I appreciate both parts of this thread. Ken, thanks for your part in this. For the Brits out htere do not forget that your PM sent Australian troops to Burma rather than allow them to return home to defend Australia.

On the part of the thread about Australian subservience, it was a Labor government which held its tongue while Indonesia invaded East Timor. (And murdered five journalists) The US wanted access to a deep trench for its subs to pass undetected between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and gave the go ahead to Djakarta. It was a shameful act.

To the more important part:-
I feel like my body has gotten totally out of shape, so I got my doctor's permission to join a fitness club and start exercising. I decided to take an aerobics class for seniors. I bent, twisted, gyrated, jumped up and down, and perspired for an hour. But, by the time I got my leotards on, the class was over.

Saltuarius, Churchill didn't send Australian troops to Burma. He certainly wanted to, in fact I think he issued orders to turn the troop ships in that direction, orders that were countermanded by the Australian prime minister, Labor's John Curtin.

Churchill also got Roosevelt to agree to send an equivalent US force to Australia in their stead, but Curtin declined this option. Presumably he took the view that it would be better to have our troops under our control, especially given the dire fate of the Australians captured when the British surrendered Singapore. He might also have had regard to Churchill's poor record as a military tactician, proven most spectacularly when he devised the disastrous Gallipoli campaign in WW1.

But I don't know why British readers should feel embarrassed over this. Churchill was focused on the defence of British interests, which after all was his job. There are times when it becomes a case of "every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost", even among allies.

Morally I don't disagree with you in regard to the Indonesian annexation of East Timor, but it's hard to see what Australia could have done except talk when faced with the reality of US support for the corrupt Suharto regime. The conservative Menzies government had also found this out when they lobbied the US over the Indonesian takeover of West New Guinea (Irian Jaya) and were told to get back in their box.

Well, we may have got the PM we deserved or even voted for 10+ years ago, but did we really have to have him for this long!

I appreciated your summary too, Lord B.

Well said, and accurate except for one thing. You forgot to say that "Lend Lease" meant that the UK had to pay for those ships, etc, afterwards. It was only "Lend" short term.

The US certainly wanted its pound of flesh. Now - go on - tell me I am wrong.

As for Steve W - seems you like to be less than even handed. Fine for Lord B to be an historian in reponse to my post. Not fine for me to post it in the first place.

Wow - that's some double standard.

Now all I'm interested in is truth. Can't be doing with half-baked or revisionist history.

Chimani -

Regarding repayment of Lend-Lease - true enough - the material was to be paid for, but it was sold at a very substantial discount, the interest rate was low (2%), and it was to be paid back over a very long period of time (50 years) - and in fact the last payment did not occur until the end of 2006 (after being deferred). All in all, very generous terms. Keep in mind too, that repayment was not a certainty. Had the Allies lost the war, there would be NO repayment.

You must remember that at that stage in the war the American people were still opposed to involvement (as the British were in 1938, when they gave up Czechoslovakia). We were still barely coming out of the decade-long Depression and folks felt that we had a lot of problems here at home to deal with, so the US government was limited to doing what Congress and the American people would accept. No one wanted WW II (except the Axis) - not the British, not the French, and not the US - but don't mistake a reluctance to go to war with uncertainty as to which side deserved support.

In regards to the "lend" aspect of Lend-Lease - well, short term lending of the material was what was needed. As it turned out, it was lent for as long as it was required (or in some cases until the US entered the war - at which time it reverted to US control, but was still being used in the Allied cause).

Remember too that American volunteers fought with both the RAF and the Chinese forces (notably the Flying Tigers) - and this was done with the unofficial approval of the US goverment. Pilots who wanted to leave the US Army Aircorp to serve with either the British or the Chinese were freely allowed to do so - despite their current military commitments (and at a time when the US was trying frantically to build up it's own military forces). In fact, under secret Presidential order, they were actually encouraged to do so.

It was indeed, America's support of China (and the American supplies being brought in to China through Burma) that more or less forced the Japanese to occupy French Indo-China (now Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam) so that they could interdict these supplies that were bolstering up the Chinese in their ongoing war with Japan. This in turn led the US (and the Dutch government in exile - which still controled the oil-rich East Indies) to place the embargo on Japan and freeze their assets. With no source of oil at all, the Japanese then decided that the war with the US was necessary and the Pearl Harbor strike was authorized to neutralize the US fleet so that the Japanese navy could sieze SouthEast Asia.

