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?

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

And how do you expect to resupply Phillipines immediately after Pearl Harbour ? With the Japanese fleet at sea ? Just how long do you think it takes to get to the Phillipines in convoy ? With what fleet support ?

The Japanese started their invasion within days of Pearl for a very good reason.
No disrespect to the defenders of the Phillip ines but after the surprise attacks, they were on a sticky wicket to say the least. No airpower and no hope of relief. The US forces there were quite capable of being fed in house, so wonder what the logistics problem was . I'd be very interested to know just how short of ammunition they actually were.
 
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


I've read an American assessment of the Bataan Death March that argued quite compellingly that the reason for the singular barbarity the Japanese visited on the defenders was Homma felt his 'victory' was 'dishonourable' having simply wore down isolated troops who had been abandoned to their fate by their leader, (particularly galling to the Japanese like Homma steeped in Bushido, you fought to the death with your men, not exhorted them to fight to the death from a hotel in Sydney), in attrition and starvation, rather than be feat of arms.

It was the rule of three, you can survive three minutes without air, three days without water, three weeks without food and three months without hope.
 
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.


It would not have been a loss of air superiority, simply using geography to protect the airfields from attack. From Airfields both of the Thames, the RAF could still mount standing patrols all across 11 Groups area. The Channel was still their, the Germans still couldnt operate their fighters north of the Thames..
 
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.

No not defeated as in not destroyed and therefore still around to interfere with Sea Lion.
Pulling Fighter command back and leaving the Hermans free to range over the South East - would have been a tad crap if you lived there and I would agree constituted a tactical defeat but it wouldn't equate to losing the battle of Britain.
The BofB was a massive propaganda victory in a dark time - but the reality is that we never were in danger of invasion.
 
No not defeated as in not destroyed and therefore still around to interfere with Sea Lion.
Pulling Fighter command back and leaving the Hermans free to range over the South East - would have been a tad crap if you lived there and I would agree constituted a tactical defeat but it wouldn't equate to losing the battle of Britain.
The BofB was a massive propaganda victory in a dark time - but the reality is that we never were in danger of invasion.


In reality, it would have made little difference as most RAF Sqns were based around London anyway.
Hawking and Manston would have been given up as a first step, but in reality it meant moving 1 Sqn back.
By the time the Huns got to the airfields just south of the Thames, they only had 5 minutes flying time. The Germans operational envelope was that finely balanced.

th-fighter-command-groups-and-sector-boundaries-airfields-squadrons-18-08-1940-bofb-mem-capel.jpg
 
S

Spider39

Guest
This has nothing to do with what we are discussing ,there are at least ten other threads about ww2 .
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
This has nothing to do with what we are discussing ,there are at least ten other threads about ww2 .


WW2 is the crucible in which the SR was forged, as well as that unfortunate misunderstanding 240 years ago.
 
Don’t think it’s the special relationship that’s over so much as Obama’s ‘illustrious' Presidency.

For which event a great number of American’s might well be quite relieved. Not that any of the present contenders look to be any more inspiring.
 
S

Spider39

Guest
Don’t think it’s the special relationship that’s over so much as Obama’s ‘illustrious' Presidency.

For which event a great number of American’s might well be quite relieved. Not that any of the present contenders look to be any more inspiring.


Trouble is look who is likely imo to replace him .
 
Trouble is look who is likely imo to replace him .

Not sure on the timing but post-referendum, couldn't we send Boris Johnson as a wildcard entry?
 
Don’t think it’s the special relationship that’s over so much as Obama’s ‘illustrious' Presidency.

For which event a great number of American’s might well be quite relieved. Not that any of the present contenders look to be any more inspiring.

That's the clever bit of the US form of governance.
You can have an idiot in the White and the Senate and Congress just get on with running the country.
 
That's the clever bit of the US form of governance.
You can have an idiot in the White and the Senate and Congress just get on with running the country.
And the downside is that nobody can be held responsible for anything, because they can all point to someone else and say "don't blame me, it's all the fault of the other guy because he didn't do his part".

When Britain introduced elected government into Canada, do you know what they called it? Lord Durham called it "responsible government". It was called "responsible" because there was to be no question about who was to be held responsible and accountable for the government's performance (I won't go into the history of the crony capitalism system it was replacing). The cabinet is responsible directly to parliament, and parliament is held responsible by the voters. If something goes wrong, there's no question about who is responsible for it. Toss the government out via an election and put in a new one. Is there a deadlock in parliament? Call an election and let the voters sort it out with a new parliament. The House of Commons won't pass the government's budget? Call an election (on a confidence measure) and let the voters sort it out.

The US government is a typical product of 18th century social engineering theory. Social philosophers were fascinated by the machines of the new industrial age and saw society as a machine, with political institutions acting as the gears and levers of a social machine. The perfect society was to be produced by social engineering, with the political institutions acting as the engine.

It's the same sort of thought process which eventually led to Marxism, which was to produce a "new socialist man" by tinkering with the material conditions of society. That's not to imply that there is a link leading from US political ideology to Marxism, but rather both were the product of the idea of society being capable of being consciously engineered.

The parliaments which serve Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and others are on the other hand the product of a sort of Darwinian evolution. Nobody "designed" it, but it exists because it works, and has evolved over time to suit changing circumstances. What it has going for it more than anything else is that it is simple and direct, and there's no question about who is to be held responsible for what.

I don't think the US "engineered system" can be changed at this point. It's too deeply ingrained into their political consciousness. However, it's not what I would select if I were given a choice.
 

alib

LE
The Saudis didn't take that Atlantic piece well either, they don't like being lectured by The Help.

Unlike the UK they have certainly paid for Barry's unsatisfactory services handsomely. Loads of fancy kit that has proved rather less helpful than expected in Yemen. They've ended up relying on very unreliable local Salafists and Southern Secessionists to do the donkey work in repressing the revolt.
 

Latest Threads

Top