade in the world. We have paid the cost of a world-wide empire in garrisons, wars, military hardware, and lives while draining our treasury to do so. All this without holding title to what we defend since our acquisitions resulting from the 1898 Spanish-American War. Nevertheless, FDR played hardball with the British Empire. He wanted access to British markets in their colonies. He pressured Churchill to disestablish the Empire starting with India. Truman and Eisenhower squeezed the British out of the Mid East. From the British perspective we were b-----ds. From our perspective we were increasing liberty (while we hypocritically supported exploitive dictatorships all over the world). The upshot, the U.S. ruled a world-wide empire by proxy with "our" dictatorships in the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, Central and South America, Turkey, Greece, Iran & etc. Our system of empire led many in and out of the U.S. to think our empire builders were huge hypocrites. Instead of ruling the countries by occupation assuming "the white man's burden", we pretended we were supporting democracies all over the world when we were not. GW tried a new tack---clobber our former dictator client and replace him with a representative government. Hilariously, the least cynical U.S. President since Jimmy Carter is hated as a dictator.

Aaron_GT
01-24-2009, 03:35 AM
unreasonable - grammar schools selecting on academic performance are much reduced in number but still exist in England Many schools stream (select) within schools, some to an extent they are virtually two schools under one roof. So there is still selection, even if deemphasised.

The problem with the 11+ is that it was a single test at a certain point in time which meant that if the 'penny dropped' for a child a year too late it was too late. So the comprehensive movement (in its pure, non-political form) was intended to address that, but it could also be a cover for mediocrity.

No perfect educational system exists.

Aaron_GT
01-24-2009, 03:42 AM
We were too weak to keep hold of other sections and found it easier to just let them return to home rule.

Actually that movement started in the nineteenth century with the gradual movement of Australia, Canada, New Zealand to home rule, which took several decades. Shortly after WW1 some other areas were also given more autonomy (e.g. Sudan) and serious consideration was given to the same for India, although Churchill stood in implacable opposition to this when overseeing the colonies. There was some backpedalling in the 1930s as Imperial preference was seen as a way of aiding the economy in the 1930s but really the writing was very much on the wall for the Empire from the end of WW1 and the exhaustion after WW2 probably just increased the pace by a decade.

So really I would have said the key turning point was WW1 not WW2. WW1 was a massive event in terms of the economy and manpower too (nearly three times as bad as WW2 for Britain in terms of military deaths and twice as bad in terms of civilian deaths).

leitmotiv
01-24-2009, 03:51 AM
Corelli Barnett has a very persuasive theory about the role of the classic British Public School in the decline of the British Empire from 1914-1940 (the year the British government went bankrupt paying for a war it could not afford) in his COLLAPSE OF BRITISH POWER. I recommend it to anybody interested in the end of British imperium. For the post-WWII period, I recommend Charmley's excellent CHURCHILL'S GRAND ALLIANCE.

arthursmedley
01-24-2009, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by unreasonable:
...the destruction of the grammer schools has taken away the main mechanism by which gifted children from poor families could rise to the highest positions in the land.


... ??? Details please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hallo Blutarski. Mr. Unreasonable is not quite on the ball here.
Most of our great public schools were established as charitable institutions to help the poor and destitute. Christs Hospital school being the classic example of this. At about the same time Oxford and Cambridge were established, somewhere around the end of the twelth century!!

Until nearly the mid-victorian era they awarded exclusively theological degrees. Newton had one.

After divesting ourselves of our last French possesions, sorting out the legal basis of the divine rights of kings (off with his head!!) and sending off a few dissenters to land on er...Plymouth rock, in the later half of the seventeenth century we settled down to the serious business of making ourselves a major power.

Fortunes made in the west and east Indies were brought home and invested in a navy and an industrial revolution.

This new wealth created a recognizable middle class who required a more formal education system for their children. Victorian wealth and drive provided these. However, you had to pay for this education thus putting it out of reach for the vast majority of the population who had to rely on any education they received on pure charity at a local level. There were no entry requirements to grammar schools then other than the ability to stump up the fees. This income, by definition made you middle class.

The idea was to seperate the quality from the scum! Not quite the engine of social mobility its claimed!

In the latter half of the victorian era we finally got round to establishing a few more universities than Oxford and Cambridge and they also awarded degrees in medicine, engineering, etc.

My paternal grandfather was a gamekeeper for the estate of aristocratic northern land owner.
He died in 1927 when one of the ladies on a shoot dropped her Purdey and blew his leg off.
In some sort of recompense grandma was allowed to stay in her cottage on the estate and her sons, my dad and my uncle were sent to the local grammar school which was one way of allowing two dirt poor rural kids to receive an education!!

