94 replies to this topic

[George Armstrong Custer]

happy to agree with you about Britain holding out alone in 1940.  It was indeed your finest hour!  And the free world owes you a debt of gratitude.  Cheers, Bill

It was one of our finest hours, Bill. March-November 1918 was another.

ciao,
GAC

[dutchbarge]

The long nineteenth century was the British Century. The long twentieth century has been the American century. I believe we are starting to see that fray around the edges as we move further into the 21st century. So I wouldn't be too cocky yourself, Bill.

ciao,
GAC

Thanks GAC, your post #49 is exactly the piece of the puzzle I was missing. Now I'm beginning to understand. I suppose that's the way of nations, the younger dog eventually ripping up the carcass of the older one, but I'd have prefered otherwise. There is a great deal of Britain which I admire, warts and all.

I agree with your assessment of the frayed edges. I'm definately not cocky about America. 'Extremely concerned' comes more to mind.

I want to thank you for responding to my postings with a thoughtfulness which I'm sorry to admit wasn't always present in my own writing.  If I was a bit out there, your reasoned responses (apart from that clown thing) brought me back down to earth.  I've still got lots of questions, and some doubts, but I am happy to be part of this Forum and share the benefit of its collected wisdom.  Cheers, Bill

[alex falbo]

Glad to see you gents squared that away.

Winston Groom like many American's share the perspective of the Triumph of WWII and the tragedy of Vietnam. The Great War is seldom mentioned over here. Its not taught in classrooms and memorials are very few. Thats just the way it is. We entered late suffered 300,000 casualties and changed our Armistice Day to Veterans Day. The First World War is far more important to England her Anglophile's (like me).

As for Groom, the interview was not impressive as he seems to have fumbled when asked basic questions about the war and explaining the Race to the Sea, mobilization, etc. But he in no way represents American historians and scholars en mass. Robert Massie's Dreadnought answered a lot of questions I had about understanding the English psyche towards the Germans and his references are endless. Remeber, Groom is a veteran Nam officer who is primarly a fiction writer. His book Conversation's with the Enemy was nominated for a Pulitzer and like many American historians wrote a masterpiece on the American Civil War.

The book is roughly 350 pages long with the perspective of all sides involved. Everyone here knows that not even a battle can be covered in true detail within the confines of that many pages. I read the book as a senior in high school and while much of the information I already knew, he offered some anecdotes and viewpoints that I hadn't read before.

[Halder]

... GROOM: Hitler was actually a Bavarian ...

  

Alarm bells ringing. Alarm bells ringing. Mind you, the interviewer is quite entertaining.   

Still, let's not be too harsh on our American cousins; most British kids seem to think Churchill is the nodding dog in the insurance adverts rather than PM and wartime leader.

[truthergw]

No democracy elects a purely altruistic government. We expect our governments to consult the country's best interests. We generally hope that we can interact with other nations in a spirit of co-operation but when push comes to shove.... What these best interests are considered to be, takes us into the realms of politics and here on the forum, we need to tread warily.

[Stanley_C_Jenkins]

On a very minor point, arising out of the earlier debate, I do not understand how Germany can have been a 45-year old "upstart" in 1914. Bismark's new Germany was greater Prussia and, as such, it had a much longer history. Conversely, the United Kingdom was only 113 years old in 1914 - which made it "younger" than the United States. Why do Americans persist in confusing "England" with the United Kingdom?

[truthergw]

I think we need to distinguish between statutory niceties and the Real Politik. In essence, Britain as an entity dated from either 1603 when James VI and 1st ruled the British Isles or at the latest, 1706 when the Scottish Parliament was dissolved. The German Empire is normally dated from 1870 at the end of the Franco Prussian war when her boundary was extended by the occupation of Alsace and Lorraine.

[Stanley_C_Jenkins]

We may perceive our nationalities in different ways but, as far as I am concerned, the country of which I am a citizen originated in 1801, and that is what makes me British, as opposed to Irish, Scottish or English. As I said, however, this is a very minor point. That aside, my main point is that, compared with most countries in the world today, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States are all comparatively "old".

[dutchbarge]

Why do Americans persist in confusing "England" with the United Kingdom?

While living in the Cottswolds I was repeatedly told that there actually isn't any England.  That 'England' loosely refers to a few of the 'home counties'.  'Home Counties'?  Albion, United Kingdom, Commonwealth, Britain, British Isles (does that include Ireland?) Blighty, Brittania.....it is all as confusing as trying to figure out cricket.  Could someone please post an explaination. Cheers, Bill

[Steven Broomfield]

it is all as confusing as trying to figure out cricket.  Could someone please post an explaination. Cheers, Bill

I say!  First time an American has asked that on the Forum......sadly I suspect I've got the wrong end of the stick......basically I refer you to the Laws, which are easy to find.  Just Google "Laws of Cricket".  Quite simple.

[Will O'Brien]

While living in the Cottswolds I was repeatedly told that there actually isn't any England. That 'England' loosely refers to a few of the 'home counties'. 'Home Counties'? Albion, United Kingdom, Commonwealth, Britain, British Isles (does that include Ireland?) Blighty, Brittania.....it is all as confusing as trying to figure out cricket. Could someone please post an explaination. Cheers, Bill

In response to our American cousin's query -

England - Largest country within the United Kingdom

Home Counties - Informal term for the Counties in the South East of England - Usually seen as being Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, East Sussex & West Sussex.

Albion - Oldest known name for the British Isles. Believed to be from Gaelic 'Alba'

UK - Informal term for the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Country comprising of England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland.

