Thanks for the review. I need a present for someone who admires Churchill, this is perfect.
Through the 19th century, American trading vessels were unmolested by the British Navy ONLY because it was made clear the USA would retaliate by invading (and seizing) Canada.
Also, do not forget the British involvement in our Civil War (aiding the Confederacy).
Hitler thought the USA and GB were not natural allies.
We speak the same language. Period.
His mother was American
UK was also a military ally in the Boxer rebellion, Korea, Gulf wars and Afghanistan. It also sided with the US in the Samoan crisis against Germany.
because Eastern liberal elites aped the English aristocrats and sad sacks like Wilson were in awe of the Royals
that’s why
The US-UK alliance was necessary to defeat Hitler and to establish NATO. The US repeatedly bailing out socialist Britain financially was a part of that. Presidents FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Reagan were all Anglophiles. However, Obama was violently anti-British.
First it wasn’t a revolution. A revolt,yes, but not a revolution. We didn’t want to change our way of life. At first we wanted representation in the King’s government. When this was denied, we determined we needed independence, for if we were not English subjects, we must therefor be Americans, free forever more. A revolt and a revolution is different. The French and Russian revolutions was to destroy and rebuild society. Our founders wanted only to self govern, not to destroy the basics of society. God, King & country was replaced with God & Country. Government became by the people and for the people, whereas in a revolution, it is a change of regimes that impose “desired” societal changes such as no religion, etc by murdering those in society who oppose the change.
While I admire Churchill greatly don't go too gaa gaa about him. If you read his 5 volume work on WWII you will see that he kept a lot of stuff close to the belt because he knew the USA would blab it or tip off how the Brits got it, like the German Marine codes.
So yes, the socialist can $@&!:, but the vast number of Kindred in the U.K., they are our brothers and we should never turn our back on them.
I don’t. I have no interest in a country that insists on being ruled by someone who has inherited the power from parents. Sorry, but the monarchy is outdated and needs to be eliminated. Furthermore, the UK is rushing headlong into sharia-tainted democracy followed by full sharia. Not special to me.
Didn’t used to be. The USA and England were on BAD terms from 1776 till about the 1880s.
England supported Indian uprisings, tried to form an alliance between themselves, Canada, TEXAS and Mexico against the USA over the Oregon Territories dispute which drove Texas to become a state.
Supported the SOUTH in the Civil War by building warships, blockade runners and sending guns to the South.
I have read that it was BUFFALO BILL’S WILD WEST SHOW and Annie Oakley who broke the ice leading to better relations with England.
The Brits would probably lock Winston Churchill up for Hate Speech today.
But he shows us that not much has changed in the muslim world in 118 years.
Churchill’s Brutal Takedown of Islam
The following is quoted from Churchill’s unabridged "River War and Reconquest of the Soudan" (1899). "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/winston-churchills-brutal-takedown-of-islam-means-more-today-than-ever
--Winston Churchill
Three telling events about the British mentality towards the US. In WWI we were neutral most of the war. We hear endless talk of the German submarines threatening American shipping if they carried war material to Britain. But at the very same moment, if an American cargo ship wanted to carry cargo to a German port, the Royal navy let us know it would be sunk. They were enforcing a blockade against a neutral country. That is an act of war. This exact reason is why we never blockaded north Vietnam.
Two, when we were brought into WWI by Wilsonian era progressives, our Army arrived in Europe. The Brits fully intended to have American soldiers under British command, using them as replacements, and letting the substandard Brit Generals feed them into their meatgrinder attacks.
Three, in the postwar negotiations for the Naval treaty, the Brits demanded twice as many battleships as the USA would get. They said it was because they had “responsibilities” in the atlantic and pacific. In reality, they still believed they might need to defeat the US navy in some future conflict.
The Brits love the “special relationship” bullcrap. But they see it as they get an outsize voice and we provide the muscle and money.
And now today, within a decade or two they elect a moslem PC and government. And they government will be in charge of 4 trident nuclear submarines. We really should be preparing for the UK to be a hostile Islamic nuclear power.
At the time Finland was hailed because it paid its share of WWI war reparations.
I think Churchill must have already recognized that GBs day as the dominant power was over. What needed to be done was to stop the Nazis and salvage what they could of the empire with the help of what was clearly becoming a new dominant power yet not an existential threat. Not to take away from Churchill, who was the greatest leader of his time, but I don’t believe he sacrificed GB’s dominance willingly out of some great moral calculus.