Remember that through most of this time 90% of the population left school at the age of fourteen with the most cursory of educations.

After the end of that greatest of social levellers - WW11 - the demands for a fairer and more accesible education system had to be met.

An attempt was made on creating a three tier system; Grammar schools for the academically minded, technical schools for those with an engineering or trade ability and 'secondary moderns' for the rest to provide a general education.
Oh yes, all this would be free, paid for from general taxation with no school fees.

The upper classes ,aristocracy and plain wealthy continued to put their children through the 'public schools' like Eton, Harrow and a whole host of minor less well known schools.

In hand with this went a vast postwar expansion of our university system. Again free to students.

Meanwhile back in state education whilst new grammar schools and secondary moderns were built we also wanted our own Bomb and something to deliver it with and had to keep fairly large armed forces in Germany and around 'the empire'. Never underestimate the drain this put on the finances and technical expertise of a little place like postwar Britain.

Somethings, lots of things, had to give and technical schools were never built. Couple this with our english obsession with 'class' and we were left with a rather curious education system that by and large decided the future lives of most children at the age of eleven when as a kid you sat down and took the 'eleven plus' as it was called.
Pass and you went to grammar school and a learning enviroment of academic expectation, if you did well, on to the new, free universities. That was good for the top twenty per cent who passed their eleven plus. Out of this top twenty perhaps one in five or six were the clever kids of the working classes.

For the rest, in secondary moderns, you were effectively written off. You were expected to achieve less, took different, lesser, exams and left school at fifteen.

It was incredibly divisive and in someways was meant to be. At its roots the idea was to still seperate the quality from the scum!

My wife grew up in rural southwest England where we still live today. Out of her class of twenty eight children who sat the eleven plus only her and three other village boys passed and went on to grammar school.
The rest of village kids never spoke to them again!

By the early nineteen sixties it was realised that an education system that wrote off the futue of eighty percent of it's pupils at age eleven was not doing the UK any favours and
slowly and gradually the grammar schools and secondary moderns were ablished. However, as education is still administered locally here not all of them were.

For the majority of the country the eleven plus was abolished and the 'comprehensive' system was brought in. All pupils attend the same school and are 'streamed' according to ability in core subjects.

Believe it or not, if you can wade through the various agendas and bs of the press, politicians and education advisors, the comprehensive system has been a success for the majority of the UK's children.

Recently we changed our examination systems to reward study and effort over the mere ability to regurgitate two years of study into an hour and a half examination. Again, the cause of a great deal of handwringing, agenderizing, bs'ing, etc.

In the UK we are still obsessed with creating 'elites' in our society at the expense of those at the bottom. Bright kids from any background generally do well in any education system. The trick is raising up the great 'middle ground' to that level and doing something for the bottom twenty-five per cent who otherwise will provide society with all its expensive long term social problems, long term unemployment, prison, etc.

So here we are today, with an education system that many in the US would recognize. Nice, affluent, middle class areas have good schools whilst many inner city areas have poor schools simply reflecting the poverty or otherwise of the parents aspirations for their kids.

As has always been, the quality of teaching staff and management of the school also play a major role. Teaching a group of clever, demanding, enthusiastic kids is just as demanding as trying to teach and keep control in a 'rough' school.

Good lord, look at the length of this ramble!!
Amazing what you can do with the assistance of a pot of coffee and a wireless lappy on a lazy Saturday morning!

Oh and btw; for my sins I have been a primary school teacher for the last ten years and attended both a large north London comprehensive school in the seventies and a Devon grammar school in the early eighties.

blairgowrie
01-24-2009, 06:15 AM
Very interesting post Arthur. I enjoyed reading it.

Bo_Nidle
01-24-2009, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:


Of course the USA was the main winner financially and politically, benefiting hugely from the ensuing territorial gains once Britain had been effectively removed from the world stage.



Name one territory we gained from Britain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't referring to solely British territorial gains but gains made globally either by full US sovereignty or strong political influence where none existed before.

But to answer your question: To my knowledge The British West Indies, the Bahamas and Newfoundland which were provided for basing rights in return for 50 destroyers.

However the original question has gone off on a tangent somewhat. No-one has ventured an answer as to what Britain gained?

Offhand I can't think of anything.


(p.s. I'm not anti-US but no country ever wears a "white hat" 100% of the time)

SeaFireLIV
01-24-2009, 04:58 PM
WE gained the Spitfire!

