Is it important to get historical facts right?
David Cameron has been criticised after mistakenly saying the UK was the "junior partner" in the allied World War II fight against Germany in 1940. Should he face criticism for saying this?
"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis" he said during his first trip to the US as prime minister.
However, the US officially declared war on Germany on 11 December 1941, shortly after Hitler launched hostilities against the US and four days after the Pearl Harbor attacks which drew the US into conflict with Japan.
No 10 said Mr Cameron had not meant to belittle the efforts of British troops.
What do you think of David Cameron's historical slip? Could his mistake alienate former troops? Is it important to remember historical dates? If so why? Given his speech was about the relationship between the US and the UK and not about WWII, does it matter that he got the facts wrong?
© MMX
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I hope he's not as absent-minded when it comes to today's troops.
Complain about this comment
1: mistakes happen.
2: not being one I wouldn't know
3: yes
4: if you have to ask that question you'll never know why
5: not sure. let me think on it
Complain about this comment
This goes to show what a complete fool we have running the country, he doesnt even know his history, my god, we are now the laughing stock of the world.
Complain about this comment
It is not just an insult to former troops its a damn right insult to the whole Ministory of Defence, all the people who fought for this country and all the people who are fighting for this country. He has not a clue.
Complain about this comment
Is it important to get historical facts right?
Yes, yes it is.
Although much as i dislike defending Cameron (i shall wash afterwards), its perfectly possible to put forward an argument rooted in sound historical sources that Britain was indeed the 'junior partner' in 1940.
Its not an argument I agree with but it is valid.
History - rarely as black and white as you think its going to be.
Complain about this comment
A poor as Cameron's comments were, Millibands in response were worse. He had all the time in the world to get it right, get the best people on the job to write the best put down on Cameron and he came up with something as factually incorrect.
We did not stand alone. Russia were fighting the war against the Nazis, the Free French were still fighting, countries from around the world were helping us with people travelling from Australia, Canada, Ireland, Holland, Norway etc etc to join our armed services to fight, the Poles had squadrons in the RAF to help fight.
To say we stood alone is a slight on the memories of all those from outside of Great Britain who fought and died during our "finest hour".
Mr Milliband a question for you: Was yours a slip or a slight?
Complain about this comment
Who cares; it's not as if he doesn't have enough on his mind - no thanks to Gordon Brown and his also unelected cronies, all of whom have now too been consigned to history....
Complain about this comment
What is a historical fact ?
Depends upon who is writing history ! Britain is as good as any other country at rewriting history to suit the cause of the time.
Complain about this comment
Politicians are always in trouble when they tell the truth.
Complain about this comment
So he made a mistake, he maybe a Conservative, but he is still Human!
Anyone can make mistakes, how many of the veterans complaining remember everything about the first world war? Or the facts about the conflict in 1903-04 between the UK and Tibet?
People only really remember things of personal importance, given that he was born after the war... or so I believe, it probably isn't as important to him as it is to those who experienced it first-hand.
He is also not walking robot... or so I believe. He shouldn't be expected to remember everything.
Complain about this comment
The 40`s date relates to the era stupid, and after Dunkirk with the army beaten and less its equipment, the country in a perilous state, we were more than a junior partener...with anyone.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This was probably a slip of the tongue rather than a considered opinion. Either way, it leaves us looking foolish & somewhat insignificant.
He should move quickly to apologise and/or correct his gaffe
Complain about this comment
Personally I think he has insulted every citizen of this country by his remarks.
We are not partners with the US we are allies, different thing. Stating we are a junior partner implies that we must do what we are told by our superiors (USA).
If Mr Cameron actually believes this then we are in worse trouble than we thought.
Making the historical reference was very silly, if you are going to make historical references, they must be acurate to ensure you don't look a complete idiot.
Complain about this comment
Disgusted at Camerons comments. So much for private education. He is a Tory and does not know who lead this country and the rest of the Free world in WW11. It certainly was not the USA they came in the at the end only after they got attacked. I suggest he apologies to all the old soldiers their families and people who fought so hard to stop Hitler taking over this country and the rest of the free world.
Complain about this comment
Well, if someone with a brain the size of a planet such as "Wiser than You" can believe the Nazi-Soviet pact of August 1939 was actually signed in 1938, then it's perfectly understandable that an inferior being like Cameron might get his dates wrong.
Still, in 1940, Britain was the junior partner to nobody in WW2 as there was no-one left apart from Britain (and its empire, of course).
However, I'm sure using 1940 to an American audience would simply confuse them as all Americans know that WW2 started in December 1941.
Complain about this comment
Yes it is important to get your facts right (by the way it was Germany who declared war on the US)
Making such an error on such an iconic time for the UK puts Cameron in the class as Regan and to make such a crass error so early in his tenure does not bode well for the future.
Also to make such an error could be a Freudian slip on how Cameron (or to be more accurate his speech writers) views our relationship with the US i.e. not as an independant state more as a junior partner and that cannot be good for us in the future given how the US treats its allies when their usefulness has passed the sell by date and given the rhetoric coming from the Obama administration it seems that time has come for the UK.
So as far as I am concerned such a crass error is insulting towards those who fought during WWII, worrying about Cameron's level of education and knowledge and disappointing that even our own politicians appear to look upon us as a lap dog of the US.
Complain about this comment
In response to comment number 6 RB_sheff
Let's call it a slight slip EH?
Complain about this comment
Its just a reminder of how many of his pre-election promises he has also forgotten, if he cannot remember a few months ago, how can he effectively remember common knowledge historical events prior to his birth, or the same, vice versa.
Complain about this comment
Cameron is not up to the job of representing Britain abroad, and Clegg is not up to the job of minding the shop while Cameron is away.
Complain about this comment
Yes it's important
He wonders why people don't care about being Great in Britain and talks of a broken society - maybe its because who can feel national pride when our leader says our greatest moments summed up as 'we wouldn't have gotten anywhere without you'.
I get that our leaders jump when the US ask but surely they can do that without insulting our history?
Complain about this comment
Of course it is. How any politician learn from the past and at the same time be ignorant of it? Not only were the Americans not in the WW2 for the Battle of Britain, they also initially supported the Vichy French because they didn't like De Gaul!
Complain about this comment
David Cameron meant to say that - it wasn't a mistake. In this day and age, who (and especially someone of Cameron's education) doesn't know even the most general facts about World War II?
He said it because that's what the Americans want to hear (because that's what they believe).
Disgusting. Insulting.
Complain about this comment
Why would he even think to say such a thing? Sucking up the the US? I know that Mr Cameron has a lot to learn - the first of these is that we are an independent nation made up of independently thinking (well mostly) people. We are not a state of the USA!
Complain about this comment
So in 1940 - before the USA entered the war - who was the senior partner? USSR was on Germany's side at that time, so it wasn't them.
There are thousands of dates to remember in history - there are a few for the UK which stand out, such as:
1. Battle of Hastings
2. Great Plague
3. Great Fire of London
4. WWI start and finish
5. WWII start for UK
6. Pearl Harbour (yes, I know that's to do with America)
7. D Day
Any schoolboy with David Cameron's background should be able to answer these without thinking about them. If you can't remember, don't commit yourself.
What an appalling example of private education. I hope he's never on my team for a pub quiz.
Complain about this comment
On the whole it's important to get facts right - historical or otherwise - if you are running the country.This was not a slight inaccuracy on a small obscure piece of history, though; it spoke to a period of British history that significantly contributes to our sense of who we are. This was gaffe of significant proportions.
Complain about this comment
It seems that America have a new poodle.
And I had such high hopes.
Complain about this comment
Junior Partner, Yo Cameron.................
Meet the new boss, same as ............
Complain about this comment
If you use the terms senior and junior partnerships, Britain had to be the senior in 1940. Russia and the USA did not join the Allies until 1941. Indeed Russia was a German ally until they were invaded in 1941. But all the allies played their part in defeating Nazi Germany and none of their efforts should be belittled by Politicians on both sides trying to make petty political points.
Complain about this comment
Quote from an American web-site, "The Phoney War was that part of WWII which happened before the US came in." Written by someone with a poor grasp of history, same correspondent also thought only the the US fought against the Chinese and N.Koreans in the Korean War.
Obviously someone who got their history from Hollywood.
However there are plenty of people on this side of the Atlantic who would make similar mistakes.
Historical fact and historical myth are intertwined in popular culture, unfortunately the myths seem to win most of the time.
Complain about this comment
6. At 11:49am on 22 Jul 2010, RP_sheff wrote:
A poor as Cameron's comments were, Millibands in response were worse. He had all the time in the world to get it right, get the best people on the job to write the best put down on Cameron and he came up with something as factually incorrect.
We did not stand alone. Russia were fighting the war against the Nazis,
Not in 1940 they were: they had a non-aggression pact with the Nazis and they were not at war with Germany until June 1941 when Hitler invaded the USSR.
After June 1940 until June 1941, Britain, and its Empire, was alone in fighting the Nazis. As you say, a lot of Poles, Czechs, French etc were fighting in Britain against the Nazis but there were no other free nations doing so.
Complain about this comment
I was more worried about his grovelling toadyism which this was an example of, hardly the Dunkirk spirit was it.
Yet he constantly cites the Dunkirk spirit as how we should now "restore" the country to it's former glory.
Maybe we should just ask our American Masters to come and sort it all out for us, despite the fact that the economic mess we're all in was caused by their recklessness in the first instance.
Get a backbone Dave and get better advisors who know the facts, didn't they teach you anything at Eton and stop taking history lessons from Mr Murdoch!
Complain about this comment
6. At 11:49am on 22 Jul 2010, RP_sheff wrote:
To say we stood alone is a slight on the memories of all those from outside of Great Britain who fought and died during our "finest hour".
------------------------------------------------
Britain did stand alone, no other nation (as a nation) gave official support. Russia, France, Poland, had their own countries to defend. Spain was already in a war.
What was Britain's "best ally" doing?
I know even America provided pilots, but that still a far cry from actual "Alliance" behaviour.
British Forces is British Equipment manned by men under control of British Commanders. I don't think it is necessary for the people fighting to be british to be classed as a British Force. e.g. Gurkhas.
Complain about this comment
I have a huge regard for Mr Cameron. His comment was a stupid mistake. but fortunately it does not really matter and everyone will have forgotten it in a couple of days.
Britain stood alone in 1940.
The US did nothing in 1941 until the Germans declared war on America
1942 US did very little in Europe except a minor part in a botched invasion of North Africa whilst the 8th Army did most of the fighting
1943 America played an equal part in the fighting in Sicilly and Italy
1944 D-Day despite American propoganda to the contrary the bulk of the fighting in June 1944 was carried out by British and Commonwealth forces not American. There were 5 beaches on D-Day. Only two were American. During June eight panzer divisions fought the allies of these ONE fought the Americans the other 7 were fighting the British and commonwealth troops as the Germans had a very low regard to American fighting ability.
The Americans did not "give" us anything in WW2 they sold us a massive amount at over inflated prices.
Complain about this comment
I think this is what we call a storm in a teacup.
I am pretty sure that he knows that the US took a long time before they actually joined the war so his use of the date 1940 was a slip up. Big deal. There are surely more important things to talk about.
As for the outrage being manufactured over his description of the YK as a junior partner in the war - well, it was. That doesnt mean that the British troops weren't brave or that their individual inputs were in some way less valued or valuable than the Yanks'.
Come on everyone, lets get over it. It was a minor slip. Now, lets talk about something important like world trade, BP, Afghanistan, budget cuts, NHS etc etc etc etc
Complain about this comment
One can only imagine the furore in the right wing press had Gordon Brown made this silly mistake and yet today – not a mention in any of the rags. It seems Cameron and his, what shall I say, “junior partner” Clegg are immune from criticism from this direction. It just goes to show the bias which has always distorted our national politics.
On a related point, I thought Eton was renowned for good education - it obviously needs to brush up on how modern history is taught. Let’s hope Westminster School is better at it, but they seem to have fallen short in teaching morality, loyalty and principles.
Complain about this comment
He's a fool, and clearly happy to be a US lapdog. There were some people in 1940 that felt we should have a similar 'partnership' with Hitler!
Complain about this comment
Phew!, I have just been thru the Beeb's 3rd Degree, just to make a comment here. Facebook it's not but come on, lively debate (without defamation etc) is surely the core reason for allowing Have Your Say - isn't it?
Anyway, re Cameron and the 'junior partner thing' - whilst there is bound to be some controversy re this, he is in fact making a statement that could be considered pretty accurate. By the time we reached WWII, GB was pretty much a spent force on the world stage and years of appeasement had weakened our standing. In the end, it took a lot of assistance from others round the globe, Australia, NZ, India and many other Empire colonies, as well as the US, to defeat the Nazis. At the end of the conflict, GB was pretty much bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the Marshall Plan. Don't forget also the Roosevelt's 'Lend Lease' scheme also saved (sometimes literally) our bacon.
In some respects, we were 'lucky'. Germany had been re-arming since the early 30's and by the time of the start of WWII, were in a much better position than GB. It was only really due to the ongoing poor strategy applied by a mad dictator called Hitler, that stopped them from being more successful.
The USA's entry into the war was caused by another regime believing it could do more than it could and the belief by the Americans that the US would never be attacked on home ground.
Funny how history repeats itself!
Complain about this comment
A disgraceful comment by cameron, he should apologise to all the people who have been offended by his comments.
Should we be surprised by this mistake? No. cameron and the rest of his cronies in governement have already shown on countless times how incompetant they are. The worrying thing is they have only been in government for less than two months.
Complain about this comment
What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941.
Complain about this comment
Of course it is. What a really dumb question. If we jumble everything up how on earth can we be sure of facts or learn from the past ? Mind you, interpretation is another matter.
Complain about this comment
Being a serving member of the army, i have got to say I am severely unimpressed with Cameron's statement. To get so wrong the history, that myself and all serving regard as so important, is tragic. To do it to stroke American media just plain annoys me.
We were never a junior ally in WW2! Britain still had the vestiges of empire in 1940, fighting by land and sea around the world, from Europe to Africa, the Middle East to the Far East. We operated in some places the Americans never went to during the war. We brought to bear hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth personnel to defeat the axis powers. This is to say nothing of our intelligence efforts that were far superior to the Americans till the late 1940s. The actions of SOE, the breaking and exploitation of Enigma plus Operation Overlord cut years off of the defeat of the Nazis.
Cameron should have remembered we stood shoulder to shoulder then, as we do now, in matters of war. Our efforts have never been 'junior' to anyone else's.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it comes from receiving an Education based on ability to pay rather than ability to learn.
I suspect he meant in the 1940's Though this wouldn't be entirely accurate as right up to and including the Normandy Landings some 70% of combat troops deployed in Europe were British or British Commonwealth and higher percentage applied to Naval and Air Assets. If you see any Hollywood version of D Day you could be forgiven for thinking that all the personnel involved were Americans.
So Davy (Man of the People (failed History)) Cameron is in a land where he will not be alone in his ignorance.
Complain about this comment
It depends on the curcumstances. David Cameron was speaking to an American audience and therefore had to say things that appealed to their sense of history. It wouldn't for example have been very sensible to point out that that they kept out of the first world war to 1917 and the second world war until Japan attacked them in December 1941.
Although Cameron quoted the wrong year by referring to 1940, it is pretty clear that without the Americans we would not have been able to win the war. Indeed in 1940 we were very lucky not to lose it. If we had not been an Island, and Hitler had not have decided to start a second front by attacking Russia we would have lost. Even after 1940 we were in real danger of being starved in submission, and it was only American aid that stopped this. Anybody who thinks we could have staged D-Day without the Americans is very deluded.
Complain about this comment
Cameron seems to have gone over there with a remit to say anything to curry favour.
Perhaps he would have been better regarding World Wars to say that the Americans had been late for the last two and now look like they are doing their best to make up for it by ensuring that they are there for the start of the next one...
Complain about this comment
Get your facts RIGHT boy.
Complain about this comment
"Given his speech was about the relationship between the US and the UK and not about WWII, does it matter that he got the facts wrong? "
Is probably the single stupidest question the BBC has ever asked. Most of the problems we are facing in Afghanistan, Iraq and the wider middle east are because people do not remember or never learnt in the first place the histories of these countries. The looting in Iraq after the liberation was identical to the looting of Damascus in 1918 by the Arab army. Anyone who had read Lawrence of Arabia's '7 Pillars of Wisdom' would have anticipated the same thing happening again and planned for it. Not our or the American politicians though!
Complain about this comment
Essential Rabbit no 27 says -
It seems that America have a new poodle.
And I had such high hopes.
------------------------------
Sounds like someone else needs a history lesson!! - you only have to go back to Thatcher fawning over Ronald Regan to see what the Tories are like with the USA.
Complain about this comment
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" George Santayana.
Repeated by Winston Churchill, a politician who did know his history.
