The War

[Zapp]

You'll have to take that up with whoever the WW2 US news channels were and whichever wag in the Luftwaffe or propaganda ministry came up with Bomben auf England. 

Nobody else capable of lateral thinking believes the Scots, Welsh or (many) Irish sat on their hands whilst the English took up the cause against fascism based on loose understanding of nomenclature.

[AULD YIN]

5 minutes ago, Zapp said:

You'll have to take that up with whoever the WW2 US news channels were and whichever wag in the Luftwaffe or propaganda ministry came up with Bomben auf England. 

Nobody else capable of lateral thinking believes the Scots, Welsh or (many) Irish took up the cause against fascism based on loose understanding of nomenclature.

murrow,s deid, adolf's  deid, lord haw haw's deid ,goebbels deid, so not worth trying to contact them for an explanation, and  like ma faither  said he fought against the germans,italians , not nazi's or fascists

[Zapp]

Ok cheers 

[NoBodyImportant]

3 hours ago, AULD YIN said:

If you watch any american wartime newsreels of the war 90% of the time it was england who was at war, even the german newsreels said england  (bombers song etc), modern progs are not any better that was my point ,nowhere did i imply it was a members response ,i said most people

I think a lot of that has to do with America had just got out of a European war.  We were not wanting to get into another one.  We were looking to Britain to handle it.  We knew Britain had to win but the US didn’t want to send troops.  So we set back and bankrolled Britain hopefully not wanting to get involved.  There’s lots of evidence that the higher ups knew about the  Pearl Harbor attack but let it happen to sway popular support towards the war. That’s why we moved are aircraft carriers out of the harbor and left the older vessels.   Plus the Japanese fleet was spotted before the attack and the higher ups never recalled the troops from town.  

[poontang]

8 hours ago, Zapp said:

Ok cheers 

[panoma1]

6 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

I think a lot of that has to do with America had just got out of a European war.  We were not wanting to get into another one.  We were looking to Britain to handle it.  We knew Britain had to win but the US didn’t want to send troops.  So we set back and bankrolled Britain hopefully not wanting to get involved.  There’s lots of evidence that the higher ups knew about the  Pearl Harbor attack but let it happen to sway popular support towards the war. That’s why we moved are aircraft carriers out of the harbor and left the older vessels.   Plus the Japanese fleet was spotted before the attack and the higher ups never recalled the troops from town.  

Bankrolled, if that's the same as lending us the money? Not giving!  Yes the US and Canada did "bankroll" us! The debt took the UK (paid in yearly instalments) until 2006 to pay off!...........apparantly Britain wrote off the £billions of war debt Germany owed us?

 

[Robden]

The results would have been the same for them, so I wonder if the German people say, "Boy, am I glad we didn't win the war."

[NoBodyImportant]

51 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Bankrolled, if that's the same as lending us the money? Not giving!  Yes the US and Canada did "bankroll" us! The debt took the UK (paid in yearly instalments) until 2006 to pay off!...........apparantly Britain wrote off the £billions of war debt Germany owed us?

 

Lol, before I even get into the lend lease act of ww2 America canceled the WWI debt that Britain owed.  Not to mention the USA traded 50 ships for a 99 year lease on a base in Newfoundland.  Not to mention many years Britain could not pay the debt it was deferred.  If you can’t see it for what it was then there is no reason arguing.  It’s was us helping out while staying neutral.  We couldn’t give anything without violating our neutrality but selling Britain stuff at 10 pence on the pound was still legal.  And if I remember correctly after we declared war that was modified to Britain only pays for the leftover equipment they keep after the war was over. 

The funding began as the lend-lease programme under which the US in effect donated equipment for the war effort, but required anything left over at the end of hostilities to be paid for.

When President Harry S Truman cancelled lend-lease in September 1945, the outstanding supplies including some in transit were paid for at a rate of 10 pence in the pound.

Edited July 27, 2019 by NoBodyImportant

[SpringDon]

I did not know the detail of that. That puts it in a different light, thank you.

[panoma1]

History now but if anyone's interested in history, check out 'Anglo-American loan agreement' on Wikipedia!

 

[Retsdon]

12 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

 There’s lots of evidence that the higher ups knew about the  Pearl Harbor attack

"....we just have to manoeuvre them into firing the first shot."  I can't remember who said it, probably Roosevelt or Stimson, but I came across these words in a then recently released transcript of a US cabinet meeting from late '39 /early '40 when (40 years ago)  I was doing research on my undergraduate dissertation, the topic being 'Henry Stimson and American policy towards Japan 1932 -41.' And once the oil embargo had gone on, of course war was inevitable. If the US didn't actually envisage the first shot to be the  massive attack on Pearl Harbour, the firing of that first shot had nevertheless been a covert foreign policy goal for probably three years or more.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Retsdon

[NoBodyImportant]

4 hours ago, Retsdon said:

"....we just have to manoeuvre them into firing the first shot."  I can't remember who said it, probably Roosevelt or Stimson, but I came across these words in a then recently released transcript of a US cabinet meeting from late '39 /early '40 when (40 years ago)  I was doing research on my undergraduate dissertation, the topic being 'Henry Stimson and American policy towards Japan 1932 -41.' And once the oil embargo had gone on, of course war was inevitable. If the US didn't actually envisage the first shot to be the  massive attack on Pearl Harbour, the firing of that first shot had nevertheless been a covert foreign policy goal for probably three years or more.

I honest honestly believe the theories about Pearl Harbor.  There was zero reason to abruptly move our aircraft carriers out leaving only out dated ships in the harbor. Plus the harbor patrol sunk a Japanese submarine the morning of the attack.  It was ordered to stand down as they didn’t want to raise the alarm.  The old ships were on a skeleton crew and to raise the alarm would have called the sailers from town to arm the ships and would have caused more deaths.  Plus in the 80s there was information released that had several reports of the fleet moving toward Hawaii.  If you think America wasn’t tracking the fleet your crazy. But us Americans like to pretend our government wouldn’t kill us to win popular support.  But America HAD to get involved but the time had to be right.  If we would have gotten involved in the war to early it would have been like Vietnam where we never would really commit it war.  We would blame the war casualties on our own government rather then the Axis powers.  

6 hours ago, SpringDon said:

I did not know the detail of that. That puts it in a different light, thank you.

No problem, some debt is worth accruing. It’s weird that the hoops we had the jump through.  But we had treaties to keep us neutral.