Ok, I`ll get my coat...

ploughman
01-24-2009, 06:26 PM
Think of what we could have lost, ie, everything. We retained our freedom and, at the time, despite the hardship, enjoyed a resolve that endured for years after the victory, and that in itself that saw us through some tough times. Additionally, it meant the long overdue disolution of an empire that had run its course and the liberation of the continent that now shares our destiny in a way that it never did before.

Really, being victorious in a just war is it's own reward but we won in so many other ways. Britain gained.

Ba5tard5word
01-24-2009, 07:03 PM
I dunno, I think in the long run it was better for the UK to not get bogged down in places like India and Africa and so on.



Originally posted by leitmotiv:
You are, of course, forgetting we maintained a very large military force in West Germany for over forty years and still maintain a garrison in South Korea. Our fleet took on the role of the Royal Navy during Pax Britannia and still is the most important defender of (our) trade in the world. We have paid the cost of a world-wide empire in garrisons, wars, military hardware, and lives while draining our treasury to do so. All this without holding title to what we defend since our acquisitions resulting from the 1898 Spanish-American War. Nevertheless, FDR played hardball with the British Empire. He wanted access to British markets in their colonies. He pressured Churchill to disestablish the Empire starting with India. Truman and Eisenhower squeezed the British out of the Mid East. From the British perspective we were b-----ds. From our perspective we were increasing liberty (while we hypocritically supported exploitive dictatorships all over the world). The upshot, the U.S. ruled a world-wide empire by proxy with "our" dictatorships in the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, Central and South America, Turkey, Greece, Iran & etc. Our system of empire led many in and out of the U.S. to think our empire builders were huge hypocrites. Instead of ruling the countries by occupation assuming "the white man's burden", we pretended we were supporting democracies all over the world when we were not. GW tried a new tack---clobber our former dictator client and replace him with a representative government. Hilariously, the least cynical U.S. President since Jimmy Carter is hated as a dictator.

Good and accurate post for the most part, Europe got a good deal (free!) with US bases stationed in their backyard during the Cold War. Maybe we should have demanded tribute, Roman-style. Naaah....not our style, plus us just getting the land for the bases and our presence alone was onerous enough to many Western Europeans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

unreasonable
01-24-2009, 09:00 PM
I have no doubt that arthursmedley does his job as a teacher dutifully as he sees it, but his post contains a few gems of spinning that illustrate the paranoid "the ruling class are all out to get us" thinking that permeates the modern educational establishment of which he is a minor part, and which are, one fears, spread as a meme to his innocent charges:

"The idea was to seperate the quality from the scum! Not quite the engine of social mobility its claimed!"

Rubbish. Since as the writer states, there was no universal system of education at the time the original idea was simply to supply quality education to meet the increasing demand. Note how the writer attributes any differences in outcomes to the existence of class bias.


"For the rest, in secondary moderns, you were effectively written off. You were expected to achieve less, took different, lesser, exams and left school at fifteen. It was incredibly divisive and in someways was meant to be. At its roots the idea was to still seperate the quality from the scum!"

Here he is doing it again. Secondary Mod pupils had different "lesser" exams because the vast majority could never have coped with "O" and "A" levels. Even in the best grammar and public schools there would have been about 1/3 of the class who struggled at this level, and A grades at A level were the preserve of only about the top ten percent of those who could pass an A level at all. BTW, for our american readers, in the seventies an A level pass was considered to be about the same or better as first/second year level at a US college, since typically only three subjects were studied. The modern "solution" to this "problem" has been to so dilute the standards of examinations that a huge proportion of pupils get straight "A"s, forcing the best universities to consider reintroducing their own entrance exams.

"By the early nineteen sixties it was realised that an education system that wrote off the futu[r]e of eighty percent of it's pupils at age eleven was not doing the UK any favours and slowly and gradually the grammar schools and secondary moderns were ablished. However, as education is still administered locally here not all of them were."

But if the standard of the secondary mods was the problem, why were the grammar schools abolished, which were not a problem? Saying that education is administered locally gives the wholely misleading impression that most localities were in favour of abolishing their grammar schools which is utter codswallop. The grammars were closed slowly and gradually because parents fought tooth and nail to stop the process. The point is that the financing is completely centralised, unlike the US system, making it impossible for local parents to resist the dictats of Whitehall. The point is that parental choice was to be resisted in the interests of social engineering.

"Recently we changed our examination systems to reward study and effort over the mere ability to regurgitate two years of study into an hour and a half examination. Again, the cause of a great deal of handwringing, agenderizing, bs'ing, etc."