It is obvious that David Cameron and his pal George Osbourne have not learned from the economic history of the 1930's. They are repeating the same mistakes that were made by their predecessors. The misery which was caused by these mistakes gave fascists the opportunity to blame foreigners and the enemy within. The result was tens of millions of deaths and many more ruined lives.
Our only hope is that Santayana and Churchill were wrong.
Complain about this comment
He shouldn't ever have had the word "junior" in his head. Even when the US joined in we were not the junior partner. In fact, we were the veteran partner having been in the war a lot longer than they.
However, it was a mistake made during an informal talk, rather than a pre-prepared speech and so should not cause too much fuss.
Complain about this comment
If Britain was already the junior partner in 1940, when the US had yet to actually enter the war, presumably it was when America did join in '41 that Britain first stooped even lower, to being the prostrate chattel it remains.
I honestly couldn't believe that anyone in his position would so publicly and actively pander to the self-importance and ignorance of America's re-written history of the world. Perhaps the pre-election effort to forget his blood ties to the Queen, Boris Johnson &tc was also actually a genuine inability to recall past events?
As we speak his advisors are probably suggesting he confirms Britain's debt to America for decyphering the enigma machines and coming over the hills at the last minute during the battle of britain. And seeing off the Vikings.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Financially speaking Cameron is correct but it's very subjective. I think this was a bit of diplomacy for the visit, wasn't it? Aren't we grown up enough to see that? Is this really news story?
Complain about this comment
In his eagerness to ‘uber’ please his hosts our Prime Minister has demoted Britain to the role of a ’junior partner’ in the WWII struggle.
Truly, this is over and above the call of duty, unprecedented!
Complain about this comment
I agree historical facts should be accurate. However some people on this forum have over-reacted in a spectacular manner. Put things into perspective people.
Complain about this comment
25. At 12:12pm on 22 Jul 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:
So in 1940 - before the USA entered the war - who was the senior partner? USSR was on Germany's side at that time, so it wasn't them.
There are thousands of dates to remember in history - there are a few for the UK which stand out, such as:
1. Battle of Hastings
2. Great Plague
3. Great Fire of London
4. WWI start and finish
5. WWII start for UK
6. Pearl Harbour (yes, I know that's to do with America)
7. D Day
Any schoolboy with David Cameron's background should be able to answer these without thinking about them. If you can't remember, don't commit yourself.
What an appalling example of private education. I hope he's never on my team for a pub quiz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're quite right with most of your analysis, but I would also point out that number 6 - Pearl Harbour, that we actually gave the Americans our invention - Radar, and they were actually using it on the morning of the attack. The American Radar operators saw the planes flying in, but were not believed when they raised the alarm. Had they been believed, countless lives may have been saved.
Complain about this comment
Lest we forget eh?. oh deary deary me Mr Camer(a)on
Complain about this comment
Britain WAS in some respects factually a junior partner in the reality that we were humbled by our unaffordability of the war and our lack of resources and ultimately needed a senior partner to fund our needs, ESPECIALLY in 1940.
The night of 3 June was the last night of evacuations of Dunkirk, on 4th June 1940 the Germans hoisted the swastika over the docks from which so many British and French troops had escaped.
What did NOT escape was the equipment of the British army, the tools NEEDED for the army to function, the tools needed to withstand any German invasion and of which we just did NOT have because they were abandoned at Dunkirk in France.
Hence we were TOTALLY reliant upon MASSIVE USA supply and funding of military equipment and as such we were pretty subservient and in extremely DIRE straights as to our FACTUAL ability to even survive, and even freely handed the USA ALL our MAJOR secrets, technology/research etc in return for military aid and support.
As such, we may have been the front line of the war in Europe but we were also factually and historically indisputably a junior partner in our economic/industrial/financial abilitys to produce that which we most importantly needed.
Hence, like it or not, in all truth and reality, Cameron is actually, factually and indisputably correct!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"What did you do in the War Daddy?"
"I was a junior partner to a Country that wasn't involved"
Blimey the standard of Education at our fee paying top toffs academy leaves something to be desired.
My local comprehensive managed to inform me that the United States did not join the War until 8th December 1941.
So that was £25,000 per year well not spent!
Complain about this comment
What Cameron said was shamefully wrong! If we were the junior partner it was to the Russians.
America didn't come on the German scene until quite late in the war.
Black mark, Mr Cameron. If that's the best you can do then God help us when we need to show Britain off.
Complain about this comment
More a slight on Eton's education than himself, maybe I won't invite him to join my quiz team!
Complain about this comment
"6. At 11:49am on 22 Jul 2010, RP_sheff wrote:
A poor as Cameron's comments were, Millibands in response were worse. He had all the time in the world to get it right, get the best people on the job to write the best put down on Cameron and he came up with something as factually incorrect.
We did not stand alone. Russia were fighting the war against the Nazis, "
You must have been taught history at Eton too. In 1940 Russia was fighting WITH the nazi's. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact divided Poland equally between Germany and the USSR (and allowed the USSR to invade the Baltic states at the same time). Stalin then liquidated over 20,000 Poles (the people we went to war to protect) in the Katyn forest.
In fact in 1940 Britain considered declaring war on Russia after Russia's war of aggression against Finland.
Your point that other nations men & women fought alongside us is 100% true but they fought as individuals in British uniform and with British weapons from bases in Britain. We didn't totally stand alone but we were the only sovereign nation fighting Hitler on our own soil.
Complain about this comment
It ALWAYS matters if you get the facts wrong, especially if you're a politician making speeches.
I just can't understand why he had to say anything so silly in the first place. Surely the British PM can visit the US and say nice things about the two countries' friendship without grovelling about their relative strengths 70 years ago, AND getting the year wrong?
I guess the date was a mistype not picked up by the team, but surely he doesn't need to read out that sort of a speech, dates and all. Or maybe we have a historically-challenged PM.....
Complain about this comment
Winston Churchill and all the RAF heroes who save mankind must be spinning in their graves. Statements like that just confirm that Cameron is an upper class twit would does not know his own history.
Complain about this comment
As 90% of the contributors to this "blog" are ignorant of 90% of historical facts (especially recent political history which blames all bad things on Brown and all good things on Thatcher), I would say any the gainsayers are pretty well likely to make their silly points with no view to tolerance at all and to how irrelevant it all is anyway
Complain about this comment
Cameron is an intelligent man & a consumate politician. He made a stupid comment, & was most-likely instantly remorseful. Move on.
Complain about this comment
I would imagine it was probably a simple 'slip of the tongue' where he meant to say in the 1940s.
If that is the case, then I think the words "molehills" and "mountains" spring to mind.
Complain about this comment
Foolish boy David. I am all for being nice to your hosts but do try not to make yourself look ignorant while doing it.
Complain about this comment
#51 "As we speak his advisors are probably suggesting he confirms Britain's debt to America for decyphering the enigma machines and coming over the hills at the last minute during the battle of britain."
But that did happen!
I saw Ben Afleck shoot down the entire Luftwaffe in 'Pearl Harbour' and Jon Bon Jovi & Harvey Keitel captured the Enigma machine in 'U-571' ! Hollywood would surely never rewrite history to glorify the US at our expense would they?
And on that note its worth pointing out that contrary to 'Saving Private Ryan' etc the majority of forces landed on D-Day were Commonwealth troops and the landing craft landing the US forces on Utah and Omaha beach were mostly skippered by Brits. My great uncle (who was merchant navy, not even Royal Navy) lost a leg delivering US troops to Utah after his landing craft hit a submerged mine.
It was only late in 1944 that US forces outnumbered Commonwealth troops in Europe and even then British troops were tasked with taking the most dangerous bridge during 'Market Garden', clearing the Schelde Estuary in Belgium (more dangerous than D-Day) and during the Battle of the Bulge US troops had to be taken from Bradley's command and given to Montgomery to hold the flank.
We were reduced to the 'junior partner' at Yalta by 6 years of war and debt but we were by far the senior partner before then.
Complain about this comment
You can't remember the dates of everything that happened in history. But that is a big clanger!
I would say that this country was nobody's junior in either world war at any point.
But to call us the junior to our American cousins referring to a point where they were yet to get into the action for pretty much a year is a massive oversight for the PM.
At a time when the UK runs to aid the US in a military intervention in retaliation for a terrible (though single) terrorist act, it would serve him well to remind the president how long it took the US to lift a finger to help the UK when she faced the very real threat of being overthrown by a much greater enemy than the Taliban, and only acted when attacked directly. A fact that I'm sure many in the US would point out if the UK only acted after the 7/7 bombings!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In 1940 the British & it's Empire's enemy was the Germans. The Americans were supplying us aid (at a price).
Complain about this comment
So many disgusting statements emerging in the news today!
Complain about this comment
If you want to be pedantic, up to around June ish in 1940, UK was the junior partner in the Second World War, junior to France who had overall command. Generally, unless politics intervene, its the partner who brings the most hardware and troops to a war who is the senior and thus commands, and that was France. We led as senior partner until the Americans came on stream and they took over. Its why Eisenhower was the overall commander of D-Day, for example, and not a UK general
Complain about this comment
Regardless of whether it's factually correct, why would an elected official say such a thing?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Cameron's trip to the US has been a fiasco from start to finish.
From his dreadfully twee press conference with Obama through his rushing to meet the four Senators, his statement on foreign soil that the FO will be pushing "buy British"(which they already do)to his mistake over the date of the USA's entry into the second world war he's shown himself to be an even more third rate PM than Brown or Blair.
It's a good thing the majority of Americans and the rest of the world take little notice of these type of meetings.
Complain about this comment
To be honest,when they saw this fool and his team coming through the door, the Yanks were probably thinking "where's Kermit?"
Complain about this comment
40. At 12:20pm on 22 Jul 2010, Pat Burger wrote:
What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941.
--------------------------------
Obviously taken from the script of yet another completely inaccurate Hollywood script...
I've never read such rubbish...
It would be interesting to know how we had effectively lost the war by 1941...
Yes the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), sent to help the French had been driven back to Dunkirk (May 1940). The BEF made up just one tenth of the defending forces.
We were fighting in North Africa quite successfully from 1940, before the USA even entered the war.
Complain about this comment
58. At 12:33pm on 22 Jul 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:
Britain WAS in some respects factually a junior partner in the reality that we were humbled by our unaffordability of the war and our lack of resources and ultimately needed a senior partner to fund our needs, ESPECIALLY in 1940.....
What did NOT escape was the equipment of the British army, the tools NEEDED for the army to function, the tools needed to withstand any German invasion and of which we just did NOT have because they were abandoned at Dunkirk in France.
Hence we were TOTALLY reliant upon MASSIVE USA supply and funding of military equipment and as such we were pretty subservient and in extremely DIRE straights as to our FACTUAL ability to even survive, and even freely handed the USA ALL our MAJOR secrets, technology/research etc in return for military aid and support.......
Hence, like it or not, in all truth and reality, Cameron is actually, factually and indisputably correct!"
Complete and utter tosh. Our army was equipped with Sten submachine guns, Mk III & IV Lee-Enfield rifles, Bren and Vickers machine guns. All british made. Our artillery was British made as was our tanks. Our airforce was equipped with Hurricane and Spitfires. All British Made. The few fighter aircraft the US supplied in 1940 were far inferior and only fit for the desert war.
The US supplied us with all our transport aircraft and our jeeps and most of the trucks. They supplied us with thousands of Sherman tanks (after 1943) and a few ships but everything else was made by Britain. All our Bombers (Lancasters, Hurricanes, Mosquitos) were British. The majority of our tanks (Churchills and Cromwells) were British. ALL our guns were British.
Before American entered the war in Dec '41 they supplied us with 50 WW1 destroyers that barely floated in exchange for half the ports in the West Indies and a handful of barely airworthy tanks. Lend-Lease and the useful kit only started appearing in 1943 and much of that was British Designed (such as the P51 Mustang fighter)
Complain about this comment
Cameron is right.
Britain was never fully engaged in WW-II (unlike WW-I. Now, that is different.).
British presence in the Continental Europe ceased almost as soon as the war started. There were some battles in North Africa and Southeast Asia. The rest was about defending Britain from German invasion, which didn't take place thanks to USSR and then USA.
British losses in WW-II is 382000. USA losses is 416000. Soviet losses is 10 million. German losses 5 million.
The modern portrayal of British involvement in WW-II is marginally better than romantic rubbish.
Even the US involvement in overblown.
The war really took place between Germany and USSR.
So, Cameron knows history better than more than half of the people here.
Complain about this comment
"Britain did stand alone, no other nation (as a nation) gave official support."
So the fact that New Zealand declared war on Germany in September of 1939 doesn't mean they - and their troops - were giving official support as a nation? Australia may have decided that the British declaration included the Dominions, but NZ made their own declaration. Or are you going to get into the nitty gritty facts about whether or not the Dominions were independent until they adopted the Statute of Westminster, or whatever?
Mr Cameron's comments were poor, but so were Mr Milliband's.
I suggest they both look at the nationalities of "The Few" who fought in Battle of Britain.
Complain about this comment
A slight mistake in an unrehearsed speach. In private, forgivable, but on a world stage these things can break political careers.
Complain about this comment
you can't blame poor David, "after all it was Labour that got us into this mess!" Blah, Blah.....
Complain about this comment
Is it important to get historical facts right? After reading George Orwell, I would think so!
Complain about this comment
Mistakes happen but to insult the last generation at the time when no procecution of the G20 incident makes transparent government a farce.Now as an act of transparency apologies for both incidences before Nick Clegg takes your thunder?
Complain about this comment
I can not use the words to describe my dissgust at Cameron, as this post would never pass the moderators.
What a spineless excuse for a national leader he is. This is tantamount to treachery. I am totally disgusted and embarrssed by him. I can only imagine what those who did and were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice might think of this belittlment of their efforts.
In a few years time, if, God forbid, he somehow manages to cling onto his position, will he be saying the same about the UK forces who are presently making the same sacrifice in Afghanistan?
I have said this once before in a post and will state it every time it is warranted ... for Heavens sake Dave, why dont you just shut up.
Complain about this comment
17. At 12:05pm on 22 Jul 2010, who2believe? wrote:
Yes it is important to get your facts right (by the way it was Germany who declared war on the US)
--------------
Indeed, facts are a good thing to get right. The US formally declared war on Germany on December 11, 1941 (Japan on December 8, 1941).
Complain about this comment
It's not the "1940" bit that worries me - that's merely a slip.
The words "junior partner" are what really concern me. Even the EU have never called us that.
Thanks Dave - you've confirmed we're the 51st state. Let the righties never mention the UK's sovreign rights again.
Complain about this comment
OK...You tell me which historical facts ARE correct then...
None of us know the truth about anything, we think we do, we like to appear 'knowledgeable', to conform to the common view... We are told what to believe and we believe everything we are told.
The future fog of the internet and media control will 'destroy' history, just look at any modern film set in the past to see how our modern views colour it. Just hear any conspiracy theory, just have a bigoted view, just be religious, your history could be anything.
Complain about this comment
i said right at the beging they were a imcompetent bunch and this latest gaff goes towards proof of it.he went to eton for godsake! the best of a education wasted on a no brian and what do we do make him, PM.some of the postings have already made the point and there right,we are a laughing stock, it's an insult to all those brave men who went through the ordeal of dunkirk then the battle of britain and i might add, one certian chap from the good old USA called kennedy was reporting that he did'nt think we would last much longer.no what with clegg and his gaffs its too much to bear,do the decent thing, GO!
Complain about this comment
Wether "Historical Facts" are correct or not depends upon who is writing the story. The victor in a military conflict becomes the story teller, and generally vilifies their advesary. Histroy's records of atrocities rarely include those perpatrated by the victor, and often enhances those of the vanquished. As time passes true history becomes more tainted by design as records are altered or destroyed.
Complain about this comment
As much as it might pain people to know it, david Cameron is probably correct. Don't forget, Britain was on the verge of bankrupcy in the 1930's as WW2 started. True, we did play a significant part in the conflict but don't forget, we also relied heavily on Indian, New Zealand and Australian troops in the far east. The Russians eventually provided the military force in Eastern Europe. The Americans and Canadians re-supplied and reinforced the allied effort and those two countries paid a heavy price for their efforts. Britain ceretainly faced adversity and great hardship. We did play a significant role in the conflict but we weren't the senior partner in the allied effort. If we were Montogomery, not Eisenhower would have been in command on D-Day.
Complain about this comment
"What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941"
Right. So I just made up Monty outwitting the Desert Fox in Africa then did I? And all those Battle of Britain pilots flying sorties 24 hours a day to fend off the Luftwaffe weren't flying with any enthusiasm? How about the Battle Of Kasserine Pass in North Africa? American defeat wasn't it? Like the Phillipines. America won the war because of it's production capabilities, which, unlike Europe's weren't affected by bombing.
You are talking nonsense.