Commonwealth - Loose confederation of Countries headed by the British monarch. Most (but not Commonwealth countries) were originally part of the British Empire. Similarly most (but not all former British colonies) are part of the Commonwealth.

Great Britain - See UK

British Isles - Geographical grouping of Islands, the two main being Britain & Ireland. Also includes the islands north of Scotland, Man, the Channel Islands & a few others.

Blighty - Slang word for Britain origins from a Hindustani word meaning foreign.

Brittania - Roman name for the British Isles

Cricket - Strange game played with Willow bats. Where England (including Wales but they are not named) regularly get beaten by Colonials who didn't throw the East India Company's property into the Boston Harbour.

[Greg]

One should add Commonwealth Realms- this is a relatively new one to me but it describes states which retain the British monarchy as their head of state but have 'naturalised' it. This is poor wording but the implication is that Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Antigua and Barbuda and in that set of circumstances only takes the advice of her Antiguan government in relation to her role in  Antigua, and not the advice of her British government in those circumstances. There is no direct control by the British government. Clearly builds on the legal position created by the Statute of Westminster which allows what used to be called Dominion governments freedom from the  actions of the British parliament.
Greg

[dutchbarge]

I say!  First time an American has asked that on the Forum......sadly I suspect I've got the wrong end of the stick......basically I refer you to the Laws, which are easy to find.  Just Google "Laws of Cricket".  Quite simple.

I've sat thru many cricket matches (thank God for gin, tonic, and pretty English (British?) maidens and Googled the "Laws of Cricket", all to no avail.  Inspite of not having much of a clue what's going on, let alone why the crowd applaudes or groans when they do, I find it a very stylish affair.  Certainly more so than baseball or football (American football). Other colonials understand and enjoy Cricket; (I'm know setting myself up here) why can't Americans get their mind around it.  Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

In response to our American cousin's query -
Cricket - Strange game played with Willow bats. Where England (including Wales but they are not named) regularly get beaten by Colonials who didn't throw the East India Company's property into the Boston Harbour.

Thank you for the explaination!  I've printed it and taped it next to my computer screen!
  
Cheers, Bill

PS: Tea has become very popular over here since then.

[Stanley_C_Jenkins]

I don't understand "UK" being an "informal term for the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland". It is the official name of the nation which, since 1921, has comprised England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The 26 counties of Southern Ireland are of course excluded, together with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. "England", as a distinct nation, has not existed since the time of the Anglo-Normans - which it is why it becomes so irritating when Americans such as Winston Groom confuse it with the UK.

[Will O'Brien]

I don't understand "UK" being an "informal term for the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland".

Stanley - Poor English on my part I'm afraid. I should have said acronym standing for the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland - Bloody English can't rely on them to get anything right

[Paul Hederer]

I think we need to distinguish between statutory niceties and the Real Politik. In essence, Britain as an entity dated from either 1603 when James VI and 1st ruled the British Isles or at the latest, 1706 when the Scottish Parliament was dissolved. The German Empire is normally dated from 1870 at the end of the Franco Prussian war when her boundary was extended by the occupation of Alsace and Lorraine.

  Slight correction 1871, not 1870.

  Paul

[dutchbarge]

"England", as a distinct nation, has not existed since the time of the Anglo-Normans

Does this mean there are no more Englishmen? What about Sting claiming to be an Englishman in New York? Surely he can't be that old!  Cheers, Bill

[truthergw]

Slight correction 1871, not 1870.

  Paul

Oops!

[truthergw]

Does this mean there are no more Englishmen? What about Sting claiming to be an Englishman in New York? Surely he can't be that old!  Cheers, Bill

Stanley is entitled to his opinion. I can assure him that we Scots are a separate nation forming a part of Britain, Great Britain, U.K., British Isles, British Empire, Commonwealth etc. I suspect the Welsh and Irish have a similar notion.

[steve morse]

The only error Britain made in 1914 was joining the wrong side. If we had joined up with Germany, the world would have been ours and the US would have made fewer military mistakes such - Vietnam, Iraq,etc etc
SM A citizen of the world

[dutchbarge]

The only error Britain made in 1914 was joining the wrong side. If we had joined up with Germany, the world would have been ours and the US would have made fewer military mistakes such - Vietnam, Iraq,etc etc
SM A citizen of the world

I've been getting hammered for suggesting that Britain really cocked up by taking on Germany in 1914;  that Britain blew her best shot at preserving and expanding her Empire by not joining with Germany well before WW1 and that had Britain done so Kaiser Bill and his army could have had Europe, Georgie and his Navy the rest of the world. Your statement above would seem to validate my contentions. And without all the moral claptrap normally used to explain why Britain actualy DID decide to go to war in 1914. How refreshing.  Thanks again!!

(Better still. How about a US-German alliance.  A very short WW1, No Hitler, no WW2, no Cold War and earlier self determination for Ireland, India, and Persia.)

Cheers, Bill

[Keith Roberts]

it could have gone the other way. We might have supplied the Canadians with artillery, dont forget the US had none, imposed a naval blockade, and then what...........

Could have been interesting.

Possibly a bit rough on the French though if we diverted our land  forces to the defence of Canada.

Keith

[dutchbarge]

it could have gone the other way. We might have supplied the Canadians with artillery, dont forget the US had none, imposed a naval blockade, and then what...........

Keith

Then what indeed! Must admit I hadn't thought of that one!  Must ponder this for awhile.  Cheers, Bill  

[dutchbarge]

Possibly a bit rough on the French though if we diverted our land  forces to the defence of Canada.

Keith

Is against Forum rules for me to say something witty (and ungenerous) about our French Allies in response to your posting?  Probably..........Think I'd better pass.

Cheers, Bill