A fatuous comment almost beyond belief. I can assure the writer that getting straight As at A level in the 1970's took a lot more than 1&1/2 hours and regurgitation of any kind, "mere" or otherwise. But surely he knows this since he went to a grammar school himself? For my own part, I remember A levels as being only slightly less challenging than the examinations for Moral Sciences Part I and II at a certain fenland university.

"So here we are today, with an education system that many in the US would recognize. Nice, affluent, middle class areas have good schools whilst many inner city areas have poor schools simply reflecting the poverty or otherwise of the parents aspirations for their kids."

Exactly as I stated. Forced comprehensivisation has helped create ghettos. Of course it is not enough that parents should aspire great things for their children. They also have to discipline them and lead by example. This is difficult if they are taught that all the ills of their lives are due to some enormous conspiracy of elitist toffs.

"In the UK we are still obsessed with creating 'elites' in our society at the expense of those at the bottom."

The cry of the class warrior. If you cannot solve your problems constructively, create a chimerical enemy. I would love to know who or what these supposed elites are.

It makes me weep to think that parents are forced to have their tender offspring exposed to people who peddle this corrosive twaddle. Unfortuately, based on reports from my late mother who attended teacher training in the eighties, such views are the norm in the state sector.

arthursmedley
01-25-2009, 03:38 AM
Oh dear Mr. Unreasonable, your post and it's assumptions about myself and my abilities as a teacher has this morning made me spill the coffee all over my beloved lappy!!

Luckily when posting on his forum I always keep Dkoor's excellent sig. in mind so we will have to agree to disagree.

However, any education system that writes off the future of eighty per cent of its pupils, as ours used to, has no future and was largely abolished with cross-party support. Can I remind you of the name of the secretary of state under which the vast majority of grammar school closures took place;

Yes, it was that well-known class warrior M. Thatcher!!

Now I must close as I have some preparation to do for the little tackers in my reception class. I can't decide between starting them on the Hegelian dialectic or diving straight into Das Kapital http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

If I don't get this done now I won't be able to take up the invite of a couple of hours rough shooting this afternoon with the local quality and you know us Spartist's, we do like our Pheasant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

huggy87
01-25-2009, 06:20 AM
I think the better question is why you brits are so pessimistic about what you do have. You have a lot going for you. If I were British I would be proud and not lament your place on the world stage. Coming from a citizen whose country is currently at the "top", it is not a position to which I would aspire. I'd love the opportunity to live somewhere in Great Britain for a few years.

Aaron_GT
01-25-2009, 07:01 AM
I think the better question is why you brits are so pessimistic about what you do have.

I blame the weather. Even if it's a sunny day you go out in the morning with the expectation that it will get worse. Given the weather patterns it seems that if it starts overcast it tends to stay that way. Insolation has a big effect on mood too, and at northerly latitudes it is relatively weak as well as infrequent. If you look at Britain's colonial expeditions they were mostly to sunnier places, although less sunny places might be hard to find! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seriously, apparently Seattle is most like the weather in most of the UK.

LW_lcarp
01-25-2009, 08:51 AM
As I see this whole thing the British could of went and asked Uncle Joe for some aid. Wonder where that would of gotten GB?

So to answer your question Great Britain got to keep its freedom.

Blutarski2004
01-25-2009, 03:17 PM
Mssrs Unreasonable and ArthurSmedley,

I never expected that my two word request would elicit this degree of commentary.

My interest stems from my belief that the moral, civic, and economic health of a nation relies upon the education of its people. IIRC, one of the great advantages of England in its rise to Empire was the relatively high rate of literacy among its people in comparison to continental Europe. Do I understand that correctly?

My curiosity about the grammar school situation arises from the fact that I attended a US equivalent of the British grammar school [proud graduate of Boston Latin School, founded 1635] - a free public secondary school open by competitive merit entrance exam to any student resident of the city. I still consider it as the most important six years of my educational life. The school was then and remains today a tremendous vehicle of upward social and economic mobility for children of families of modest and lesser means.

My opinions about the current state of US education and the proper structure of public education would take this discussion wildly off-topic. But I'd be interested to pursue the discussion via PM if you gentlemen are similarly inclined.

unreasonable
01-25-2009, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by arthursmedley:
Oh dear Mr. Unreasonable, your post and it's assumptions about myself and my abilities as a teacher has this morning made me spill the coffee all over my beloved lappy!!

Luckily when posting on his forum I always keep Dkoor's excellent sig. in mind so we will have to agree to disagree.