So yeah, as mentioned, the US was reluctant to enter the war (who wasn't?), but the US government did what it could while technically remaining "neutral" (but not really doing so). For one thing, like Britain, and France in 1939, the US military was not really ready for war yet, so FDR walked a fine line - trying to prepare the US military (which like the British and French had been neglected in the interwar years), trying to support the Allies (without appearing to do so - so as to not provoke Germany and Japan), and all the while trying to convince Congress and the American people that the coming fight was both absolutely necessary and worthwhile.

America did a LOT for the allies in the years before it's involvement. Some of what they did they made money on (that was one of FDR's selling points for such programs), but much of it they didn't - so it was not for purely commerical reasons that the US supported the Allies. If their motive had been commercial, then the US would have sold equally to BOTH sides - which we did not!

We favored the Allies from the very beginning, we were just not militarily or psychologically ready to enter the war yet. Going to war is a BIG step - one not to take lightly (as the current administration is finding out, much to their dismay). Though the US involvement was late and somewhat hesitant, in the final analysis it was almost certainly the right approach to take, allowing time for US industry to gear up to meet the upcoming challenge.

Yes, the US watched out for it's own interests (EVERY county ALWAYS has), but it also did the right thing, and for the right reasons.

So yeah, I'm afraid you are wrong. It was NOT about the money. Money was involved in SOME of the US aid (but not all) - but that was not primary focus. As mentioned - if that was, we'd have sold to BOTH sides.

Ken

PS to Chimani -

Not meaning to sound harsh. Just think you are off-base on this. While there was indeed some self-interest involved to dismiss US actions as purely self-serving is just incorrect - and not born out by the facts.

Ken

Resentment of America's late entry into both world wars still seems widespread in the UK, but I've never really understood this. It's almost as though many British people feel that America was under an obligation to step in. Maybe there's some unspoken feeling that the US owed the "Old Country" for ... well, something.

Ken, you might like to comment on this, but my understanding is that America's East Coast establishment, which predominated in high goverment circles at the time and which in many cases had family ties or residual sympathy with Britain, wanted to get involved. Most ordinary Americans, though, descended from Irish, German, Italian and many other backgrounds, felt no such connection. FDR of course was quintessential East Coast establishment.

I also have the impression that there was a good deal of resentment about the loss of American lives in defence of the British and French, with no apparent benefit to the world at large and certainly not to America.

Of course, for Britain it was WW1 that began the bleeding process that eventually resulted in the loss of the Empire and America's rise, although that didn't become apparent until after WW2.

(LizzyF, pity your thread got hijacked - but it's nice to have a discussion that isn't narrowly travel-related. Hasn't happened on this board for quite a while.)

Be my guest Neil/Ken - it is better than " which hotel should I stay at in Bullamakanka".

To those who think that change for the sake of change is a good thing, remember the old saying " when you are on a good thing - stick to it" OR " if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Neil,
you are right and a properly chastned gecko would wander off with his tail between his legs but I have just lost it!
Lizzy,
Lots of things aint broke but too many are.
The shifting of power has a cleansing effect on the system. This has been more strongly true since the politicisation of the public service. Maybe we could change all our governments if we change the one in Canbera first.

Neil_Oz -

Well, I've never personally noticed such post WWI/WWII resentment from the British - and I've a close personal connection to the country as my mother is British (well, technically born in Dublin but raised outside of Manchester - and thinks of herself as British) - and so I've cousins over there and many of my mom's friends as well. Also having been an Air Force Brat during my childhood and having spent about half of that childhood in Europe I did spend some time in England. In any event I've never encountered any of that particular resentment (though other kinds of anti-US feelings true enough - I was a teen in Europe during the Vietnam War). My mom tells me that she knows of folks who still dislike America because we won the REVOLUTIONARY WAR (LOL).

To a certain degree, yes I think you are correct in that FDR was an upper-crust Eastcoaster and indeed their ties to Britain were stronger than the average American.

Except among a few right-wing wackos who quite frankly hate anyone/anything that isn't American ("Freedom Fries"????? Come on, how stupid is THAT???) I don't think Americans resent the loss of life in WWI/WWII. For one thing (sadly), most Americans don't really think about it. It's ancient history to them. Secondly, I think most folks who do think about it, recognize it was entirely necessary.

Finally, you are quite right to group WWI & WWII together, for in many ways they were part of the same general changes that were going on during the first half of the 20th century. In fact, in the 3rd World, it's not uncommon for people to consider them to simply be part of the same conflict. In other words the view is that "the European Powers, having conquered the world, then squabbled among themselves how to divide it up." That view, while not at all complete, is essentually correct.