Complain about this comment
"56. At 12:32pm on 22 Jul 2010, Len Day wrote:
You're quite right with most of your analysis, but I would also point out that number 6 - Pearl Harbour, that we actually gave the Americans our invention - Radar, and they were actually using it on the morning of the attack."
Yes - the point I was making was that if you know the date of Pearl Harbour, and the fact that that catapulted the USA into WWII, you would be able to calculate that in 1940 they were not at war!
Complain about this comment
I think there has been and there still is a lot od dodgy re,writing of history going on (especially in the US and other fundimentalist nations).
i think its important that Cameron doesnt air brush us out of history any more that the US already has.
Its shocking the sheer ignorance over WWII thats coming out of the US posters on this topic.
The UK was the only country to stand up to Hitler...FACT
The war would have been won eventually even without US troops, but perhaps not without thier trade....FACT
Finally it was RUSSIA that had the greatest input.....FACT
The UK and the USSR won the war. the US were just tourists with big wallets.
Complain about this comment
6. At 11:49am on 22 Jul 2010, RP_sheff wrote:
A poor as Cameron's comments were, Millibands in response were worse.
----------------------------------------------
Getting a tad boring and repetitive this 'your mistake is bigger than mine' carry on.... Gove, Clegg, Cameron... all screwed up something within weeks of taking the chair...
Rather than sniping at the opposition, you should be seriously worried that if they cant get the small stuff correct, then what hope is there in getting their main activity correct. Its being proved that one does not know what the other is doing.
Complain about this comment
As importantly, what do the Scots think about being badmouthed by him at the first available opportunity? Presumably they're third assistant to the junior partner in Dave's mind.
Complain about this comment
What's it matter ??? Cameron is just telling the "yanks" what they think anyway...they were brought up on old war movies starring Errol Flynn and John Wayne who single-handedly won World War 2 ...... according to Hollywood and countless TV movies.The US public think Flynn captured Burma after all and that the American navy captured the Enigma decoding machine in 1939 by capturing and sinking a german u-boat(two years before they were actually at war with Germany...pretty good going) and don't forget half the RAF Battle of Britain pilots were yanks masquerading as canadian(explains the texan drawl) !!!
Complain about this comment
I agree with some of the people on here when they say the right description for our US relationship is that we are allies. The US in 1941 had all the machinery, technology and a major amount of manpower. We had the manpower from the empire, some machinery (spitfire, navy, bombers) but most importantly experience. It was an excellent team effort and should be applauded.
We may be the poorer side of the alliance but if we were not important the US would have got rid of us ages ago. We bring distinctly different skills and knowledge to the various dealings we have with all things we do.
I for one am proud to be British.
Complain about this comment
It was obviously a silly slip of the tongue as he knows full well when America entered the war. He'll be embarrassed by his mistake and it'll be forgotten when the media find something else to jump on.
What I find far more disappointing and depressing is the reaction to his mistake. To hear so many people on this board saying how "upset" "offended" "insulted" they are really shows that we have lost the blitz spirit and the determination that got this country through.
If people are so upset about this, God help us when something serious happens.
Complain about this comment
Everybody gets everything wrong about WW2. Like who really won it. For me that is not the point. It's the fact that he should say such a thing at all. What could possibly be his motive. The man, and those he represents, clearly see the UK as a second rate, no hope, washed up country. There are implication of this.
First it makes for a grab the money and run attitude.
Second, it will make us even more of a pawn of the USA - we will be paying taxes to them next. If we are not already.
Thirdly, if that is what the Conservatives believe, and I include the Labour and Liberal conservatives, why are we still trying to be a 'power' in the World with all those weapons? I cannot imagine any other European politician saying such a pathetic thing. It is a keyhole through which we may view the man's total mediocrity.
Complain about this comment
40. At 12:20pm on 22 Jul 2010, Pat Burger wrote:
What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941.
Err, Pat, Britain was NEVER in Europe prior to 1939 (apart from Gibraltar). It sent an expeditionary force to help the French and Belgians in 1940. This is the army that retreated from the advancing German army via Dunkirk but Britain lost no territory in that engagement.
I should also point out that throughout history since the 17C Britain has never engaged in warfare on Continental Europe without allies. In the wars against Louis XIV, Louis XV, Napoleon, Russia (Crimea) and WW1 Britain made alliances with other continental nations to fights common enemies. Just as the channel makes it very difficult for a continental invader to invade Britain, it also makes it difficult for Britain without continental allies from invading the continent thus almost preventing Britain acting independently on the continent.
Marlborough's victories against the French were in alliance with Holland, Savoy etc; Waterloo was an Anglo/Dutch/Prussian victory. Even Henry V's victories in the Hundred Years' war, he was in alliance with Burgundy.
The last time Britain (England actually) was kicked out of occupied territory in Europe was when it lost Calais in the reign of Mary I.
Of course, the Battle of Yorktown was really a French victory over Britain....
Whether Britain could ever have defeated the Nazis had Hitler not firstly invaded the USSR and secondly declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbour is an interesting but irrelevant hypothetical question. After WW1 it was pretty clear that to retain a balance of power in Europe against Germany would require external (ie US or Russian) intervention. That is hardly a criticism of Britain's capabilities or enthusiasm simply a matter of geographic and economic reality.
Complain about this comment
As usual we don't let the facts get in the way of the usual jingoistic, delusional little England rubbish that a topic like this brings out!
The facts are that Britain didn't win a land battle in WWII until the Russian's and US joined in. What does that tell us? That Cameron is right - though of course such realism is treason for some!
Complain about this comment
I could forgive Camer(a)on if we hadn't just had a commemorative service, not two weeks ago, to remember the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain...
I don't think there where many Americans involved in this, Empire countries such as Canadians, Aussies and New Zealanders, some Indians, Poles, Czechs, and free French fought in this. The Yanks were happy to sit back and watch as their biggest competitors brought each other to their knees, then they stepped in to dominate (Help?) the world, leading to the devaluation of Sterling and the sales of Gold, Oil and other commodities transferred from Sterling to Dollar transactions ensuring that the superpower of the time, i.e. the British Empire, was relegated to the "Junior" position, (see marshall plan and 1949 Sterling devaluation.)
Complain about this comment
He has already proved beyong doubt that he is an Idiot, what more is there to say? We all know that when war was declared Britain stood on it's own.
Complain about this comment
45. At 12:26pm on 22 Jul 2010, Sepenenre wrote:
Cameron seems to have gone over there with a remit to say anything to curry favour.
-------------------------------------------
Yes, thats the second tinme its happened - the last time it happened it was called 'The Conservative Party manifesto'.
Complain about this comment
I was surprised that Cameron made that major historical mistake. The UK wasn't a junior partner to anyone in 1940, it was the only country left standing on the Allied side at that time that single handedly defeated the Nazis attempt to invade. When I say singlehandedly that doesn't mean I've forgotten our Dominions and further Empire (and those wonderful Poles and Czeck pilots) at the time that also stood by us. However the vast bulk of defeating the Nazis attempt to invade Britain was by the British. That was the first major turning point in the war, and without it the Allies would not have been able to defeat the Nazis in the way they did. When the Americans and the Soviets later joined the Allies it became an EQUAL task for all three powers, and other than in the Pacific theatre the overal British contribution worldwide stood equally as those other powers in defeating the belligerants. There was no junior partner situation with Britain at all in WW2. The more 'junior' situation with the US started to come in after 1950 as British power diminished on the word stage. It's sad that Cameron said that to an American audience. It bellies a strange belief that some Americans have nowadays that they 'saved the UK from speaking German' and often have no understanding of what either the British Empire of the time and also the Soviets during WW2.
Either way, I think his overall message was the right one. Nowadays we are a 'junior partner' to the US in many joint issues the two countries pursue together. That's just a fact of reality. But at the same time we should recognise that if Britain doesn't agree with the US over an issue, we shouldn't be bowing down to them, any more than they should do for us.
Complain about this comment
"40. At 12:20pm on 22 Jul 2010, Pat Burger wrote:
What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941."
What, like the Americans were driven out of Vietnam by a much smaller and inferior force?
Complain about this comment
How dare he insult Britain for any reason!! America was not even in the war, and then only because they were attacked, until december 1941! Britain was the world leader against the fascist attacks in Europe.
Of course it is important to get historical events right. Your countries history is important in giving you a part of your national identity. It shows how you got where you are. It also shows you where you went wrong and how to avoid wrong doing in the future. Why do you want to deny things? Human's, in general, want to know their immediate history and their ancient history; hence all the movies' and history programmes' successes.
If we should just forget our past then why all the fuss over apartheid, slave trade and things like The Lost Children of Australia? Should we just say "oh that is history, forget it"?
Complain about this comment
If people have nothing better to do (and we here on HYS don't) it does make a difference. And rehashing "who won" WW2 is fun guy stuff isn't it? We get to bash the USA or the UK and talk about war. What's better than that?
But Cameron was, of course, just wrong. I think the foreign policy of Great Britain leading up to WW2 was utterly disasterous, the defense pact with Poland the greatest act of folly since the Entente Cordialle and assured that a minor Eastern European squabble turned into a global war thanks to Britain's Empire. You guys just blew it 20 different ways and then some. This was a war entirely of European making. The USA had, wisely, nothing to do with it. And should not have.
But in 1940.. please. The U.S. Army was like the 16th largest in the world, Rumania's was larger, and most were better equipped. The Navy was far more impressive but still not the "Two Ocean Navy" it became. The miracle of WW2 was the remarkable transformation of an isolationist, relatively minor military power into a superpower. But it didn't occur in 1940. Or 1941.
So a slip of the tongue methinks... this is what happens when you make your leaders fly coach on BA across the Atlantic people.
Complain about this comment
81. At 12:50pm on 22 Jul 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
The US supplied us with all our transport aircraft and our jeeps and most of the trucks. They supplied us with thousands of Sherman tanks (after 1943) and a few ships but everything else was made by Britain. All our Bombers (Lancasters, Hurricanes, Mosquitos) were British. The majority of our tanks (Churchills and Cromwells) were British. ALL our guns were British.
------------------------------------
Actually some Lancasters were Canadian built, manufactured by Victory Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, and powered by Packard (Detroit) built Merlin engines.
Complain about this comment
If we look into Statement of Most Honorable P.M. of UK afresh, it carried much deeper meaning of Love between the two Counties i.e. USA & UK as a whole within it which he unable to elaborate finely being it might be subjected to further criticism through doing of a distortion of his intention of doing the delivery through his speech after duly falling into the hands of us.
The referring of ‘Junior Partner’ was about the outcome of the Second World War for stating it during his giving of a Briefing being Territory wise UK is much smaller than USA and hence the reference of walking together jointly without spelling out any dependency of one over the other. It is a fact that the blunt of Second World War during the initial stage was carried or shouldered or absorbed alone by UK only with a direct confrontation between Nazis and the forces of UK with help from none which he knew of well. However the delivery was somewhat confusing for our arriving at the present conclusion.
Keeping the high regards towards the Army of UK intact or not allowing it to getting of a dent to occur; his Statement gave more emphasis on the old as well as current relationship between USA and UK which is coming under some strain reasonless. This is what he intended to deliver rather than announcing that the forces of UK any time allowed itself to be dominated by others while pursuing the cause of defeating the enemy which cannot be delivered in a straight forward language without drawing a reference onto it. This is what the fact is and we accordingly pray the entire Noble Personalities of all the three forces who are either living or sacrificed their lives for the cause; not to get hurt on deriving a direct meaning out of the Statement made by the Most Honorable Prime Minster David Cameron, anyway being he never intended to direct the remark towards the force that is protecting the Nation from its inception to belittle it anyway.
(Dr.M.M.HAZARIKA, PhD)
Complain about this comment
Cameron's supporters are calling this a storm in a teacup. If Gordon Brown had said this, we'd never have heard the end of it.
Complain about this comment
David Cameron boobed and badly.
If we had capitulted in that time he might never have been Prime Minister of this country.
We were an Empire then which would have hardly made us a junior party even though we had to take the initial brunt at the time but it would seem we tend to forget with time.
The americans joined us a little later as in world war1. We remain thanful for their help in restoring a form of Peace to this world.
Complain about this comment
THEIR NAME LIVETH FOR QUITE A WHILE AT LEAST.
Complain about this comment
I am absolutely disgusted with this.
I thought this man was supposed to be educated. Does he not realise that the only reason that the Americans came into the war was because Japan bombed them in 1942 then it became personal.
Until then they left Britain to fend for themselves knowing they could pick the carcass clean when Britain fell.
There were some who realised that the survival of Britain was paramount and so they dreamt up the lend lease agreement so they could supply arms and goods to Britain but it left us in their debt for decades after the war. In fact we paid it off in 2006 and that in it self gives you an insight into our so-called special relationship.
Why did Britain have to pay it? Surely Germany should have taken over the payment, but you can be sure America got its rewards plus more.
I think Mr Cameron should go back to his posh school and get his facts straight.
He has insulted many British people with his comments and should be made to make a public apology in the House.
Complain about this comment
In this day and age where everything you say is monitored by all and sundry, you have to be exactly right. Even if the people who record the errors do not know whether they are right or wrong they will pass or sell them on to someone who does and do their best to damage you or make money.
Lesson to be learnt Mr. Cameron. If you don't know or can't be precise say absolutely nothing. Perhaps it would be better if you stood down and studied for several more years before taking the big boys on. The other thing to avoid is the US Senate who are self opinionated know nothing red necks.
Complain about this comment
If you quote facts and figures, or statements of facts in a discussion, it is vital that the details quoted are 100% correct, or you leave yourself open to direct criticism always.
This is not rocket-science, it is basic common-sense.
The Prime Minister has let himself down here, and we must hope that this does not continue.
I hope that we do not continue to be subservient to The USA - they are not without blame in The World.
Complain about this comment
Forget Broken Britain now we are Demoted Britain.
Complain about this comment
Cameron made the mistake because he was relying on the cliche 'junior partner' to express his opinion, rather than choosing his words carefully, guided by a deeper understanding of the subject. Beware, he does this a lot!! End of.....
Complain about this comment
1st Class Honours Degree from Oxford?
No idea about British History.
Or was he just sucking up to the Yanks?
Complain about this comment
As far as I can make out from history, both the UK and US were junior partners to the USSR in terms of the scale of effort and number of lives spent.
Complain about this comment
Yes it is important. But then he was talking to americans who are never slow off the mark to claim credit for others' achievements.
Complain about this comment
English premier Mr David Cameron is the male version of US' also ran Sara Palin. Politicians the world over have the nasty habit of talking through their hats suffering from the incurable 'constipation of ideas and diarhhoea of words'. For Mr Cameron size matters even if it is zero.
Complain about this comment
Cameron is an intelligent man & a consumate politician. He made a stupid comment, & was most-likely instantly remorseful. Move on.
-----------
I agree he made a stupid comment!
As for the rest!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
@2. At 11:45am on 22 Jul 2010, paul tapner wrote:
1: mistakes happen.
2: not being one I wouldn't know
3: yes
4: if you have to ask that question you'll never know why
5: not sure. let me think on it
---------------------------
loved that concise comment, I would however slightly change it and say
1: mistakes happen, we are all only human.
2: not being one I wouldn't know, but I would hope they forgive him
3: yes, just apologise for genuine mistakes
4: if you don't learn from history - you are doomed to repeat the mistakes made then
5: the cynic in me wants to say it may have been intentional to appease the US in the wake of the BP & Al-megrahi saga - but to be fair it was probably just a genuine mistake - I may have learnt history at school etc - but I can't remember all the dates of everything!
For all the government hater comments - we are ALL human and make mistakes, yes YOU too! it does not prove that the government this or that, and I won't quote any historical slip-ups of GB in return for your silence.
peace
Complain about this comment
A very significant mistake by David Cameron PM - very disappointing.
It would be appropriate and necessary for the Prime Minister, on reflection, to apologise, in the House of Commons, when he has recovered from his jet-lag - rather than rely on weasel words from 10 Downing Street?
Indeed, we have to assume this disgraceful slight, on all service personnel and civilians, from ALL countries who aligned, served and fought with, and for, Britain against Hitler, was unintended.
In addition, it has only been in recent times, that Britain has finally paid the massive financial bills that American involvement cost. There was no altruism involved from US Government - indeed - it drove a very healthy regeneration of industry and the stock market that collapsed after Germany defaulted on it's loans and drove fascism to power?
However, what is never recoverable and can never be 're-paid', is the loss of life for ALL families of so many nations who fought against Hitler, including Germans too.
Complain about this comment
"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis" he said during his first trip to the US as prime minister."
What do they teach at Eton? In 1940 Britain was the front line! The Americans were anxious not to get involved in a European conflict. Even when the US was drawn into the war it is still wrong to say Britain was a junior partner. There was an alliance against the Axis powers made up of what was left of the free world. Mr Cameron is using language in an effort to ...well I cant say what I want to say here because I will breach some rules ... win the United States approval or good opinion shall we say, in the light of BP and it's recent troubles.