However, any education system that writes off the future of eighty per cent of its pupils, as ours used to, has no future and was largely abolished with cross-party support. Can I remind you of the name of the secretary of state under which the vast majority of grammar school closures took place;

Yes, it was that well-known class warrior M. Thatcher!!

Now I must close as I have some preparation to do for the little tackers in my reception class. I can't decide between starting them on the Hegelian dialectic or diving straight into Das Kapital http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

If I don't get this done now I won't be able to take up the invite of a couple of hours rough shooting this afternoon with the local quality and you know us Spartist's, we do like our Pheasant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am happy to agree to disagree provided that we can agree what we are disagreeing about since it would pain me greatly if you believed you were the victim here of some vicious personal attack.

If you read my post carefully you will see that I made no assumptions about your teaching abilities or personal attributes, topics that I know nothing about except via specific remarks in your post and the world view that they express. I have only assumed that the content of your post accurately reflects your views, since I assume that you have no reason to dissemble. I assume from your skill in composition that you are capable of writing what you intend to convey.

I dare say you are a jolly good bloke and a topping teacher with the little rotters much of the time when you are on topic. This makes your apparent inability to see beyond your blinkers of class consciousness all the more tragic, since the prejudices of good role models have far more influence on the tender minds of primary schools children than those of the obviously inept and foolish. I assume that you agree that you do have some influence on your charges' view of the world?

I made no assumption that the destruction of the grammar schools was exclusively the fault of the Labour party. I am well aware of Mrs Thatcher's role in the Heath government, (perhaps the worst post war administration).

I am happy to concede that some comprehensives are excellent schools, and that comprehensivisation has benefited some pupils (although in my view harmed far more).

The thrust of my criticism of your post is towards the repeated references to an intention by some ill defined conspiracy of elistists to divide society and keep down the "scum". (Surely scum tends to rise naturally.......?)

The tendency to attribute agency where none exists is an interesting psychological phemonenon. In the US, for instance, some 40% of people believe that a mighty intelligence put perfect little stone sculptures of animals and plants into the ground for his own obscure reasons. Another 40% believe that they personally have been abducted by aliens and anally probed. This leaves 20% who have a more or less sane worldview. In the UK the parallel dellusion seems to be that the masses are the victim of a shadowy conspiracy of elitists, no doubt the same people who murdered Princess Diana.

Leaving aside this madness there is a perfectly reasonable divide in opinion, between those who believe that differences in outcomes in life are natural, inevitable and perhaps desirable as against those who believe that the forces of the state (and let it be clear, this means the state using force) should be used to eliminate as much difference in outcome as possible. Of course this is a matter of degree, but a very real philosophical schism just the same.

It is interesting to note that the current UK government is preparing to compel state and state supported organizations (almost everything now days) to use class as an explicit factor in decision making when allocating rationed services. Eventually, the children of middle or upper class parents will have "bourgois" stamped on their identity papers and be given reduced access to education and health benefits, denied jobs in the NHS or civil service, and pay higher taxes.

unreasonable
01-25-2009, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Mssrs Unreasonable and ArthurSmedley,

I never expected that my two word request would elicit this degree of commentary.

My interest stems from my belief that the moral, civic, and economic health of a nation relies upon the education of its people. IIRC, one of the great advantages of England in its rise to Empire was the relatively high rate of literacy among its people in comparison to continental Europe. Do I understand that correctly?

My curiosity about the grammar school situation arises from the fact that I attended a US equivalent of the British grammar school [proud graduate of Boston Latin School, founded 1635] - a free public secondary school open by competitive merit entrance exam to any student resident of the city. I still consider it as the most important six years of my educational life. The school was then and remains today a tremendous vehicle of upward social and economic mobility for children of families of modest and lesser means.

My opinions about the current state of US education and the proper structure of public education would take this discussion wildly off-topic. But I'd be interested to pursue the discussion via PM if you gentlemen are similarly inclined.

I hope you have enjoyed this little knockabout.

I suspect that only the Scots enjoyed high literacy during the height of empire, education in England being much more a matter for the elite. I could not claim any authority on the matter however. Perhaps ArthurSmedley can point you towards one or two books addressing the subject.

arthursmedley
01-26-2009, 12:10 PM
Unreasonable and Blutarski;
Will take this to pm later tonight as I suspect we are in three different time zones and are undoubtedly hijacking this thread.

Oh, and the good news; three brace of Pheasant, some Rabbit and er...Pigeon, for my neighbours dog!!