Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is the US/UK Special Relationship over?

They wouldn't need to as has been extensively covered elsewhere.

1) At no point was the RAF almost defeated, at the worst point it was ready to pull back north and cease / minimise actions over southern England to preserve fighter command.
2) On gaining superiority over the channel the Germans still had to contend with the RN.
3) The channel itself would have been somewhat sporting on those landing barges.
4) Assuming they got ashore in South east England those Landing barges now had to face the Channel, the RAF and RN in order to pick up the next wave and supplies.
5) Whilst its a fair comment that the British army at that point lacked armour having left most of it in Dunkirk this doesn't convey the advantage many seem to think as German forces UK are likewise going to be lacking armour.

As to our colonial cousins
Extensive loans and credit, lend lease increasing unofficial involvement in convoy escort duties in the Western Atlantic.
Its fair to say that POTUS did as much as he could short of declaring war in order to keep the UK going.


Lots of points, but my point is had we lost the Battle of Britain, nobody else would have turned up, Europe was beaten, I don't believe the Americans would have backed us, we were on our knee's!
 
Lots of points, but my point is had we lost the Battle of Britain, nobody else would have turned up ...
You mean nobody else other than the rest of the British Commonwealth and Empire. As one example, the Canadian army was already there before France fell (and indeed was in France).
 
On why nations fight wars when not attacked.

From LSE PoliSci Most wars are not fought for reasons of security or material interests, but instead reflect a nation’s ‘spirit’
And that's talking about proper wars between powers since 1648 not just little 21st century expeditions in the 3rd World.

He has a theory wars will decline as "Standing" is sought in other ways in a more civilised world. Well he is writing from the LSE in 2010. And you could consider 21st century Germany as having done that.

But you might look at it another way states with expensive unused capabilities that have a sickness of the soul of some sort may be needy for a status enhancing conflict. We've since had involvements Libya, Syria and Yemen which all have aspects of states wanting to be seen as players. Even if its often by shiftily trying to prod DC into greater action.

Perversely it may be the emergence the risk of an unpredictable war between major powers that makes this sort of hare brained meddling less attractive. Even long suffering DC put its foot down when Ankara and Riyadh tried to shoulder Uncle Sam into fighting a proxy war for them with Russia over Damascus.

I read an article recently (but can't remember where), where it was stated that being a wealthy nation is not enough, but that for many people being wealthy or big translates in the right to boss smaller neighbours around. he article was written in regards of the developments in the South China Sea.
 
You mean nobody else other than the rest of the British Commonwealth and Empire. As one example, the Canadian army was already there before France fell (and indeed was in France).
Not in numbers that would have made a difference, and "fell" is the operative word, I have always believed and still do that had Britain fell or sued for a peace or in fact any negative scenario other than stood and won the day, the remainder of the Commonwealth and Empire would have stopped the fight as well, they didn't and don't like us very much see. While we can thank many countries for support havin stood, had we not stood there would have been little to support, no point of focus and we would be looking at a very different outcome. I don't decry the support others gave, I just feel that we were the single most important in the outcome.
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
Not in numbers that would have made a difference, and "fell" is the operative word, I have always believed and still do that had Britain fell or sued for a peace or in fact any negative scenario other than stood and won the day, the remainder of the Commonwealth and Empire would have stopped the fight as well, they didn't and don't like us very much see. While we can thank many countries for support havin stood, had we not stood there would have been little to support, no point of focus and we would be looking at a very different outcome. I don't decry the support others gave, I just feel that we were the single most important in the outcome.

I can recommend you a book:

51AFJV0THzL._SX316_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
Not in numbers that would have made a difference, and "fell" is the operative word,
If you're going to imagine a scenario where the Germans had the ability to invade Britain, then you could hypothesise just about anything. I should note though that the people actually planning the defence of Britain were quite confident of their ability to defeat any army the Germans could put ashore. The German navy on the other hand were very pessimistic about their chances of success. You might want to read Peter Fleming's "Operation Sea Lion" for details.