Complain about this comment
I don't one can speak about junior or senior partners in war efforts like the ones undertaken in WWI and WWII. In a conflict of that scale, anyone's efforts are titanic and trying to order involvement on a scale of any kind is impossible, insulting and utterly useless.
Yeah, sure, perhaps in a bunch of historians were given a few millions in funds and a few years deadline, they might be able to effectively give a quantitative appreciation ... and then what?
Mr Cameron has committed an error (though maybe not a grave one and definitely not intentional).
Complain about this comment
Oh and Trevor Mallory qoute you: "We led as senior partner until the Americans came on stream and they took over. Its why Eisenhower was the overall commander of D-Day, for example, and not a UK general"
Might want to check historical facts. Eisenhower was given the Supreme Commander position from 1944 for political reasons, however the person who planned and was in Command of all Allied ground forces during Overlord (including D-Day) was Field Marshall Montgomery.
Complain about this comment
"Is it important to remember historical dates?"
Yes, many people don't know that WWII began, because till June of 1941 Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were staunch allies.
And that at Yalta US and UK sold their WWII allies down the river:
into half a century long Soviet slavery.
Complain about this comment
I thought the Eton Rifles won the war.
Complain about this comment
It is not a minor mistake, this is a major blooper by our Prime Minister.
Great Britain led the allied defence against Germany, the Allies being the other European countries fighting at the time, the USA were too busy getting out of recession by supplying weapons.
Canada gave much more support in weapons, fuel, food and clothing but little is said about this country, likewise Australia. Our ties are more with the commenwealth countries and that is who we should be partners with (full partners) not the juniors with USA as Cameron put's it. There is nothing we need from the US, but plenty to gain from other countries including Europe.
Complain about this comment
Is it important to get historical facts right? Err, very important.
Complain about this comment
82. At 12:53pm on 22 Jul 2010, Mustafa Yorumcu wrote:
Cameron is right.
Britain was never fully engaged in WW-II (unlike WW-I. Now, that is different.).
British presence in the Continental Europe ceased almost as soon as the war started. There were some battles in North Africa and Southeast Asia. The rest was about defending Britain from German invasion, which didn't take place thanks to USSR and then USA.
British losses in WW-II is 382000. USA losses is 416000. Soviet losses is 10 million. German losses 5 million.
The modern portrayal of British involvement in WW-II is marginally better than romantic rubbish.
Even the US involvement in overblown.
The war really took place between Germany and USSR.
So, Cameron knows history better than more than half of the people here.
--------------------------------
So the Blitz was romantic rubbish?
Coventry never happened huh?
Try telling the same to the people of London, Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Clydebank, Sheffield, Liverpool, Southampton etc etc
The invasion of Britain did not take place because Hitler decided to direct his campaign to the east, and Russia. The USA had nothing to do with the Germans decision not to invade England.
British total losses in WW2 including civilians were 449,800 (67,100 civilians), the USA's losses were 418,500 including just 1,700 civilians, the USSR's losses were 23,954,000 including civilians and those who died in the Holocaust, Germany's total losses were between 6.5 and 8.8 million, French losses were 567,600.
Complain about this comment
I find it curious that once again most posters on HYS completely ignore the Pacific front in WWII. Britain had many colonial holidngs in and around the Pacific theater. Whereas defeating the Axis in Europe and North Africa was a group effort, the US did the bulk of the fighting in the Pacific region.
Complain about this comment
>>What do you think of David Cameron's historical slip?
He obviously got the date wrong and didn't want to just correct it because it would admit he made a mistake. You could argue we were a junior partner in 1940 but it would have been to France (before the German Invasion) not with America. After France fell we of course had the help of Commonwealth countries and soldiers from the occupied territories like France, Poland, Czechoslavakia etc, but we certainly weren't junior to any of them.
>>Could his mistake alienate former troops?
I doubt it. Those who like him will forgive him or try to justify his comments, those that don't will use it as another example of why they don't.
>>Is it important to remember historical dates? If so why?
As someone with a degree in History (I believe Cameron may have a degree with History in it as well) of course I will say yes but I think you can be forgiven on the actual specifics provided the reading of the event is correct. The dates are meaningless if you don't take the lessons of the events.
>>Given his speech was about the relationship between the US and the UK and >>not about WWII, does it matter that he got the facts wrong?
Of course the audience affects a speech (as it always does). He wasn't likely to say that four fifths of the German Army including all it's best formations were deployed on the Eastern Front trying to stop the Soviets, because that would take away something from the US and UK who had to face less than one fifth of the remainder. History can be interpreted in whatever way someone wishes and Hollywood in particular is notorious for "adapating" History in a way that makes America look good. They are not alone in doing that though as most national histories do it as well.
Complain about this comment
It's easy to get historical facts wrong... afteral there are still plenty of people who think that Thatcher was good for us.
Complain about this comment
WWII was one of the most significant dates in modern history. For the PM to make such a statement is shockingly ignorant. How does he think this will make those who served and their families feel? Does he really care? mmm...
Complain about this comment
110. At 1:09pm on 22 Jul 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:
...What, like the Americans were driven out of Vietnam by a much smaller and inferior force?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Quite. Well since we've gone knockabout, I gather the US wants to sue for peace with the Taliban. That'll be "Hamburger-eating surrender monkeys", then.
Complain about this comment
i have never seen such a fuss being made in regards to this. We are the junior partner as we do not have the economic strength as the US nor the huge military resources nor are we the dominant power. The date was worng but when he was being interviewed by that tool from Sky he was responding quickly and made an error of judgment - an apology was made by Downing Street later so job done - settle down for the love of god - i`m amased a Facebook page hasn`t been set-up!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
"all Americans know that WW2 started in December 1941."
And all Russian know that WWII started in June of 1941.
And all Europeans believe that WWII ended on May 8th, 1945.
Pathetic, isn't it? ;)
Complain about this comment
I know that history is written by the victors, but I didn't know that sometimes, some victors are so gracious as to surrender their own victories to other countries.
In this particular surrender of British deeds to the Americans, I am ashamed for David Cameron. His recollection of British/American individual contributions is nothing but ingratiating to the Americans. To the Americans, Cameron's failure to puff out his chest and do justice to the Brits must have seemed pitiful, and don't think the rest of the world failed to notice.
What do I think of David Cameron's historical slip?
On such an important matter, Mr. Cameron should have had his facts at this fingertips; he should've spoken from a position of pride.
Could his mistake alienate former troops?
His mistakes should alienate former troops and cause the current troops to wonder if he knows where they are and what they are doing.
Reminder: Britain was the only Allied country to be in WW2 from the beginning to the very end.
The French surrendered in June 1940, but Britain carried on. IF Britain had surrendered Germany would’ve been in control of the entire continental Europe and thus enabled to turn its full force towards Russia.
Without Britain, “The Longest Day” would have been fictional instead of the bloody, sacrificing victory that it was.
I could go on, but let's ask Mr. Cameron to finish up, shall we?
Complain about this comment
He just misspoke. Get over it.
Complain about this comment
If you are visiting a country, in an official capacity, as representative of your nation, it is not acceptable to make this kind of mistake. If you are criticizing the person who made the mistake you ought to get your facts straight first. Both 'mistakes' seem to be the result of poor education, and a very shallow understanding of relatively recent history.
I am sure our Prime Minister had plenty of people to brief him...... do they also suffer from this lack of understanding of history. A collective mistake, or a facile throwaway reading of the past? Bring back politicians who actually know something about the world.
Complain about this comment
Quick survey....
Hands up all those on this forum who have NEVER made a mistake when talking about any subject what so ever ?
If there are any hands up, you are lying.
It's like nobody these days is allowed to make a mistake anymore and if you do, you are treated like a criminal.
Get over it and move on.
Complain about this comment
"105. At 1:07pm on 22 Jul 2010, MaxiD wrote:
The facts are that Britain didn't win a land battle in WWII until the Russian's and US joined in. What does that tell us? That Cameron is right - though of course such realism is treason for some!"
You might want to look up the North African Campaign which was fought from June 1940 to May 1943. There were some significant victories for the Allies (which didn't include either the USA or USSR) during 1940 and 1941.
Operation Compass for example.
The First and Second Battles of El Alamein (1942) had no US or USSR involvement either, but effectively ended Rommel's chances of victory in North Africa.
Complain about this comment
Certainly after the Fall of France, Churchill knew that without America's active involvement in the war then the UK could not prevail against Hitler. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and Hitler declared war on the US, Churchill again was concerned that the US would decide to deal with Japan first, he was delighted when the US decided that the defeat of Germany was its primary objective.
By September 1944, the US had more troops engaged in Europe that the UK did and the US dictated the strategy and war aims. Not surprising as the world's largest economy, it had from 1942 onwards, provided the money, manpower and material to pursue the war.
Despite some revisionist historians view, it was an Allied victory, but the US was the only country in a position to benefit immediately post-war.
Complain about this comment
It very much seems to me that Mr Cameron, our esteemed PM, is only in the USA for one reason, to effectively suck up to the American administration and media.
I find this repugnant and beneath the office of PM. Cameron should be ashamed of himself.
Finally, this slip of the tongue re the dates, simply an oversight on his staffs part, but it is the language in general that angers me, a subservient junion partners language indeed!
Nothing has changed from the Blair days.
T
Complain about this comment
Yes. It's embarrassing that we have a Prime Minister who appears to be ignorant of such basic details of our recent history. He shouldn't be parading his ignorance of British history so transparently on the world stage, nor should he be belittling Britain abroad in the way he is.
Apparently the only thing he appreciates about British culture is Wellington boots.
Complain about this comment
It's not the smartest comment I've ever heard in the mouth of a British premier. Nonetheless, it was a comment made for US domestic consumption with probably little thought been given to it's historical accuracy or how it would sound to a UK domestic audience. As Mr. Cameron actually did history at university, it is less forgiveable. Still what he offered was his opinion of a historical situation, there being no absolute facts up for discussion. Indeed this very topic shows a failure to appreciate that historical facts are in reality accepted wisdom about past events. Whose interpretation changes through time. Like a criminal charge the only historical facts are that someone or something did something on a particular date, the rest I am afraid is open to interpretation, especially when one starts to posit motivation and intent.
Complain about this comment
I think we are all being a bit over-sensitive. The comments made by David Cameron appear to me to be accurate, in the context of numbers. He qualified the 'junior' bit quite correctly. As a nation we have exercised a great deal of influence within the partnership with the USA, but they have always had the lead-role in military affairs, by virtue of the sheer number of troops and resources they have committed to the operation. Eisenhower was in overall command of Operation Overlord (D Day), Norman Schwarzkopf was in overall command for Operation Desert Storm in 1991, NATO's SACEUR,Supreme Allied Commander is headed by a U.S. four star general or admiral with the dual-hatted role of heading U.S. European Command and always has been and of course the operations in Iraq in 2003 were also commanded by an American. In Afghanistan today it is General David Petraeus. In many ways we 'punch above our weight' in this relationship and long may it be so. We can be proud of the fact that we may be small in number, but we are great in heart.
Complain about this comment
"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis" said D.C. But he didn't say junior to The United States so NAR NAR NA NAR NAR! he was being historically accurate. He was, of course referring to CANADA, the "junior" referring to the size of the UK in comparison to Canada's substantial kland mass.
Or, if he was, as is implied referring to the United States then perhaps that's because he's on a different time-space continuum to the rest of us, wholly consistent with him coming from another universe to the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
" The US in 1941 had all the machinery, technology and a major amount of manpower."
No, it didn't. US basically disarmed after WWI and destroyed its intelligence service as well.
America started to arm only after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
As usual: slowly but surely. With obvious consequences.
[present day U.S. enemies: please take notice]
Complain about this comment
81. At 12:50pm on 22 Jul 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
58. At 12:33pm on 22 Jul 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:
****
****
Complete and utter tosh. Our army was equipped with Sten submachine guns, Mk III & IV Lee-Enfield rifles, Bren and Vickers machine guns. All british made. Our artillery was British made as was our tanks. Our airforce was equipped with Hurricane and Spitfires. All British Made. The few fighter aircraft the US supplied in 1940 were far inferior and only fit for the desert war.
***
The point Mr Wonderful Reality was making was that while we did have artillery, rifles, machine guns etc, most of it got left in France. Its all well and good having the blueprints for all this stuff, but even without a world war its not possible to essentially restock an enlarged army with amterial almost from scratch.
Complain about this comment
112. At 1:11pm on 22 Jul 2010, Rather_Be_Cycling wrote:
If people have nothing better to do (and we here on HYS don't) it does make a difference. And rehashing "who won" WW2 is fun guy stuff isn't it? We get to bash the USA or the UK and talk about war. What's better than that?
True
But Cameron was, of course, just wrong. I think the foreign policy of Great Britain leading up to WW2 was utterly disasterous, the defense pact with Poland the greatest act of folly since the Entente Cordialle and assured that a minor Eastern European squabble turned into a global war thanks to Britain's Empire. You guys just blew it 20 different ways and then some. This was a war entirely of European making. The USA had, wisely, nothing to do with it. And should not have.
Had the USA joined the League of Nations (it was Woodrow Wilson's idea after all, but an isolationist congress rejected membership) it is quite likely that it could have taken serious action against totalitarian states that ignored international law and treaty obligations. Had France not humiliated (with Wilson's connivance) Germany at Versaille then it's like Germany would never have become totalitarian. However, these are entirely hypothetical questions. What isn't is that by 1939 it was clear that Hitler had grander plans than merely reuniting the German peoples spread across central Europe but expanision and building a racist and fascist continental empire. As such it threatened all free nations and was a conflict that would inevitably go global whether Britain or the US ignored it or not.
But in 1940.. please. The U.S. Army was like the 16th largest in the world, Rumania's was larger, and most were better equipped. The Navy was far more impressive but still not the "Two Ocean Navy" it became. The miracle of WW2 was the remarkable transformation of an isolationist, relatively minor military power into a superpower. But it didn't occur in 1940. Or 1941.
True. Part of the miracle was very quickly turning its manufacturing plants into weapons production factories. These initially supplied Britain in European theatres (enabling it to win at El Alamein and throw the axis powers out of North Africa) as well as US troops in the Pacific theatre.
So a slip of the tongue methinks... this is what happens when you make your leaders fly coach on BA across the Atlantic people.
According to the Independent he was offered a free upgrade to First Class but declined the opportunity so as to set an example. He flew Business Class which should have been more than adequate for anyone to do serious business after an 8 hour flight.
Complain about this comment
#105. At 1:07pm on 22 Jul 2010, MaxiD wrote:
As usual we don't let the facts get in the way of the usual jingoistic, delusional little England rubbish that a topic like this brings out!
The facts are that Britain didn't win a land battle in WWII until the Russian's and US joined in. What does that tell us? That Cameron is right - though of course such realism is treason for some!
---------------------------
Just because the Yanks and the Russians joined in towards the latter part of WW2, does not mean that Britian was reduced to a "junior partner". We were all supposed to be "Allies" fighting the same just cause, not a partnership anyway. Cameron, to my mind, only came out with his uncalled for comment, to appease the American's due to the current problems between the two countries ie BP and Lockerbie. In my opinion Cameron was wrong to say what he did. If he was referring to the state of play nowadays that is fair enough, but he shouldn't have compared it to 1940.
Complain about this comment
118. At 1:14pm on 22 Jul 2010, RonC wrote:
There were some who realised that the survival of Britain was paramount and so they dreamt up the lend lease agreement so they could supply arms and goods to Britain but it left us in their debt for decades after the war. In fact we paid it off in 2006 and that in it self gives you an insight into our so-called special relationship.
-----------------------------
But the interest rate on that loan was diminutive, and the long time period made it affordable.
-----------------------------
Why did Britain have to pay it? Surely Germany should have taken over the payment, but you can be sure America got its rewards plus more.
-----------------------------
Sure, if Germany had been made to repay the money, we'd have gone straight back to the 1930's and the likes of Hitler all over again.
Punitive measures against Germany after the First World War resulted in the Nazis gaining power.
-----------------------------
I think Mr Cameron should go back to his posh school and get his facts straight.
He has insulted many British people with his comments and should be made to make a public apology in the House.
-----------------------------
It was a bit of a boo-boo...
Complain about this comment
16. At 12:02pm on 22 Jul 2010, Sat_Tyre wrote:
Well, if someone with a brain the size of a planet such as "Wiser than You" can believe the Nazi-Soviet pact of August 1939 was actually signed in 1938, then it's perfectly understandable that an inferior being like Cameron might get his dates wrong.
Still, in 1940, Britain was the junior partner to nobody in WW2 as there was no-one left apart from Britain (and its empire, of course).
However, I'm sure using 1940 to an American audience would simply confuse them as all Americans know that WW2 started in December 1941.
