Posted on 09/09/2018 9:55:03 PM PDT by OddLane
In a chilly, high-ceilinged room in a Sussex preparatory school in the winter of 1959, I work intently on my model of the destroyer HMS Cossack. Such models come in lurid cardboard boxes illustrated with pictures of aircraft, tanks and warships, amid scenes of fiery melodrama, guns emitting orange streaks of flame, and the smoke of battle. With these and our imaginations, we seek to recreate the thrill of the war we have just missed, in which our fathers fought and our mothers endured privations.
This is a war just over the horizon of time in which we wish we had taken part, and which dominates our boyish minds above all things. Courage in pursuit of goodness, in the face of a terrible enemy, was what we most believed in. Even the Crucifixion grew pale and faint in the lurid light of air raids and great columns of burning oil at Dunkirk...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
What about Pearl Harbor?
Another Californian, here, I see.
Peter Hitchens is talking about Britain not winning the war, as if he is resentful of the British empire not being able to go it alone. Yes, Britain did win the war, but did so with the help of its allies. Hitchens is actually resentful of the loss of the British empire ruling over the rest of the world, refusing to recognize, even acknowledge, that its policies of draining resources, subjugating citizens, its means of colonialism by placing wealthy “plantation-like” chieftains in charge with lityle accountability, was doomed to ultimate failure. If he longs for winning that war, he’s right. The American experiment proved that the people will rise up and throw off their shackles once they learn it can be done.
This is an excerpt from his new book.
He addresses this point in the piece.
He did it, thinking in return the Japs would help him against the Russkies.
Stupid Hitler.
Britain needed Brexit in 1914. Germany was no threat to the British Empire. If France fell, so be it.
Read the whole article...It’s very interesting.
He’s not discussing the Japanese side of it. Simply examining the position of the Brits in a different light than what we have all been taught about WW2.
WW2 has its roots in many things, which are partly WW1, and more likely alliances and goals which we will never know much about. As he points out, many things are known to professional historians, not much of it is actively discussed or taught.
He says that Chamberlain rearmed England. Wrong. Chamberlain went along with what others insisted on. He did not originate the rearming and did not support it. He only went along because he knew he would lose if he opposed it too strongly.
heights -The War we create to get into Europe. that Pearl Harbor?.
Or are you now going to claim that heights is maybe not American and was referring to the British.
Perhaps reading comprehension and logic is not your strong suit.
So it seems to me the French just couldn’t handle the fact that somebody else had moved into the neighborhood, and they dragged the British into it.
As opposed to the French hegemony of before?
It would only have been a matter of time. Since Britain also declared war on Japan, the US had carte blanche to supply Britain with whatever they wanted, inevitably a US Ship was going to fall victim to a U-Boat, giving us the Casus Belli to declare war on Germany.
But I could understand the German side of the argument.
“Why should Britain and France have their empires and not us?”
The USS Reuben James was sunk by a German U-boat in October of 1941 ... no declaration of war resulted.
I guess I would say if you look at what was going on in 1870, the Germans were happy with the way things were. A confederation of principalities that only got together in national emergencies such as war. Many historians believe that Bismark manufactured the war to create the German empire. I know I talked about Monday morning quarterbacking, but I believe at the time this was something countries at the time fretted over (German unification).
I’m really not saying that the Germans are wrong, I guess why I originally brought this up is because two world wars were about settling this issue and they have basically achieved this through the creation of the EU (German Hegemony of Europe) all without an army. In a word, brilliant!! On top of that, they have basically contracted out their countries protection to us!
I’m saying that unless Britain wants to be subsumed by German hegemony, they should stick with their Brexit plan. It’s going to be difficult, but in the long run they will be out from under the yoke of Berlin and Brussels and be better off for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.