I have always believed and still do that had Britain fell or sued for a peace or in fact any negative scenario other than stood and won the day, the remainder of the Commonwealth and Empire would have stopped the fight as well,
??? The rest of the Commonwealth wasn't fighting the Germans to defend France, Belgium, or Poland. They were fighting to defend Britain. Why on earth would anyone imagine that they want to continue the war if Britain didn't?

they didn't and don't like us very much see.
I don't know about that. I like Britain, and so does everyone here that I know. If you're seeing anything different, maybe it's just you. :clap:
 
Not in numbers that would have made a difference, and "fell" is the operative word, I have always believed and still do that had Britain fell or sued for a peace or in fact any negative scenario other than stood and won the day, the remainder of the Commonwealth and Empire would have stopped the fight as well, they didn't and don't like us very much see. While we can thank many countries for support havin stood, had we not stood there would have been little to support, no point of focus and we would be looking at a very different outcome. I don't decry the support others gave, I just feel that we were the single most important in the outcome.

But you do decry the support others gave. In an earlier post, you describe the US entry to WW2 as "dawdling".

I contend that until December 7 1941, there was no reason for the US to enter the war, which prior to that time was limited in scope to Europe & N Africa. Once the Japs attacked and allied themselves with Germany, then it became a global war. There was synergy in the Far East and Pacific between the Allies, given the Empire territories and US territories.

Don't blame the US for not coming running because the UK defended Poland and got its ass kicked at Dunkirk. But once the Japs shit on the US, stand-fcuking-by.
 
What special relationship? the one where they ******* dawdle into WW2 after much pleading, then make us pay for the next seventy years. I am minded of the saying keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
I have to say why did you think the USA should rush to War in 1939?

We are not part of the Commonwealth, Dominions, or UK

We owe no fealty to the Crown, or to your parliament

We had no mutual defense pact(s) with the UK or any other nation(s).

A large portion of the US population was anti war in general, and many also believed we had been lied into entering WW1 by British propaganda from Wellington house.

The US congress had passed Neutrality acts in 1935, 1936, 1937, 1939

Certainly the USA's large Irish, German, Italian population(s) were not eager for war, and certainly not on the British side.

Pleading sounds like the UK was incapable of defending itself, is that what you are trying to say? Because you seem to have defended yourselves quite well during the Battle of Britain, defeating the Luftwaffe and staving off an invasion, then fighting Hitler alone for a year while the soviets were nazi allies by a treaty.

As to Lend Lease you got off very well on that deal.

at the end of the war you could dump LL equipment into the sea or just give an itemized memo that said equipment was destroyed or expended due to enemy action and it cost you nothing ( It Cost the US taxpayer the full cost no matter what).

IF you kept LL equipment your cost was 10 cents on the dollar.

A C-47 Dakota/Skytrain which cost the US taxpayer $38,000 each cost the RAF $3,800 each

A Jeep MB/GP which cost the US taxpayer $782.59 each cost the UK $ 78 dollars if you wanted to keep them

Some of the items the UK kept-
Dakotas
Avenger TBF/TBM's for the FAA
Jeeps
Sherman's
Halftracks M2, M3, M5, M9 and their subvariants
Browning .30 & .50 cal machineguns in ground/AFV and aircraft patterns
M1 Carbines (M1/M1A1/M2)

What you paid off for decades was the Anglo American Loan that YOU (UK) asked for-
ANGLO-AMERICAN LOAN AGREEMENT (Hansard, 19 July 1946)
ANGLO-AMERICAN LOAN AGREEMENT (GOVERNMENT PLANS) (Hansard, 15 July 1946)
Anglo-American loan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your Government squandered while Marshall plan nations invested in the future. Much of the economic aid you wasted in the new welfare society
BBC - History - British History in depth: The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid

When the USA was attacked instead of going full bore against the Japanese, we gave the UK the support and men to fight Germany first, Abandoning our men in the Philippines, Guam, Wake.