What are you on about?! According to the Americans, there's never been a war they have ever lost! The US military still refuse to acknowledge the war in Vietnam, Korea or the Gulf. If anything, I commend Cameron for his satire. Slip of the tongue?? Please! Next he'll have to apologise for repeating their phrase "God bless America, and no where else..."
Complain about this comment
From June 1940, Britain stood alone against the might of Hitler's armed forces, and did so until Hitler's invasion of Russia, and the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. So Britain and its' Commonwealth were NOT the junior partners, they were the only barrier to a Europe ruled by the tyranical Nazi forces. The USA, as usual stood back until they had no option but to join in. Methinks Cameron should have paid more attention to History at school, and less on politics. It's bad enough that Americans think they won the 2nd World War on their own, without being encouraged by the like's of Cameron. Granted we would never have defeated Germany on our own, but in 1940, we were on our own.
Complain about this comment
Whether it's true or not Cameron should have kept his mouth shut. His remarks, to say the least, were very insensitive.
Complain about this comment
118. At 1:14pm on 22 Jul 2010, RonC wrote:
"...I thought this man was supposed to be educated. Does he not realise that the only reason that the Americans came into the war was because Japan bombed them in 1942 then it became personal."
OUCH, OUCH, OUCH! considering the topic of this HYS you might have made the effort to note that the attack on Pearl Harbour that triggered the United States' entry into World War 2 was in December 1941. You're as bad as Cameron! (No, I take that back: you are a very, very long way off being as bad as Cameron).
Complain about this comment
@99. At 1:04pm on 22 Jul 2010, Lard_Cheeses wrote:
As importantly, what do the Scots think about being badmouthed by him at the first available opportunity? Presumably they're third assistant to the junior partner in Dave's mind.
-------------------------------------
The truth? I was disgusted with the haste with which he sought to distance himself from this decision and bad mouth the Scottish parliament. He may have disagreed with the decision, but his denouncement (I'm in violent agreement with President Obama - is Scotland next on the invasion list?!), was too hasty and had a snidey element to it.
It was also just another example of the embarassing grovelling toadyism with which he conducted himself throughout this visit, like he couldn't wait to jump on Obamas - England a 3rd rate nation at best bandwagon. I'm referring to England not the UK because that's what most Americans call the UK, they didn't even know that the decision to free al-Megrahi was made by the Scottish parliament.
The only reason that this was brought up by the Americans (al-Megrahi) was because they were implying that a deal had been done by "British Petroleum" and this was just another way of having a pop at "England".
What a complete whoose (as the Americans would say), no wonder they have no respect for us. It's very entertaining reading his defenders on this HYS, "a slight slip" etc If this had been Gordon Brown it would have been the biggest gaffe of the century, but then Gordon wouldn't have been stupid enough to make such an ignorant remark.
Obama had respect for Gordon Brown and stated this on several occasions, he described Cameron after their first meeting (whilst still in opposition) as a political lightweight.
That's one thing he got right!
Complain about this comment
"The war really took place between Germany and USSR."
Oh, really? So the Invasion of Sicily and Normandy were not necessary?
[teell that to Stalin, who begged for U.S.'s help]
And U.S. troops sailed Pacific all the way to Imperial Japan mostly for fun?
[And they say it's US public school education which is inferior. :(]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Of course getting historical facts correct isn't important. If it was Hollywood would have stopped making films many decades ago.
Anyway we won the war. I saw a documentary about it and we had daleks and lasers and Spitfires in space. Or was that Doctor Who?
Complain about this comment
First of all - what a stupid question. History is all about facts. If a fact is incorrect then it is no longer a fact. For God's sake BBC, I've heard of dumbing down, get a grip.
Secondly, for Cameron to get his historical facts so wrong is a slur on our Nation who stood alone against the Nazis for nearly 2 years. It just about sums up him as a person and his cobbled together shambles of a Government. The sooner he and his despicable millionaire cronies disappear into history the better.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it is important to get facts right if you're representing a country in front of millions.
What irks me more is that he slighted the amazing effort we put into the war in an attempt to massage the egos of the Americans. Why does he feel the need to grovel and roll over and totally demean this country by suggesting we're a junior partner in anything? I don't hear him saying the same to Russia with regards to their great war effort. I don't hear any other European country being so quick to belittle themselves in front of another nation. It sounds pathetic and needy and embarrassing.
Complain about this comment
" 82. At 12:53pm on 22 Jul 2010, Mustafa Yorumcu wrote:
Cameron is right.
Britain was never fully engaged in WW-II (unlike WW-I. Now, that is different.).
British presence in the Continental Europe ceased almost as soon as the war started. There were some battles in North Africa and Southeast Asia. The rest was about defending Britain from German invasion, which didn't take place thanks to USSR and then USA. "
Another Eton graduate!
in 1940 Britain fought in Norway, in France, in Belgium. In 1941 we fought in Greece then Crete, in Egypt, in Libya, in Malta. We fought in Malaya, Singapore and in Hong Kong. In 43 we fought in Dieppe in Northern France, in Tunisia and in Italy. Throughout that time we'd dropped agents and raided occupied europe (like the St Nazaire raid) In '44 we fought right across Europe (D-Day was not lead by Eisenhower but by Monty) and in 1945 it was British troops in Northern Germany ensuring the Russians didn't take Denmark.
Thats just the army. At sea the Royal Navy fought everywhere from the Arctic Ocean to the River Plate (Uruguay/Argentina) in the Pacific and the Med. I lost relatives in the arctic convoys which supplied Russia with weapons we could ill afford to give. The RAF bombed Germany for 6 years losing 80,000 men.
The reason we weren't invaded in 1940 was because the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe. No air superiority meant no invasion. Russia wasn't invaded until May 1941 and it was BRITISH tanks defending Moscow in Dec '41.
The 'some battles' in South East asia were Kohima and Imphal- battles you've probably never heard of but which stopped the 'invincible' Japanese army at the gates of India with bayonet charges across tennis courts.
The US army didn't see combat against Germany until 1943 where in the Kassarine Pass Rommel gutted the US armoured units and needed Scottish troops to rescue them.
Complain about this comment
What do they teach them at Eton and Oxbridge?
Have a feeling that if my east London comp had competed against a private boys school in the subject of history it would have thrashed them just as roundly as it did in geography in the 70s.
But actually Cameron don't worry about offending my 91 year old Burma veteran dad - he's already pretty offended by your very existence as an overprivileged destroyer of all the things he fought for: the NHS, good state education for all etc, etc. Just wants to know if you've already printed the food tickets for us - he remembers them from the thirties. Probably another period you could do with a history lesson about.
Complain about this comment
Just goes to show what a juvenile PM we now have - the one who advised the Chancellor on Black Wednesday - as someone who lived through WW2 and experienced the Blitz in the centre of London, I am affronted that a British PM could make such a gaff. The Americans only came into the war after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. Surely every history lesson should teach this, or doesn't Eton bother with such details!
Complain about this comment
"As importantly, what do the Scots think about being badmouthed by him at the first available opportunity"
They think about releasing a mass murderer, (Libyan terrorist Megrahi) on phoney 'compassioned grounds' and they gulp.
Another gulp of a single malt.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is this the best you DC haters can come up with? Get a life.
Complain about this comment
A slip made on purpose by unfortunately a poodle more than the poodle. He has changed.
Complain about this comment
#146. At 1:29pm on 22 Jul 2010, Arthur1958 wrote:
He just misspoke. Get over it.
-----------------------------
Isn't it funny - when Cameron makes a mistake with something he says you say he misspoke, but when Brown or Blair made similar mistakes in the past they were classed by many as idiots or just plain stupid!
Complain about this comment
"Reminder: Britain was the only Allied country to be in WW2 from the beginning to the very end."
Say WHAT? Would you like to go suggest that to various and sundry Australians or New Zealanders you might run into around the place?
Complain about this comment
4. At 1:27pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
And all Russian know that WWII started in June of 1941.
That's wrong. All Russians know that the "Great Patriotic War" began in June 1941.
Whilst the UK and US were truly engaged in a global war (as were Germany and Japan) Russia's was a local conflict (albeit truly of national survival).
Whilst Russia did indeed lose by the the largest number of its citizens, when its battle tactics include sending unarmed soldiers into combat to pick up the arms of those killed in front of them before advancing, it should not surprise anyone that its casualty rate was far higher than the Western Allies. Perhaps more important is the fact neither side showed the other side much mercy in its battles or in its treatment of POWs or civilians. Aerial bombing notwithstanding, the war in the west was quite civilised in comparison.
Complain about this comment
What is a historical fact ?
Depends upon who is writing history ! Britain is as good as any other country at rewriting history to suit the cause of the time.
As 90% of the globe has a free press and the freedom to objectivly assess history please cite an example of Britain re-writing it?
Complain about this comment
#157 "The point Mr Wonderful Reality was making was that while we did have artillery, rifles, machine guns etc, most of it got left in France. Its all well and good having the blueprints for all this stuff, but even without a world war its not possible to essentially restock an enlarged army with amterial almost from scratch."
About 10% of our armies equipment was left at Dunkirk. It was very rapidly replaced by British Industry, not American. Not only was in possible. We did it.
During the Battle of Britain British factories produced 400 Spitfires and Hurricanes a month... German factories produced 200 planes a month.
Complain about this comment
Everybody knows that the yanks won the war single handed, and without any help from us, they came over here, screwed our woman in exchange for bars of chocolate and nylons, the guns were in the other hand, just so you know.
They stood by and did nothing for the first 4 years and we in the UK were still paying the bill for that until a couple of years ago. Then the Japs decided that the "gun-ho" yanks needed to be pushed off the fence.
Ask the average American where Great Britain or the UK, is they will not even understand the question let alone where we are.
So let David Cameron patronise them a little, we do not have enough money to influence them but, we are the ONLY friend they have. maybe it will be too late for them when at last they realise that fact
Complain about this comment
Ron C wrote: The 40`s date relates to the era stupid, and after Dunkirk with the army beaten and less its equipment, the country in a perilous state, we were more than a junior partener...with anyone.
.......................................................................
Does anyone seriously believe we could have done anything but exist on a subsistence basis without aid from the USA? Let alone contemplate the Normandy landings? We were extremely significant alongside American troops and their supplies, nowhere without.
Complain about this comment
"However the vast bulk of defeating the Nazis attempt to invade Britain was by the British."
Would you care to break down an ethnic composition of RAF fighter pilots during the Battle of Britain?
And check who, squadron by squadron shot down more Nazi planes?
[never in the history of human conflict have so many been screwed up so much (Yalta) by so few]
Complain about this comment
Coining us as 'junior' makes it sound like we had little to do with the war. He'd be more historically accurate by saying that the American public wouldn't support helping the allies until Pearl Harbour.
Complain about this comment
138. At 1:25pm on 22 Jul 2010, DCHeretic wrote:
I find it curious that once again most posters on HYS completely ignore the Pacific front in WWII. Britain had many colonial holidngs in and around the Pacific theater. Whereas defeating the Axis in Europe and North Africa was a group effort, the US did the bulk of the fighting in the Pacific region.
-------------------------------------
I totally agree that most seem to ignore the Pacific front, and by doing so falsely inflate the numbers of US troops in Europe when in fact many were fighting in the Pacific. There were also large numbers of Australians and New Zealanders fighting in the Pacific, in their home waters.
Complain about this comment
So the tail is still wagging the dog. If this country wasn't run by Sun and Mail readers, hell-bent on perpatuating a deep-seated hatred of all things European, we would not have a succession of Prime Ministers, who out of fear, have been incapable of standing up to America.
Complain about this comment
Re R P sheff's remarks: in 1940 Russia and the Nazis were allies; Russia did not begin fighting Nazis until June 1941 when Hitler invaded Russia. A lot of individuals from other countries (including the USA) were fighting as volunteers in 1940 but the only regular forces involved were those of the British Empire.
Complain about this comment
#154. At 1:34pm on 22 Jul 2010, stephen wrote:
I think we are all being a bit over-sensitive. The comments made by David Cameron appear to me to be accurate, in the context of numbers. He qualified the 'junior' bit quite correctly. As a nation we have exercised a great deal of influence within the partnership with the USA, but they have always had the lead-role in military affairs, by virtue of the sheer number of troops and resources they have committed to the operation. Eisenhower was in overall command of Operation Overlord (D Day), Norman Schwarzkopf was in overall command for Operation Desert Storm in 1991, NATO's SACEUR,Supreme Allied Commander is headed by a U.S. four star general or admiral with the dual-hatted role of heading U.S. European Command and always has been and of course the operations in Iraq in 2003 were also commanded by an American. In Afghanistan today it is General David Petraeus. In many ways we 'punch above our weight' in this relationship and long may it be so. We can be proud of the fact that we may be small in number, but we are great in heart.
-------------------------------
That maybe so, but we were definitely not a junior partner to the US in 1940. Their involvment in WW2 did not really start until after the events of Pearl Harbour in 1941.
Complain about this comment
For all the government hater comments - we are ALL human and make mistakes, yes YOU too! it does not prove that the government this or that, and I won't quote any historical slip-ups of GB in return for your silence.
peace
---------------------------------------
People who do not support the government are quite at liberty to exercise their hard won(by the members of the forces) democratic right to pick up on errors. It is a right and a duty.
Those who would now condone Cemerons mistakes should remember if they have been so forgiving of the mistakes of others in the past.
I think the Americans call this 'payback time'.
Complain about this comment
"its worth pointing out that contrary to 'Saving Private Ryan' etc the majority of forces landed on D-Day were Commonwealth troops and the landing craft landing the US forces on Utah and Omaha beach were mostly skippered by Brits."
True. But who did most of the DYING while TAKING Omaha Beach?
[funny that Nazis and the French called it 'Omaha'. And 'Utah' ;-)))]
Complain about this comment
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some people are about WW2. Most of them still think Britain won it! They ignore, or are ignorant of, the very much bigger and better equiped army that the USA brought into the effort - we'd never have won on the Western Front without them i.e. 28 British & Commonwealth Divisions) & 99 US Divisions) fighting against 4 German Army & 2 Panzer Tank Divisions
And they also forget the tremendous battles of the Eastern Front, where the Soviet Red Army crushed a German force several times the size of the one we were fighting in Western Europe - i.e. German Army Strength:
176 Divisions & 14 Panzer Tank Divisions. Without the Soviet Red Army, the might of the German Army would have destroyed the Allied invasion force on the beach.
But then, didn't Churchill write, "History will be kind to me because I will write it..."? Just about says it all, really.
Complain about this comment
Having known a now sadly-deceased Polish ex-prisoner, first of the Russians and then the Germans (Russo-German Pact which partitioned Poland in 1939-40), I'm less bothered by David Cameron's mistake about 1940 than that made by RP-sheff on this forum -: "Russia were fighting the war against the Nazis".
Somebody should have told my Polish friend this "fact", perhaps on the same day that Russian soldiers turned him and his mates into fields to eat the grass. That was in 1940.
I thought everyone knew that the Soviets' Great Patriotic War against the Nazis started in the summer of 1941 when Hitler's forces invaded them.
Maybe there doesn't seem a lot of difference between 1940 and 1941 to people sitting in armchairs today. The difference meant and still means much more to people who were around and involved in the war at the time.
Complain about this comment
I am not worried that the PM made an error like this.
It was not an insult.
We all make mistakes and to pick on the PM for this error is rather pathetic.
Complain about this comment
"Is it important to get historical facts right?" - Sigh. Thats what this country is turning into I'm afraid. Does it matter if we are wrong ? Lets just do whats easiest & sweep our mistakes under the carpet.
Yes FACTS are important, otherwise we could just make up any rubbish & pass it off. Cameron is a buffoon, and should acknowledge he has made a MAJOR mistake, rather than trying to save face & looking worse for it.
Complain about this comment
179. At 1:46pm on 22 Jul 2010, AllieT wrote:
"Reminder: Britain was the only Allied country to be in WW2 from the beginning to the very end."
Say WHAT? Would you like to go suggest that to various and sundry Australians or New Zealanders you might run into around the place?
--------------------------------
I think they should have said the British Empire and not Britain, do you not think? That way we'll be nearer the truth, and not upset all our Commonwealth friends...
Complain about this comment
How on earth could we be the junior partner? "We" were the UK, the Commonwealth (or was it still the Empire then?), the French/Dutch/Poland/etc. Our tally far outnumbered the Americans, (who came in late as usual), so it cannot be that we were the junior body.
I voted for the Tory party at the last election however, Mr Cameron had best get his foot out of his mouth or we will be back to the 'Labour losers' next time.
Complain about this comment
Yes it's important to get historical facts right. However in the case at hand both DC and those who criticize him know little about said facts.
In fact Brits are among the most brainwashed people in the world. There's much they have to learn and even more government propaganda that they have to unlearn.
To start with, there was no battle of Britain. Of course something happened but it never amounted to a battle -- just low level air activity in which by the way the Germans beat them soundly.