Ken

Ken, you have the advantage of me. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "widespread". Or perhaps I've been talking to too many transplanted Englishpersons here. The comments I've heard have been pretty much along the lines of the old standard complaint "Overpaid, oversexed and over here". BTW, my father was English-born too - Nottinghamshire. His father was killed in France 7 months before the Armistice.

I wasn't suggesting that Americans have ever resented the involvement in WW2 - I had the impression that many in the between-wars period felt that nothing much had been achieved by getting involved in WW1, which contributed to isolationist sentiment. But that's very much based on what academics would call secondary sources.

I'm surprised that anyone in Britain would give a rat's fundament about who won the Revolutionary War (even if they knew!)

Neil_Oz -

No, you are right about the isolationist opinions during the interwar years. It was pretty widespread at that time. After WWII it was different though. Few folks thought we shouldn't have gotten involved in that (after the fact anyway)

Regarding the Revolutionary War - my mother says the English never forget. I doubt you'll find MANY folks that hold that sentiment about a war that distant, but she says she knows a couple. LOL

Certainly during the war there was some resentment and tensions because the US servicement did tend to steal the girls (they had the money to do stuff - AND they were training in England while the British men were largely elsewhere). I was referring to more recent times when I mentioned not really running into resentment. The British folks I meet nowadays are almost all very friendly towards Americans.

Ken

Ken, interestingly I've noticed a couple of posts on the Lounge forum dealing with the Queen's US visit which suggest some Americans have difficulty letting go of old Revolutionary War grudges. Very much minority opinions, though, I'm sure. Actually there was some sympathy and even financial support for the colonists in England at the time. And followed by the French revolution it was probably a good wake-up call for the British ruling classes, accelerating the pace of reform.

When we made our own royal tour of Colonial Wiliamsburg we learnt quite a bit about the divided opinion in the colonies themselves at the time of the war. Very interesting and well-balanced talks and exhibitions.

The same resentment (in some quarters) of US servicemen occurred in Australia in WW2, leading to the Battle of Brisbane in 1942, in which an Australian soldier was killed by an American MP. Naturally wartime censorship ensured that news of the incident was suppressed.

Saltuarus, it is not so much that I don't like change or even don't want change it is more to do with the fact that as an ex-Queenslander who lived through the NO MORE DAMS issue led by Rudd the aspiring (to be) Prime Minister at the next election who was so very vocal about not making any more dams in the S.E Queensland area for the burgeoning polulation and the 3,000 per week entering that corner of the World it has come back to bite the bums of those people in that area who are now restricted to such an extent with their water supplies. In retrospect it was the most stupid decision by Rudd that I can only say that if that situation applied to the rest of Australia we would all be in a terrible state of affairs. It was not just a decision but he actively fought against having any more dams. For those people in other areas who are not sure of what I am talking about - Brisbane the capital of Queensland is on a level 5 water restriction which means that they are not even allowed to wash their car windows, house windows or anything else for that matter even if they have water tanks. The Gold Coast is also on water restrictions although they have had plenty of rain and have water but their water will have to be piped to help out Brisbane. They have had rain yesterday but only a small amount has fallen into the catchment areas and it will still mean a level 6 state by September - from now till then it is very unlikely that there will be any rain.
So for my money the Rudd the Dudd should be lynched. That then would be a change for the better!

Liz, you might like to watch your hero holding forth on a subject he devoutly wishes had never been raised to interrupt his slumber. For American readers who won't have heard our Fearless Leader, this guy is almost pitch-perfect.

www.getup.org.au/campaign.asp?campaign_id=86

Wow - what a conversation.

LordB seems to think that the USA acted perfectly ethically during the early years of WW2. I disagree - all those loans had to be paid back.

Now I ask you to imagine a country that had been bombed to hell. Stood alone for 18mths before the glorious USA pulled its finger out.

Don't tell me about lend lease - like I said - the UK paid for it. Being an honourable country it did pay it back - every f**in last cent.

And was the glorious American Homeland (a new word with terrible connotations) ever bombed? NO OF COURSE NOT.

The first time the USA "Homeland" ever has suffered was on 7/11 - whooopps - that's a 60s perfume - 9/11 or in more sane speak 11 Sept 2001.

And geez - what has that lead to?