EDIT; I should add this post is not to come off as Defensive towards US entry into WW2 but to explain facts. Nor is it intended as any slight towards the UK
 
Last edited:
Not in numbers that would have made a difference, and "fell" is the operative word, I have always believed and still do that had Britain fell or sued for a peace or in fact any negative scenario other than stood and won the day, the remainder of the Commonwealth and Empire would have stopped the fight as well, they didn't and don't like us very much see. While we can thank many countries for support havin stood, had we not stood there would have been little to support, no point of focus and we would be looking at a very different outcome. I don't decry the support others gave, I just feel that we were the single most important in the outcome.

Farthing (novel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The novel is set in the 1949 of an alternate history.[1] Though the divergence point from actual history seems to be Rudolf Hess's flight to Scotland in May 1941, it is implied in the novel's sequel Ha'penny that the critical difference was the failure of the United States to provide aid to Britain in 1940https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement
 
I have to say why did you think the USA should rush to War in 1939?

We are not part of the Commonwealth, Dominions, or UK

We owe no fealty to the Crown, or to your parliament

We had no mutual defense pact(s) with the UK or any other nation(s).

A large portion of the US population was anti war in general, and many also believed we had been lied into entering WW1 by British propaganda from Wellington house.

The US congress had passed Neutrality acts in 1935, 1936, 1937, 1939

Certainly the USA's large Irish, German, Italian population(s) were not eager for war, and certainly not on the British side.

Pleading sounds like the UK was incapable of defending itself, is that what you are trying to say? Because you seem to have defended yourselves quite well during the Battle of Britain, defeating the Luftwaffe and staving off an invasion, then fighting Hitler alone for a year while the soviets were nazi allies by a treaty.

As to Lend Lease you got off very well on that deal.

at the end of the war you could dump LL equipment into the sea or just give an itemized memo that said equipment was destroyed or expended due to enemy action and it cost you nothing ( It Cost the US taxpayer the full cost no matter what).

IF you kept LL equipment your cost was 10 cents on the dollar.

A C-47 Dakota/Skytrain which cost the US taxpayer $38,000 each cost the RAF $3,800 each

A Jeep MB/GP which cost the US taxpayer $782.59 each cost the UK $ 78 dollars if you wanted to keep them

Some of the items the UK kept-
Dakotas
Avenger TBF/TBM's for the FAA
Jeeps
Sherman's
Halftracks M2, M3, M5, M9 and their subvariants
Browning .30 & .50 cal machineguns in ground/AFV and aircraft patterns
M1 Carbines (M1/M1A1/M2)

What you paid off for decades was the Anglo American Loan that YOU (UK) asked for-
ANGLO-AMERICAN LOAN AGREEMENT (Hansard, 19 July 1946)
ANGLO-AMERICAN LOAN AGREEMENT (GOVERNMENT PLANS) (Hansard, 15 July 1946)
Anglo-American loan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your Government squandered while Marshall plan nations invested in the future. Much of the economic aid you wasted in the new welfare society
BBC - History - British History in depth: The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid

When the USA was attacked instead of going full bore against the Japanese, we gave the UK the support and men to fight Germany first, Abandoning our men in the Philippines, Guam, Wake.

Disagree. Just how did you expect to win in the Phillipines immediately after Pearl Harbour ?
 
Lots of points, but my point is had we lost the Battle of Britain, nobody else would have turned up, Europe was beaten, I don't believe the Americans would have backed us, we were on our knee's!


We couldn't have lost the Battle of Britain. All RAF fighter Command had to do was pull back north of the Thames and been invulnerable to German fighter attacks on their airfields while carrying on shooting down the German bombers.

And then there was the arkward issue of the Royal Navy - the Germans had just 10 ships as escorts for Sealion, the Royal Navy had over 160 allocated to stop them.

Oh, and there were 10,000 US 'observers' in the UK in 1940/41, many with operational units.
And there were thousands of FAA and RAF pilots and ground crews training in America at flying schools, USN/USAAC bases and trade schools.
 
