You speak of that era as if it were this idealistic war the Brits fought out of sheer altruism. In reality, they were fighting to avoid being overrun. If the situations were reversed, would they have come to our rescue bright and early? Ultimately, it was their war. How often have the Brits come to our aid? Korea. Vietnam. Iraq I. Afghanistan. Iraq II. In total, they lost less than 2000 dead. We lost 300K killed fighting in Europe in WWII alone. We also lost 100K fighting in WWI. The way British logic goes, maybe we should have intervened in the Crimean and Napoleonic Wars. Then we can pretend the Revolutionary War never happened, and these United States remained a Crown Colony subject to periodic military levies.
‘If the situations were reversed, would they have come to our rescue bright and early?’
Yes. We went into two world wars to defend Belgium and Poland.
‘How often have the Brits come to our aid? Korea. Iraq I. Afghanistan. Iraq II.’
4-2 to us then. BTW, I assume you know WHY we didnt get involved in Vietnam (officially).
‘In total, they lost less than 2000 dead. We lost 300K killed fighting in Europe in WWII alone.’
And your point is?.
‘The way British logic goes, maybe we should have intervened in the Crimean and Napoleonic Wars. ‘
We dont mind you entered both world wars later than us. What we DO object to is the ‘we saved your ass/you’d be speaking German if not for us’ crap. Knock that s*it off and we wont crack remarks about ‘turning up late’.
That is at odds with what I referred to as a cheap-shot in the earlier post. I have made my point. I certainly realize that a poster's brief, off the cuff, comments are not a summary of their character and desire to make no unneeded efforts to draw out a whole series of responses.