Chimani -

Yes, indeed I do. While the US, like very other major power in history, has done it's share of dishonorable things (extremination of the American Indians, last major county to abolish slavery, treatment of Japanese Americans during WW II, etc, etc), like Britain, on the whole it's activities in WW II were probably it's "Finest Hour". So yeah, I believe we did behave honorably in the years leading up to direct US involvement.

Some of the same complaints you have against the US can be lodged against Britain and France as well. Yes, they declared war on Hitler after the invasion of Poland (something that they were LEGALLY bound to do, since they had formal treaties with Poland - something the US did not). However, they had done nothing for Czechslovkia - other than sell it down the river - and really, they did nothing for Poland other than talk a lot. They also did nothing for China in her long prewar struggle with Japan, nor anything for Ethiopia when that country was flattened by Italy.

Like the US later on, they simply did not want to get involved. One could argue that had they stood up to Germany and Italy in those early years, WW II might never have happened. The fact was neither country was prepared economically, military - or more importantly - psychologically, to go to war at that time, just as the same was true of the US later on.

The same is true today. There are troubles going on around the world all the time. The US and Britain, and a handful of other fairly powerful nations pick and choose those which they want to get involved in - and usually only after hundreds of thousands or even millions have already died.

Is it hose countries responsibilities to maintain peace around the world? Technically no. The fact is, no single country (or even groups of countries) can always do that everywhere. It is just not financially or logistically possible - nor in the long run is it even appreciated. Look at all the heat the US takes for trying to be the world's policeman. If we don't get involved then it's our fault that folks are dying. If we do get involved, then we're bullying tinier nations.

Involvement in a war (any war) is not to be taken lightly - even when it's clear who is right and who is wrong. Conventional wisdom in 1939 and even 1940 was that Britain would win a war against Germany even without US aid. At the time, Britain was perhaps the most powerful nation on earth after all - certainly their navy was second to none. France had a large, supposedly powerful army with very strong defenses on the German border and actualy had more tanks than Germany did. In WW I Germany had not been able to conquer France in 4 years - who was to know they would do it in essentially 6 weeks? Total victory took a bit longer, but the issue was decided in the first 6 weeks. The success of the German Blitzkrieg tactics took pretty much everyone by surprise. And so a war which most in the US expected Britain to win, turned instead into a desperate battle. All that took time to happen. All that took time for Americans to digest.


And what's with acting like it was somehow our fault that America was not bombed? In fact, we were shelled(slightly) on each coast (at different times) by surfaced submarines and (on the west coast) by fire ballons. Admittedly, these were minor attacks, but your statement makes it sound like an accusation that we were fortunate to be an ocean away. I might remind you that it was a 20 mile stretch of such ocean that kept German panzers out of London. True, Britain was heavily bombed, but they were never under the NAZI boot - simply because of those 20 miles of open water.

In any event, clearly you have your mind made up that it was somehow the responsibility of the US to come immediately to Britain's aid (for free) - even though we had no treaty or legal obligation to do so. I don't think I can change that opinion so I probably shouldn't even try.

Ken

Neil_Oz -

Yes, though basic American history books make it sound as though the decision to revolt against the Crown was unanimous among the American colonists, the fact is, opinion was very divided - and there were many in the colonies who felt the Revolution was wrong and that Washington and the other Founding Fathers were simply traitors. Some of these folks were booted out of the country either during or after the war - or simply made to feel uncomfortable enough that they chose to leave on their own.

I also agree completely with your statement: "followed by the French revolution it was probably a good wake-up call for the British ruling classes, accelerating the pace of reform." Most definitely, change was on the horizon.

Not been to Williamsburg - though I have always wanted to go.
One day...

Ken

Bit of a rant there, chimani. I certainly can't see why expecting Britain to repay its debts constituted bastardry on the Americans' part.

As someone (I think an Englishman) said, nations have no permanent allies or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

I have no argument with you as to the Iraq folly, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the subject under discussion, except to provide another excuse to beat up on Americans. But none of us has clean hands in that department. It was, after all, the British and the French who screwed the Arabs after WW1 and set the scene for the mess in Iraq. Just read T. E. Lawrence's report from the then Mesopotamia in 1920.

It was also the British and French whose insistence on ruinous war reparations created the conditions for the rise of Hitler. You might even say that WW2 was a case of self-inflicted wounds.

Chimani, the US did not "make" the UK go to war, it did not "make" the UK want the war machines and you can be sure that there are countries around the World, Australia included, that didn't ask the UK to poke their bib into their affairs. Now let me see, how many nations owe the UK money and how many of them are paying right up to this date?