Being too idle to read all 8 pages I'll just had what special relationship. We've always thought that Yanks were a bunch of witless cnuts
 
Disagree. Just how did you expect to win in the Phillipines immediately after Pearl Harbour ?
Who said win? how about resupply? We sent every goddamned thing to Europe and left our men to the Japanese. With rations, ammo, medicine , etc.Bataan would not have been the hellhole it was. Homma at one point had to pause because his troops were near breaking point
 
1) At no point was the RAF almost defeated, at the worst point it was ready to pull back north and cease / minimise actions over southern England to preserve fighter command.
.

Would that 'not defeated' have been similar to how France was not defeated they just created Vichy France to replace the Third Republic?

Loss of air supremacy or even parity over the south of England and crucially the Channel would have been a defeat whichever was you might like to dress up any withdrawal to the North. Much as I hate to big-up the militant wing of BA, it probably was their finest hour and pivotal in our nation's survival.
 
I have to say why did you think the USA should rush to War in 1939?

We are not part of the Commonwealth, Dominions, or UK

We owe no fealty to the Crown, or to your parliament

We had no mutual defense pact(s) with the UK or any other nation(s).

A large portion of the US population was anti war in general, and many also believed we had been lied into entering WW1 by British propaganda from Wellington house.

The US congress had passed Neutrality acts in 1935, 1936, 1937, 1939

Certainly the USA's large Irish, German, Italian population(s) were not eager for war, and certainly not on the British side.

Pleading sounds like the UK was incapable of defending itself, is that what you are trying to say? Because you seem to have defended yourselves quite well during the Battle of Britain, defeating the Luftwaffe and staving off an invasion, then fighting Hitler alone for a year while the soviets were nazi allies by a treaty.

As to Lend Lease you got off very well on that deal.

at the end of the war you could dump LL equipment into the sea or just give an itemized memo that said equipment was destroyed or expended due to enemy action and it cost you nothing ( It Cost the US taxpayer the full cost no matter what).

IF you kept LL equipment your cost was 10 cents on the dollar.

A C-47 Dakota/Skytrain which cost the US taxpayer $38,000 each cost the RAF $3,800 each

A Jeep MB/GP which cost the US taxpayer $782.59 each cost the UK $ 78 dollars if you wanted to keep them

Some of the items the UK kept-
Dakotas
Avenger TBF/TBM's for the FAA
Jeeps
Sherman's
Halftracks M2, M3, M5, M9 and their subvariants
Browning .30 & .50 cal machineguns in ground/AFV and aircraft patterns
M1 Carbines (M1/M1A1/M2)

What you paid off for decades was the Anglo American Loan that YOU (UK) asked for-
ANGLO-AMERICAN LOAN AGREEMENT (Hansard, 19 July 1946)
ANGLO-AMERICAN LOAN AGREEMENT (GOVERNMENT PLANS) (Hansard, 15 July 1946)
Anglo-American loan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your Government squandered while Marshall plan nations invested in the future. Much of the economic aid you wasted in the new welfare society
BBC - History - British History in depth: The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid

When the USA was attacked instead of going full bore against the Japanese, we gave the UK the support and men to fight Germany first, Abandoning our men in the Philippines, Guam, Wake.

EDIT; I should add this post is not to come off as Defensive towards US entry into WW2 but to explain facts. Nor is it intended as any slight towards the UK

A very good book about Lend-Lease is "Lend-Lease Aircraft in World War II" by Arthur Pearcy. Although, as the title suggests, it deals mainly with the aircraft given to the UK by the USA, I think that it describes very well the machinations between the 2 governments prior to the Lend-Lease Act being signed in March 1941.

Interestingly, during the Berlin Airlift, the USAF has to actually buy some Dakotas back off the RAF because they hadn't enough of their own, having got rid of most of theirs immediately after the war.

I completely agree with you regarding the squandering of Marshall Aid; however I would suggest that some of it was wasted undertaking the wholesale nationalisations that took place for ideological reasons in the first few years after the war; i.e. road transport, railways, airlines, coal, etc.
 

Latest Threads

Top