No other country's historians -- except British -- recognize this figment of an overexcited British imagination -- the "battle" of Britain.
Fact is Hitler knew full well that could squash Britain under his jackboot at any time of his choosing. That's why didn't bother to finish with Britain and turned east to face a much more serious opposition.
Complain about this comment
We're as guilty in mis-remembering exactly who did what in the war.
Who knows that China lost around 15 million people of which 2/3 were civilians? Ever heard anyone talk of a remembrance day for the Chinese holocaust? Nope, me neither.
Soviet Russia lost 10 million soldiers and another 12 million civilians. With out that sacrifice and the associated cost to German forces the invasions of Italy and France would have failed.
The US only entered the war in December 1941 and expended far more effort dealing with its own problems in the Pacific than it did in Europe. Japanese loses total 3 million.
It should also be recognised that the US made a profit out of WW2 whereas we know that it cost the UK a whole empire.
Seems to be that if you weren't European, American or Jewish then your death has already been forgotten.
Complain about this comment
104. At 1:07pm on 22 Jul 2010, Sat_Tyre wrote:
"....The last time Britain (England actually) was kicked out of occupied territory in Europe was when it lost Calais in the reign of Mary I."
You're forgetting the Irish War of Independence when the Irish kicked us out in 1921 after 700 years. Though I suppose there's likely pedantry in the offing here as it's not 'mainland' Europe, and we still hung on to the North East corner where our colonist's descendants lived. But the point is - we lost - they won.
However you are right in that we didn't get involved in wars in mainland Europe without allies. It was much easier to sail around the world nicking countries off people who had no guns!
Oh yes, land of hope and glory!
Complain about this comment
7. At 11:49am on 22 Jul 2010, James wrote:
Who cares; it's not as if he doesn't have enough on his mind - no thanks to Gordon Brown and his also unelected cronies, all of whom have now too been consigned to history....
///
So even this is Brown's fault? I really wish I lived in your world, its simplicity is almost endearing.
Complain about this comment
The question is WHY did he say those things? Was it a genuine mistake? Or was he playing the audience?
Only he knows.
Regardless of cause and effect in America, it is likely to bite his bum back here!
Complain about this comment
It is important to have attention to detail. What Cameron berates Britain for being a broken Society often boils down to a lack of attention for detail eg. patients under the NHS being wheeled in for wrong operations because someone canoot tell the difference between 'Thomson' & 'Thompson', 'Latif' & ''Lateef', etc., etc.
Complain about this comment
Not only were we NOT junior partners in 1940, we & the British Empire were the ONLY ones fighting both the Nazis & the Japanese. the USA entered the war, effectively in Jan 1942, the Soviets only when attacked in June 1941. Until then the Soviets were allies of the Nazis & the Americans sat on the sidelines. We were the only country to have fought, against absolute evil, from the first to the last day of the war. We should be proud of what we did - shame on you Mr Cameron.
Complain about this comment
"this is what happens when you make your leaders fly coach on BA across the Atlantic people."
On a day when BA personnel is not on yet another strike.
[almost like the French, Greeks and Italians]
Complain about this comment
What a suck up is Cameron! Least Blair and Bush reciprocated the love. This is just sick bag and incorrect. He said it because its what he wanted The US to hear and believe that. What Cameron does and thinks is different. Oh just like he did to the voters.
Lots and lots of Gaffes from our Eton lads recently. Carry On Government eh ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Yes getting the historical facts correct is important especially to the leader of a Nation.
Cameron should apologise to all those he has offended( and there are many veterans), by belittling the stand that Britain took against the onslaught of the Nazi threat, while in 1940 American business's profited from both sides.
Complain about this comment
"like the Americans were driven out of Vietnam by a much smaller and inferior force?"
They weren't. [Tet Offensive was a disaster for Hanoi Commie regime]
US Forces were defeated by stoned hippies on the domestic front.
[Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya]
Btw. Have you been to 'free, succesful Vietnam', lately? ;) [I was]
Complain about this comment
David Cameron made a honest mistake but he really should check his history.
It is true that the UK was a junior partner in the D-Day landings but for the majority for the 2nd World War the UK had no partners and was pretty much alone against the monolithic might of the Nazi war machine.
This situation only began to change when Germany made the fatal mistake of attacking Russia.
Complain about this comment
Facts? Politicians? Surely you jest.
Complain about this comment
In a way, it's no big deal - he got the year wrong, but with regard to the war in general, he's right.
That being said, he's had a very expensive education, and he is the PM. You or me making that kind of mistake in everyday conversation is one thing, but for him to do so, as PM, is another.
Maybe it just reveals how in awe of the US our political and media class are.
It comes back to this whole 'Special Relationship' thing, which infects our politicians, broadcasters and press, and means they can't see beyond the US to a wider world beyond.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"82. At 12:53pm on 22 Jul 2010, Mustafa Yorumcu wrote:
Cameron is right.
Britain was never fully engaged in WW-II (unlike WW-I. Now, that is different.).
British presence in the Continental Europe ceased almost as soon as the war started. There were some battles in North Africa and Southeast Asia. The rest was about defending Britain from German invasion, which didn't take place thanks to USSR and then USA.
British losses in WW-II is 382000. USA losses is 416000. Soviet losses is 10 million. German losses 5 million.
The modern portrayal of British involvement in WW-II is marginally better than romantic rubbish.
Even the US involvement in overblown.
The war really took place between Germany and USSR.
So, Cameron knows history better than more than half of the people here."
Ah - you went to Eton too, then? History not on the curriculum?
Complain about this comment
Perfectly understandable. Cameron was in the USA having his puppet strings attached. His US minders had to make sure that he would say absolutely anything they told him to say. Even if he knew about how the yanks began WW2 he would not argue. He would just think about his six-figure speaking fees, the seven figure job with the Wall St. Bank, the peace prizes, the internships for his kids etc. All the rewards that the US has given its puppets ever since George Washington wrote Magna Carta. That right Dave?
Complain about this comment
'133. At 1:24pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Is it important to remember historical dates?"
Yes, many people don't know that WWII began, because till June of 1941 Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were staunch allies.
And that at Yalta US and UK sold their WWII allies down the river:
into half a century long Soviet slavery.'
I believe Churchill wanted to continue into Russia, but the Americans had had enough.
Complain about this comment
Of course its important for political leaders to know their history how else are they going to stop repeating the mistakes of the past a lot of them make by egotistic fools.DCs parents must be regretting wasting their money sending their son to eton after his clanger, one things for sure he will regret his error for the rest of his political career MPs will make sure of that I hope he doesn't make any more or the commonwealth war dead will the turning in their graves.
Complain about this comment
149. At 1:32pm on 22 Jul 2010, BewilderedMark wrote:
Operation Compass for example.
The First and Second Battles of El Alamein (1942) had no US or USSR involvement either, but effectively ended Rommel's chances of victory in North Africa.
I think you might be stretching their significance there - Operation Compass was us, with Austrialian, Indian and Free French troops defeating the Italians.
Secondly, El Alamein may have had no US or Russian direct involvement but they were certainly giving the Axis something to think about elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
"Is it important to get historical facts right?"
Most definitely. We all make mistakes and I'm sure that since Dave is as human as the rest of us, he'll make a few more.
I'm more worried about the blatent distortion of historical information. For example, US-made WW2 films where the US takes sole credit for group effort or even non-US opoerations like stealing the Enigma machine (although, to their credit, they did clearly state the film was fiction and that the British did actrually steal it before the end credits). Such disinformation can make an exciting movie but lead people to believe it is based in fact.
Complain about this comment
As has been pointed out - the USA and USSR were not in the war in 1940. The USA joined WW2 because it was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor, although it had been extensively helping the UK with resources and finance for some time. Both the USA and UK were junior partners of the USSR whose war dead numbered in the tens of millions and who destroyed the German's military capabilities, forcing Hitler to fight an unwinnable war on two fronts. Not that they chose to - Hitler invaded them.
I think it really does matter that the Britsh PM seems to have such poor understanding and respect for his own country's contribution to the defeat of Nazi-ism.
Complain about this comment
A little humilty,either by accident or by design ,always helps in diplomacy.
Complain about this comment
'When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and Hitler declared war on the US, Churchill again was concerned that the US would decide to deal with Japan first, he was delighted when the US decided that the defeat of Germany was its primary objective.'
I was priviledged and honored to know Edward Teller (father of H-bomb) personally.
He told me he thought murderous Communist Russia had to be destroyed first.
But when he learned that Werner Heisenberg was put in charge of Nazi atom-bomb effort he decided that III Reich had to be given a priority.
And it would have been obliterated, had II Front wouldn't have moved faster than guys in Los Alamos anticipated.
So it fell to 'poor, innocent Japanese'...
Complain about this comment
181. At 1:47pm on 22 Jul 2010, cheeryAllyj wrote:
What is a historical fact ?
Depends upon who is writing history ! Britain is as good as any other country at rewriting history to suit the cause of the time.
As 90% of the globe has a free press and the freedom to objectivly assess history please cite an example of Britain re-writing it?
Try reading something neutral on Irish history and compare it to what we've been told is the real version of events - you'll be amazed! But isn't that just the point - if we automatically accept everything we are told as true - then anyone else who disagrees is a liar?
Complain about this comment
I thought the failure to drop the 'special relationship' tag was the primary mistake. The war-thing just follows on from that. He need not have mentioned WW2, as it was irrelevant and divisive. I think most people would agree Iraq & Afganistan were not wars that Britain or other E.U. states would have initiated. In this respect, we are a 'junior partner' because it is not 'our war'.
Cameron could have respectfully said that the term 'special relationship' was a 20th C one that had morphed into catchphrase, not helpful for 21st C. modern diplomacy, etc. Then move on to say we are strategic allies, etc. Anything to accuratly represent modern British opinion, without being rude. Instead, he added to it! He continued to feed the UK papers' obsessive and unrepresentative views, whilst initiating his own first step to potential irrelevance.
The term 'special relationship' is shorthand for 'Special Relationship with the US Federal Gov.' Even Americans don't want that! Why would anyone else? The last 3 UK PM's to have used or been seen to support this rhetoric have inspired permanent loathing, leaving office before the end of their term, or failing to secure a term in office. They are addicted to their own downfall.
If David Cameron is seen to promote an outdated Atlanticist position, which does not bode well back home, then he will reap the fruits of that, just like the last 3. We are not a police state, so the Gov. and the media ought not to be peddling their own positions over and above public opinion. Who speaks for us? Why is not wanting a 'special relationship' anti-American? Could it not be pro-British; pro-European; pro-the-world-consists-of-many-other-relevant-countries? Could it not be that the U.S. might be anti-British and anti-European, from time-to-time? Could it not be that ordinary Americans and Britons might want to forge independant relationships with each other, as they would with anyone else? Why does it need to be sanctioned from above? Grrrr...
Complain about this comment
Wow. And people thought Blair was more sycophantic towards America than any other PM in history? Well, not any more.
Complain about this comment
Cameron was absolutely correct in what he said!
It was only because Hitler was insane that he did not invade in 1940, and only because he was insane he invaded Russia the following year.
Does anyone really think that The UK could have carried on and beaten both The Nazi's and The Japanese alone.
You had The Indian Army manpower, you had The Russian Army manpower and the Yanks with superior weaponry and firpower, dream on little Englanders, fact is fact!
Complain about this comment
199. At 2:06pm on 22 Jul 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
To start with, there was no battle of Britain. Of course something happened but it never amounted to a battle -- just low level air activity in which by the way the Germans beat them soundly.
------------------------
How can a failure to destroy Britain's air defences, or failing to force Britain into an armistice or even outright surrender be considered as a sound beating by the Germans?
The term Battle of Britain was coined from a phrase by Churchill "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..."
Your so called low level air activity consisted of a sustained aerial bombing campaign targetting aircraft factories and ground infrastructure and was intended to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force, something the Luftwaffe singularly failed to achieve. Hardly a victory by the Germans as you seem to claim.
Complain about this comment
If you're using them to back up your current views / argument then yes, of course it is. It's insulting otherwise.
Complain about this comment
David Cameron should rightly be criticised over what appears to be an attempt to flatter American egos at the expense of both historical accuracy and the heroism of British armed forces.The Battle of Britain(Britain's air war against the Luftwaffe)was fought over the most of 1940,especially the summer,and to say that we were the junior partner at that or any other time is not only inaccurate,it is an insult(even if unwitting)to the RAF,the Royal Navy,the Fleet Air Arm and the Merchant Navy who ran the gauntlet of Nazi U-Boats in the Atlantic Convoys(in which two of my uncles served) My Father was amongst the bravest of the brave in that he volunteered and was in the thick of the fighting in Normandy in 1944,becoming wounded in the chest by machine-gun bullets as he and his company advanced from Sword Beach to consolidate the British Beach-head.For Cameron to so belittle these brave men and their heroic struggle makes me very angry indeed,he needs to properly apologise and explain his statement in an open interview,anything less will only compound his fault and be a further insult especially to the memory of those who gave their lives so that the likes of Cameron could be born into a free,democratic country.If this statement was deliberate and he has simply been caught-out,then that can only be regarded as a despicable insult to all who fought for a world free from Nazism. Either way he should be ashamed that he could not even get right the facts that I knew by the time I was eight years old,we are one year apart in age,Cameron and I,so he has no excuse,except for "Sorry,I made a mistake" Which would be a pretty lame excuse for a serving British Prime Minister,who should obviously be better informed and more thoughtful than that.
Complain about this comment
It is absolutely right that Cameron or any other Leader should get their historical facts right before spouting off.
In 1940 the US hadn't entered WWII and probably would not have done if the Japs hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour. His commennts are a disgrace and a slur on the thousands of brave souls who laid down their lives to give us the freedom HE and all of us enjoy today.
Back to school, Cameron!!
Complain about this comment
Cameron made a silly mistake. It was embarrassing to hear a UK Prime Minister do that in all places the US.
That said it's not the end of the world. All Cameron has to do is get Michael Gove to ensure that British history is taught properly in all State and Public schools. If the State sector does it now they can do it before the winter sets in and the pupils won't be shivering or getting rained on as their classrooms disintegrate.
Obviously Mr Gove has his own incompetance to address first and make sure that those schools have ensured that everyone understands the importance of double checking the facts, making sure the sums add up and conducting peer reviews before presenting anything in public first.
On a lighter note. After reading some people's view of history i am getting a little worried. Next thing I know someone will be telling us that it was Montgomery's British & Commonwealth forces that stopped the Ardenne offensive and not Telly Savalas in a turretless tank with a single machine gun.
Complain about this comment
"didn't Churchill write, "History will be kind to me because I will write it..."?
Gallipoli, anyone?
[in case someone wonders why Ch. was kicked out after WWI]
So sorry for you, brave Aussies, for being used as cannon fodder.
Complain about this comment
What do people expect when they elect a shallow PR man as leader? He can't be expected to remember the 'detail', it's all about perception of the audience...in this case, the US.
Complain about this comment
I would go light on his comment, a politician has to watch what he says and does, there are too many interpretations to one line of words. It is difficult to just take office and be in front of the media getting scrutinized for all comments made. These are difficult time economically, which means that keeping busy, keeping up the hope, creating paying jobs and dealing with terrorism all have to be done in one stroke, there will always be people who know something more. We will wish Mr.Cameron all the best, he needs the people's blessing and support to move the country forward and out of recession.
Complain about this comment
The Prime Minister should be applauded for stating the obvious. By 1941 Britain was on its knees - a fact that was not lost on Churchill. Even then the British were wholly dependent on American aid ["Lend-Lease"]. There was at the time the illusion of an Empire and this has persisted right through to the present day. You only have to consider how Britain was treated at the end of the war at the Potsdam Conference to see this. The U.S. and the Soviet Union happily carved up Europe - ignoring the objections and warnings from the Brits. Thank you Mr Cameron for your refreshing "real politik" approach to history - and to Irish affairs. One can only hope this appraoch will be extended to other areas such as domestic and foreign policy.
Complain about this comment
224. At 2:27pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
'When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and Hitler declared war on the US, Churchill again was concerned that the US would decide to deal with Japan first, he was delighted when the US decided that the defeat of Germany was its primary objective.'
I was priviledged and honored to know Edward Teller (father of H-bomb) personally.
He told me he thought murderous Communist Russia had to be destroyed first.
But when he learned that Werner Heisenberg was put in charge of Nazi atom-bomb effort he decided that III Reich had to be given a priority.
And it would have been obliterated, had II Front wouldn't have moved faster than guys in Los Alamos anticipated.
So it fell to 'poor, innocent Japanese'...
+++++++
And one day it'll fall right back to where it had fallen out of -- to murderous crapitalist America
Complain about this comment
Oh dear David, you really must stop pandering to the Americans by being all British and self-deprecating. Take no notice of this "offending veterans" bit - politicians have been offending veterans since time immemorial so one more won't change things much.
No-one expected Britain to survive the onslaught in 1940, least of all the Americans and although strictly speaking it is incorrect to say that the US didn't come into the war until after Pearl Harbour (Eagle Squadrons, Icelandic escorts etc), there is no way that we would have won WWII without them. And no way they would have won without us.
Whether we like it or not, we need each other and that's why history is important, even if being exact about dates isn't.
Complain about this comment
So it really was an american destroyer that captured the Enigma Machine from a sinking German submarine. There really was a flotilla of frontline American destroyers Given to Britain known as "The Ships That Saved The World" Tom Cruise really did win the "Battle of Britain" It was American B17 bombers that destroyed the dams in the Ruhr valley. and if Britain had not carried on fighting alone in the early 40s there was no chance that Japan and Germany would have defeated America in a pincer movement and split the continent in two halves. Sorry Hollywood we Brits got it all wrong again. Arent you just so lucky to have a special relationship with Great Britain even if you are the JUNIOR partner.
Complain about this comment
cameron needs to go back to school for a history lesson .with his remarks and Cleggs gaff tomthe house it makes you wonder are they really capable of running the country,
thier remarks seam likea school boys error,
Complain about this comment
211. At 2:15pm on 22 Jul 2010, ChaosMagick wrote:
David Cameron made a honest mistake but he really should check his history.
It is true that the UK was a junior partner in the D-Day landings but for the majority for the 2nd World War the UK had no partners and was pretty much alone against the monolithic might of the Nazi war machine.
This situation only began to change when Germany made the fatal mistake of attacking Russia.
----------------------
D-Day junior partner? Really?
The British Second Army consisted of 83,115 troops of whom 61,715 were British, the rest being Canadian and Free French. The US First Army consisted of approximately 73,000 troops.
How pray, can these figures illustrate a junior partnership status?
Complain about this comment
When you are the Prime Minisister You bet your life you should get your history right. This Incompetent man has just delivered the ultimate slap in the face for for an entire generation of people to whom we all owe so much.
Even after the Americans decided to join in the war Britain was never a junior partner How can a man in his position be so idiotic to make such a massive error he is an embarrassment to our Country.
How dare this Idiot represent our Nation at the cenetaph in November if he actually believes that our Country played a junior role. It would be an insult to the thousands of people men and women from the armed forces and the civilians from these shores who stood alone to fight the Germans.
Is it not enough that his coalition government is destroying the very fabric of the Country that that generation fought and died to build.
The other slight worry is what does this say for his views on what counts as good education? I only went to an inner city comprehensive school not one of the best private schools that money can buy, but even I knew that the Americans didn't join in the war until 1941 and my education was a lot cheaper than his.
All this following on from his stupid comment earlier in the week as he was trying to push his pathetic big society rubbish when he said, trying to impress the producer of Grange Hill Phil Redmond that his role model in Life had always been the Grange Hill character Gripper Stebson who was a thick racist bully. Fine role model for the Prime Minister of Britain. Honestly the man is a bafoon I've said previously we would be better with the Chuckle brothers running the country than him and Clegg after this week that is hard to argue.
Complain about this comment
If this subject is so important to the British Government and its people, they also need to look at what they have done to the Palestinians, why not start with re-writing that history first and ensure that they get their country back!!
Complain about this comment
Considering the fees charged by Eton ,it is clear that History was an additional cost beyond his parents pockets
Complain about this comment
He's such an old fart i could claim to be surprised that he got it wrong. I guess he did only study History, what can you expect? Accuracy, humility, honesty about intent, concern and respect for the individual stranger: these things don't exactly seem to exist in spades in some who go into politics, or so many humans in general? Me too, of course.
Complain about this comment
Mouth in foot time I am afraid.
As a Cameron supporter even I have to say he should have been far more circumspect. I'm afraid it the same old story - the moment our politicians are speaking to the Americans their minds turn to jelly and we, as a nation, are left with egg on our face.
As disappointing as this mistake was I worry more about how subserviant we are made to look in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Let America have the lead role - we should concentrate on playing our part to the best of our ability and not constantly be the USA's understudy.
Complain about this comment
Flashman rewrites history. It is a pretty sad mistake.
Complain about this comment
@113. At 1:11pm on 22 Jul 2010, SussexRokx wrote:
81. At 12:50pm on 22 Jul 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
The US supplied us with all our transport aircraft and our jeeps and most of the trucks. They supplied us with thousands of Sherman tanks (after 1943) and a few ships but everything else was made by Britain. All our Bombers (Lancasters, Hurricanes, Mosquitos) were British. The majority of our tanks (Churchills and Cromwells) were British. ALL our guns were British.
------------------------------------
Actually some Lancasters were Canadian built, manufactured by Victory Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, and powered by Packard (Detroit) built Merlin engines.
--------------------------------------
maybe they were made in USA (on license) but Merlin engines are British by design, Rolls Royce to be specific.
Quote from wiki for Merlin engines;
"The Packard V-1650 was a version of the Merlin built in the United States. Production ceased in 1950 after a total of almost 150,000 engines had been delivered, the later variants being used for airliners and military transport aircraft."
So to be fair I think the comments of Peter_Sym still hold true-ish ;)
Complain about this comment
I think it is better that wasn't said, "...and ... junior parther of Stalin also ...".
Complain about this comment
229. At 2:34pm on 22 Jul 2010, SussexRokx wrote:
How can a failure to destroy Britain's air defences, or failing to force Britain into an armistice or even outright surrender be considered as a sound beating by the Germans?
The term Battle of Britain was coined from a phrase by Churchill "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..."
Your so called low level air activity consisted of a sustained aerial bombing campaign targetting aircraft factories and ground infrastructure and was intended to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force, something the Luftwaffe singularly failed to achieve. Hardly a victory by the Germans as you seem to claim.
+++++++
Yes, a familiar argument, but where does it come from? It's just an official British view.
Who told you that the Germans seriously wanted to gain air superiority or to destroy infrastructure on the ground? (Maybe they should have).
You should read German WWII historians, there is no mention of the "battle" of Britain.
Had there been such battle, they surely would have won it.
"The term Battle of Britain was coined from a phrase by Churchill "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..." -- he also called the disaster of Dunkirk (in which British troops were not destroyed completely for the sole reason that Hitler decided to let them go) a "victory" but it doesn't really make it a victory, does it?
Complain about this comment
"Having known a now sadly-deceased Polish ex-prisoner, first of the Russians and then the Germans (Russo-German Pact which partitioned Poland in 1939-40"
BurkelBonce.
you're a rare breed, indeed.
Actually remembering what to many here is as ancient history as Punic Wars.
Complain about this comment
199. At 2:06pm on 22 Jul 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
Yes it's important to get historical facts right. However in the case at hand both DC and those who criticize him know little about said facts.
In fact Brits are among the most brainwashed people in the world. There's much they have to learn and even more government propaganda that they have to unlearn.
To start with, there was no battle of Britain. Of course something happened but it never amounted to a battle -- just low level air activity in which by the way the Germans beat them soundly.
No other country's historians -- except British -- recognize this figment of an overexcited British imagination -- the "battle" of Britain.
"Spiteful" and "childish" spring to mind.
Complain about this comment
You Brits obsess about the silliest things. Were you this defensive when you were the leading world power? From the outside looking in, it looks a little 'whiney'.I hope the US does better when its era of major global dominance is over.
Since you guys got there first, the US has always looked to Britain as a model for what to do (and not to do) since your culture used to be reasonably close to ours. We have apparently not entirely learned from your mistakes. AND, I'm not sure the cultural comparisons will hold up much longer.
But toughen up, guys.
Complain about this comment
" History is recorded by the victor"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Actually and although he considered us in error the Junior partner to US we were in reality until their surrender the Junior Partner to France, who had at least on paper a far bigger military capability than the UK at the time. Its in important to note that the BEF was under the command of the French High Command in the Phoney War and the Battle for France.
Of course once Hitler invaded Soviet Union we became Junior Partners to them simply because of the sheer numbers of men they put in the field and their willingness to take casualties (+23 million). Once the Japan and Germany declared War on USA, then we quickly became Junior Partners to them simply because of their industrial power.
As mistakes go its hardly a big one and certainly is not belittling the proud contribution this Country and its Empire made to the War effort. Its far less of a mistake than Obama claiming his Great Uncle took part in the liberation of Auschwitz, although their is little evidence of a serving Great Uncle let alone one serving in the Red Army!
Complain about this comment
#35 says "this is a storm in a tea cup" are you David Cameron? it's a massive insult to the memories of the generation to whom you and I owe so much. It's pure ignorance like this which makes decent people who respect what that generation did, sick to the stomach.
Complain about this comment
Just goes to show that scoring brownie points at others expense is a bad idea. Cameron was trying to appease Obama, hanging around his apron strings, ironically making him look even more stupid than his comments.
Complain about this comment
228. At 2:33pm on 22 Jul 2010, europhile wrote:
Cameron was absolutely correct in what he said!
It was only because Hitler was insane that he did not invade in 1940, and only because he was insane he invaded Russia the following year.
Does anyone really think that The UK could have carried on and beaten both The Nazi's and The Japanese alone.
You had The Indian Army manpower, you had The Russian Army manpower and the Yanks with superior weaponry and firpower, dream on little Englanders, fact is fact!
------------------------
As so often seems to happen here when referring to the UK in WW2, you fail to credit the forces of the British Empire. It was the British Empire along with Free French, Dutch, Poles, Czechs etc, and not Britain alone, who were fighting the Germans and the Japanese in 1940.
The British Empire consisted of some 458 million people. Hardly a junior!!!
Complain about this comment
apologies to #32 I meant#35
Complain about this comment
Americans where responsible for more "Friendly Fire" incidents in the WW2 than any other nations. The killed an entire beach full of soldiers at d-day because the ships launching the attack where "to scared" to get to close to the coast.
David Cameron, thank you for, within 3 months of coming to office, showing us what to expect for the next 4 years at least!
Complain about this comment
224. At 2:27pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
I was priviledged and honored to know Edward Teller (father of H-bomb) personally.
He told me he thought murderous Communist Russia had to be destroyed first.
But when he learned that Werner Heisenberg was put in charge of Nazi atom-bomb effort he decided that III Reich had to be given a priority.
And it would have been obliterated, had II Front wouldn't have moved faster than guys in Los Alamos anticipated.
So it fell to 'poor, innocent Japanese'...
methinks Teller was re-writing history as by the time he was actually working on the Manhattan Project it was 1942 and the US and USSR were allies against Nazi Germany, so whatever his personal feelings about the USSR, the USSR was never a likely target for the first A bombs.
Complain about this comment
179. At 1:46pm on 22 Jul 2010, AllieT wrote:
"Reminder: Britain was the only Allied country to be in WW2 from the beginning to the very end."
Say WHAT? Would you like to go suggest that to various and sundry Australians or New Zealanders you might run into around the place?
------
Very true. I would also add that Poland defended itself from the very first day when the Nazis crossed their border to the very last day through its underground army.
Complain about this comment
At 1:24pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Is it important to remember historical dates?"
Yes, many people don't know that WWII began, because till June of 1941 Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were staunch allies.
And that at Yalta US and UK sold their WWII allies down the river:
into half a century long Soviet slavery.'
I believe Churchill wanted to continue into Russia, but the Americans had had enough.
Not 'Americans'. Most certainly not PATTON.
(whose march east was stopped by Eisenhower by denying him fuel)
It was sick and senile FDR.
[nobody admits it officially, but that's the main reason why in the aftermath of the diastrous Yalta Agreement a number of U.S. presidential terms has been limited to 2.]
Complain about this comment
Perhaps he'd just watched Saving Private Ryan ...
Complain about this comment
If the British really knew their crimes and in particular their disgraceful doings in both WWI and WWII - in which they so often collaborated with the Nazis for the "better geopolitical management" to the detriment of lifes of millions, they would not even discuss this "slip" by Britih PM Cameron.
Complain about this comment
From Wikipedia... "The Royal Air Force roll of honour for the Battle of Britain recognises 595 non-British pilots (out of 2,936) as flying at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the RAF or Fleet Air Arm between 10 July and 31 October 1940. These included 145 Poles, 127 New Zealanders, 112 Canadians, 88 Czechoslovaks, 28 Belgians, 32 Australians, 25 South Africans, 13 French, 10 Irish, 7 Americans, and one each from Jamaica, the British Mandate of Palestine, and Southern Rhodesia"
(Wikipedia snobs can sneer at it's use but at least try to disprove it first)
Junior Partner Mr. Camer(a)on ???
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Blah, blah, blah....
Actually the two single greatest services of both the United States and Great Britain were the American Merchant Marine and the British Merchant Navy. Both suffered the highest rate of losses of any of their respective countries' services and then some. And NO merchant mariner would endulge in this utterly pointless arguement. There is no nationality in a liferaft on the North Atlantic in February.
Get away from your keyboards if you're in London, get to Tower Bridge and spend some time at the Merchant Navy Memorial reflecting on who really "won the war". For Britain. And the civilised world.
Complain about this comment
As another comment mentioned, Milliband's statement that 'we stood alone against the Nazis' is an even worse slip up! Does he genuinely think we didn't have any help from the entire Commonwealth or other countries (e.g Russia) who fought the Nazis too? I've known plenty of Australians & Canadians (for instance) who fought in the war and would be deeply offended by this if they were still alive.
Complain about this comment
249. At 2:48pm on 22 Jul 2010, Gavin aLaugh wrote:
@113. At 1:11pm on 22 Jul 2010, SussexRokx wrote:
81. At 12:50pm on 22 Jul 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
The US supplied us with all our transport aircraft and our jeeps and most of the trucks. They supplied us with thousands of Sherman tanks (after 1943) and a few ships but everything else was made by Britain. All our Bombers (Lancasters, Hurricanes, Mosquitos) were British. The majority of our tanks (Churchills and Cromwells) were British. ALL our guns were British.
------------------------------------
Actually some Lancasters were Canadian built, manufactured by Victory Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, and powered by Packard (Detroit) built Merlin engines.
--------------------------------------
maybe they were made in USA (on license) but Merlin engines are British by design, Rolls Royce to be specific.
Quote from wiki for Merlin engines;
"The Packard V-1650 was a version of the Merlin built in the United States. Production ceased in 1950 after a total of almost 150,000 engines had been delivered, the later variants being used for airliners and military transport aircraft."
So to be fair I think the comments of Peter_Sym still hold true-ish ;)
-----------------
Of course the Merlin was a Rolls Royce design, and therefore British. But it is still a fact that not all Lancasters were British built. British designed, undoubtedly.
Thankfully Avro redesigned the fateful Manchester and gave us the Lancaster...
Complain about this comment
Everyone uses history to make political points, so yes, it's important to get as close to the truth as possible.
'Relativists', who don't believe this, run around saying "there's no such thing as the truth, only different people's 'stories'" and the like, so they can say anything they like, such as "in 1940 we were junior partner to the US in the war".
No. Britain like other European powers, had a declining empire, but that still had comparable importance to the US. When Japan set about taking chunks of it, its vulnerability was exposed. The US had interfered with Japan's progress out of self-interest, went to war for itself, but couldn't be bothered to partner in Europe until all was almost lost.
Telling that truth wouldn't be politic. Americans much favour the 'relativist' approach to history, as well as biology, apparently.
Cameron would have fudged this with "the forties", if he had a stronger grasp on what 1940 was like to the Brits at the time, but I suspect that is quite remote to his life and education.
Complain about this comment
138 and 187.....The American forces fighting the Pacific war,were not doing so in 1940,which is the time that Cameron was talking about.BTW,in June 1944,more than 2.5 million men 500 thousand vehicles and 4 million tons of equipment and supplies were landed,thanks to the British Mulberry harbour at Arromanches,on the 6th of June 1944,130,000 Allied ground troops and 23,000 Airborne and glider troops were landed in Normandy,subsequent to this,on the 15th of August 151,000 American ,British,Canadian and French troops arrived off the Cote d' Azur in what became,less famously,known as "the other D-Day",please check histoical facts before making comments as it is tiresome to have to correct inaccurate assertions,ironic considering the subject matter of this particular web-log.
Complain about this comment
It's certainly important to be historically accurate but a more common issue is that relevant historical events are ignored. This is something the BBC is itself frequently guilty of.
So for example, when Hugo Chavez or Evo Moralez complain that the US is trying to undermine their governments, the long and well documented history of US-backed coups in the region goes completely uncommented.
Complain about this comment
I think he is strictly correct: The French were the senior partner: they had more ground troops deployed and more front-line aircraft available.
They were just dreadful at organising themselves, which is why the Blitzkrieg walked all over them.
Complain about this comment
To appease Obama Cameron has insulted all the people who fought and died for this country in world war 2.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Cameron was absolutely correct in what he said!
It was only because Hitler was insane that he did not invade in 1940, and only because he was insane he invaded Russia the following year."
I know older Germans who think Hitler was an idiot to declare war on USA
just because of his alliance with Imperial Japan.
"Had he not done that III Reich would stretch from Warsaw to Lisbon" -they told me (after the 4th or 5th schnaps)
[nope, I'm not going to name any names]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Typical Toff, will rabbit on about national pride and knows nothing of a time when it really mattered.
Complain about this comment
depends on what David cameron meant by junior, he could have meant the difference between the ages of the three leaders,meaning churchill to be the youngest.
The meaning of,'we' is ofcourse typical of the way it is spoken and not what it is supposed to mean, he identified himself as being part of the war machine that defeated hitler,even though he was not physically present.The tories often take a personal belonging to anything that is english,especially in warfare like the six hundred charge of the light and all that you know,we were there on the shiny topped table while junior played with his toy soldiers.
David Cameron's remark about junior partners is much the same as a reference to boardroom talk made by a rookey share holder.
Complain about this comment
251. At 2:49pm on 22 Jul 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
229. At 2:34pm on 22 Jul 2010, SussexRokx wrote:
How can a failure to destroy Britain's air defences, or failing to force Britain into an armistice or even outright surrender be considered as a sound beating by the Germans?
The term Battle of Britain was coined from a phrase by Churchill "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..."
Your so called low level air activity consisted of a sustained aerial bombing campaign targetting aircraft factories and ground infrastructure and was intended to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force, something the Luftwaffe singularly failed to achieve. Hardly a victory by the Germans as you seem to claim.
+++++++
Yes, a familiar argument, but where does it come from? It's just an official British view.
Who told you that the Germans seriously wanted to gain air superiority or to destroy infrastructure on the ground? (Maybe they should have).
You should read German WWII historians, there is no mention of the "battle" of Britain.
Had there been such battle, they surely would have won it.
"The term Battle of Britain was coined from a phrase by Churchill "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..." -- he also called the disaster of Dunkirk (in which British troops were not destroyed completely for the sole reason that Hitler decided to let them go) a "victory" but it doesn't really make it a victory, does it?
------------------------
Perhaps you ought to know this simple fact. I consider two countries to be home. One where I was born, here in the UK. The other where I spent a large amount of my childhood - Germany...
Yes I am pretty aware of what the German "impression" of events was. Don't forget Operation Sealion (Seeloewe), that's exactly why the Germans DID want to gain air supremacy. Check your facts old boy...
As for turning a disaster into a victory, you should really check out some more British military history, we've been turning disasters into victories for centuries... ;o)
Complain about this comment
At 1:24pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Is it important to remember historical dates?"
Yes, many people don't know that WWII began, because till June of 1941 Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were staunch allies.
And that at Yalta US and UK sold their WWII allies down the river:
into half a century long Soviet slavery.'
+++++++
Powermeerkat, like DC you need to get your historical facts right.
It's Poland and Germany that were staunch allies. The German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 anyone?
Poland also willingly participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia by grabbing a piece of its territory in 1938.
In 1939, on the eve of the war, Poland agreed to all German demands and promised to join it in an attack on the Soviet Union but failed to deliver the signed documents on time.
I think Churchill was right when he called Poland the "Hyena of Europe".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
God this is boring. The war is history, Cameron made a slight error. GET OVER IT!
Complain about this comment
Absolutely shameful.
If you frequent many military interest forums on the internet, you'll see a lot of Americans holding the "We won the war, you limeys just held our coats" sort of opinion. It's pretty offensive to hear from them, but intolerable to hear our own Prime Minister supporting this sort of anti-British prejudice.
There's no denying that now we're very much a junior partner in our dealings with the world's biggest superpower. But 1940 was a very different world. We were in the last days of the Empire, America was coming out of a time of isolationism and becoming a world power. To suggest that the world situation hasn't changed in the intervening seventy years raises the question of why Cameron feels the need to start selling this pro-American revisionist worldview?
Sounds like another poodle visiting the White House.
Complain about this comment
Well if I were British I would be more confused than upset. I mean, The US and the Soviet Union weren't even in the war yet, France had fallen, and every other nation eventually occupied by the Nazis either was sacked in 1940 or would certainly not be considered the Senior partner.
Whatever. Let's all remember the important thing here: We won.
Complain about this comment
Historical facts? He has a very short memory indeed; only a while ago he said Labour were borrowing too much money and it can't go on, or words to that affect. Now he's come out with this little corker http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23858823-david-cameron-demands-more-focus-on-winning-investment-deals.do.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't investment borrowing i.e. you get money for whatever purpose and then pay it back with interest? If you were lookinig to invest money would you invest it if you were't going to get your money back? The man is a total idiot with a very selective memory.
Come on Cameron, if you love this country, show us you have a pair and call a General Election and let the electorate show what they think of you.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid politicians don't enjoy the freedoms we have to make errors. Yes the americans joined us in war 1917 and 1944 what happened at the start of these conflicts.We were left with it two world war which cost an Empire. Thanks America!
Complain about this comment
I went to a lecture in the 1950's on the history of the RAF in the Second World War.
The Few who flew the Spitfires and Hurricanes were; Australians, South Africans, West Indians, Indians, British, Poles, Free French, British women deliverers from factory to airfield, Rhodesians (now Zimbabwe), Americans (Eagle Squadron), German Jews.
Daft Dave may have got his facts wrong, but can I say to the rest of you of all nations who flew the Battle of Britain, which changed the whole war? Thanks lads and lasses for putting your lives on the line.
Those of you who pontificate on this site with your own agenda. YOU ARE ALL WRONG!
Complain about this comment
"Actually some Lancasters were Canadian built, manufactured by Victory Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, and powered by Packard (Detroit) built Merlin engines."
My father (an RAF officer-pilot during WWII) ferried quite a few of those to England from Gander.
Between his regular tours of duty (Bremen, Essen, Cologne, Vilhelsmhaven)
P.S. Have I mentioned Berlin and Hamburg?
Complain about this comment
I was born in 1949 and long for the day when (probably after I die) that we finally look at WWII with a health dose of reality.
Cameron may have been wrong saying we were the junior partner in 1940, but for most of the war that is exactly what we were.
We fought the war with American weapons, mainly tanks but also aircraft, because our industry lacked proper investment from the time of the victorians.
We fought the Germans with the same number of troops as the americans but the number of russians fighting the germans dwarfed what we had.
The same with the japanese, whilst we were fighting a bitter and forgotton war in Burma the americans were rolling them back all the way to Japan.
Churchill was correct in saying 1940 was our finest hour, we did stand alone when the entire world (and a lot of people in the UK) thought we should seek an armistice. But that is as far as we could go. We would never have won against either Germany or Japan without the allies.
I think it is about time we stopped saying WE won the war and start admiting that we made great sacrifices but were after all junior partners.
Complain about this comment
The man has an Eton and Oxford education. He's also got 12 "O" levels, 3 "A" levels (one of which is History) and a first class honours degree.
Maybe "junior partner" is a term you could apply to the Second World War as a whole but Cameron's reference was, clearly and specifically, to 1940.
In 1940 we were fighting alone. We did not get any assistance from the USA until September 1940, when the "Destroyers for Bases" agreement was made whereby 50 US Navy destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for the UK granting land in the Caribbean and Newfoundland for use as naval or air bases on 99 year rent-free leases. This hardly made us a junior partner.
Lend-Lease on the other hand, whereby the US decided to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of .......... any defense article" to the UK did not start until March 1941. Until then we had been paying the US for supplies in gold under "Cash and carry" as required by their Neutrality Acts of the 1930s, and had to collect the goods ourselves with our own ships.
Even though the US were supplying us free of charge after March 1941 and entered the war in December 1941, all of the fighting was done by the UK and its allies (excluding the US) certainly throughout 1942 and to some extent into 1943. Recruiting, training, and equipping US forces and then transporting them to Europe simply couldn't be completed immediately. The Soviet Union started fighting the Germans from June 1941.
Lend-Lease undoubtedly did save us and, you could argue, is what turned the UK into a junior partner but it did not start until 1941 and was suddenly and unexpectedly withdrawn in September 1945, to be replaced by a loan on which we made the last repayment in 2006.
If I've made any mistakes I apologise. I didn't have a university education, let alone an Eton/Oxford one.
Complain about this comment
276. At 3:10pm on 22 Jul 2010, john cole wrote:
I think he is strictly correct: The French were the senior partner: they had more ground troops deployed and more front-line aircraft available.
They were just dreadful at organising themselves, which is why the Blitzkrieg walked all over them.
----------------------
Which would have been fine had he been on a visit to France. But not the USA...
Actually, the major problem in France in 1940 was a lack of intelligence, that the Germans unexpectedly by-passed the less than useless Maginot Line via Belgium, and cut communications between the French Army and the British Expeditionary Force.
Complain about this comment
Maybe he thinks the war was just another coalition.
Complain about this comment
Two points here.
1. Politicians do make mistakes because they are human. It goes with the territory that everything you say will be picked apart. I don't think DC made comments that actually revealed a poor attitude to the British War effort. I speak as a Labour voter who deplores this government.
2. DC has used the term 'junior partner' in the context of our special relationship with the USA. Here I think he is wrong. Just because the USA out-guns us and is a whole lot bigger than us does not mean we have to be junior partners in everything. Good ideas can come from all quarters. Take Gordon Brown for example. Gordon helped GB, (Great Britain), punch above its own weight in the financial crisis. Gordon came up with solutions that could be used universally for the banking crisis. Every country took his ideas and adapted them for their situation. His reputation as an ex-chancellor for brilliant management helped him raise our status as being more than just a junior partner.
Come on DC don't be such a poodle.
Complain about this comment
279. At 3:11pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
I know older Germans who think Hitler was an idiot to declare war on USA
just because of his alliance with Imperial Japan.
"Had he not done that III Reich would stretch from Warsaw to Lisbon" -they told me (after the 4th or 5th schnaps)
[nope, I'm not going to name any names]
However, it was the same megalomania that declared war on the USA that aspired to building a Third Reich from the Atlantic to the Urals, so the two are strongly correlated. A rational person would have not only known when to stop but not to start in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Since most of the posters on HYS seem to think this question is about "who won the war", let us not forget those who worked on the home front, Amercia can gloat all they want, but it wasn't their families and homes that were being bombed nightly.
But then, let us not forget all those around Europe who were also being bombed, I speak here also of the German civilians, not all Germans were Nazis.
Complain about this comment
Regardless of the historical inaccuracies, I can't imagine a French leader describing France as 'junior partner' of anyone. Britain is not America's 'partner', we are an ally with our own national interests - even though US companies own swathes of the City of London, so we have to tug a forelock occasionally (which is what Cameron really meant).
Wall Street was doing very nicely out of the war in Europe and it took Hitler declaring war on the USA to bring them into it. But even that didn't stop German Ford continuing truck production throughout the war. The USAF didn't target Wall Street interests in occupied Europe, but the RAF didn't get the memo and bombed the Ford plant at Poissy in March 1942. I wonder if 'junior partner' Cameron would have given the go-ahead?
Complain about this comment
40. At 12:20pm on 22 Jul 2010, Pat Burger wrote:
What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941.
The entire North African Campaign was fought primarily by the British, Australian and New Zealand forces. Same for the Burma Campaign which was fought by British and Indian forces. It was also solely British forces that carried out crucial missions such as the sinking of the Bismark, which would have otherwise taken out allied convoys in the Atlantic.
Britain, Russia and America fought alongside each other as equals during WW2. If you had taken away either of them then the war would have been a decisive victory to the Axis forces. Britain only became a "junior partner" after the end of WW2 when it had become crippled after almost 6 years of fighting across the globe.
Complain about this comment
Maybe he meant junior partner to the Russians?
A look at the size of the battles & casualties therein will show that nothing the UK was involved in was on a scale of the likes of Stalingrad and Kursk, or any of the other stuff going on at the Eastern Front.
Complain about this comment
For us mere mortals, it is not so important to get historical facts absolutely right although it is preferable.
However, David Cameron is this nation's leader and should be in possession of the facts about our nation's history. As well as getting the year wrong over when the USA joined WW2, he then insulted all members of the British forces who fought in the war by saying that we were the "junior" partner. What an insult to this nation's forces and those who lost their lives!!!
Complain about this comment
251. At 2:49pm on 22 Jul 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
"Who told you that the Germans seriously wanted to gain air superiority or to destroy infrastructure on the ground? (Maybe they should have)."
[and]
"Had there been such battle, they surely would have won it."
They had a battle plan called Operation Sea Lion that included beach landings on the south coast. It was postponed on 17 September 1940 following the failure of the air blitz to deliver quick air superiority.
Britain declaring war after the invasion of Poland had put a kink in the German war plan. Britain still out-produced Germany, although its slow rearmament might have meant British defeat had the Germans pressed the issue, but they couldn't afford to try.
After feverish deficit-financed rearmament, Germany had succeeded in stabilising its economy through conquests in the east, but only just. It needed to secure against a second front by occupying Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Norway. It hoped to force Britain into neutrality or defeat it as quickly as the others, but couldn't afford further delay of its main goal of resources, industry (enslaved) and "living space" in Eastern Russia and the Ukraine. The cost of beating Britain would have meant too much time, too many aircraft and occupation troops lost for the success of Plan Barbarossa.
Complain about this comment
279. At 3:11pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Cameron was absolutely correct in what he said!
It was only because Hitler was insane that he did not invade in 1940, and only because he was insane he invaded Russia the following year."
I know older Germans who think Hitler was an idiot to declare war on USA
just because of his alliance with Imperial Japan.
"Had he not done that III Reich would stretch from Warsaw to Lisbon" -they told me (after the 4th or 5th schnaps)
[nope, I'm not going to name any names]
---------------------------
Hitler really wanted Britain and the British Empire to side with the Third Reich, to jointly become the greatest power in the world. With the abdicated Edward VIII as king!!! Goodness knows what he would have done with Mrs Simpson!!!
No junior partnership there...
We were after all Germanic...
Complain about this comment
It is a bit embarrassing but David Cameron is only human. Let's go easy on him for now and just sweep this "junior partner" comment under the rug fast.
Complain about this comment
@76. At 12:47pm on 22 Jul 2010, Robert Gomez wrote:
Hi robert, remember the other topic the other day, it was closed down after less than 300 comments - bbc don't like people telling the truth.
Since you remarked about alcohol being permissible since the dawn of time i'll assume you were referring to the bible (sorry for any incorrect assumptions), well god made a plant too, which along with other substances have been used since the dawn of time.
which dave cameron also partook ;)
Complain about this comment
Yes it is and how wrong he is. The UK was the major power in this war until D Day. What school did he go too??
Complain about this comment
#25. ruffled_feathers wrote:
There are thousands of dates to remember in history - there are a few for the UK which stand out, such as:
1. Battle of Hastings
2. Great Plague
3. Great Fire of London
The thing is, though, these aren't wholy pertinent to British history, for all happened before the UK came into existence as a political entity.
Battle of Hastings is English history, as is the Great Fire of London, and the Great Plague is pertinent to the whole of Europe.
Ironic that we're al here deriding Americans for thinking the world revolves around them, when you do the same regarding the English.
Here's a few other dates relevant to British history (even if not considered as such because they don't register on an Englishman's radar), but no less important:
1. AD503 ~ the Scottish kingdom of Dalriada in Argyll (the high ground of the Gael) is established
2. AD843 ~ King Kenneth MacAlpin unites the Gaels and the Pretani / Cruithne (aka the Picts) as one nation, Alba
3. 844-877 The Reign Of Rhodri Mawr (Rhodri The Great) who united all of Wales under his rule
4. AD1567 ~ Mary Queen of Scots abdicates and the one-year-old James VI becomes King of Scotland
5. AD1840 - 1850 ~ The Irish Potato Famine
That you never even considered these important events from British history just goes to show you demonstrating the why David Cameron chose to sook in with the Americans.
You think that because it's not English it's not important, failing to realise that without these events Britain, and certainly the UK, would not exist.
And this is why dates are important, because they inform us of who we are and where we've come from, perhaps even where we're going.
Complain about this comment
What an assinine remark. The US weren't forced in basically until 1942 by which time the tide of war had turned and the British and their allies were on the offensive. The RAF had cobbled the Luftwaffe, Rommel had been defeated in Africa and the British had cleared the Italians from North Africa. In Burma, we were pushing the Japanese back too. Britain never was second to anyone during that war, it was their planning that won it.
Peter D South Carolina.
Complain about this comment
I guess we (US and UK) were both Junior Partners compared to the sacrafices the Soviet Army made. On a news comment site, I wonder what the purpose of this topic is? I don't actually know anyone who was alive during WWII, so we might as well talk about the War of 1812 (as we Americans like to call it) as far as I am concerned. Well, actually I do know why the topic is here, one of your leaders mentioned it as a compliment to Obama. Sometimes people twist facts a little to compliment people, just like I tell my wife she is not fat. Honestly though, I think this topic is here to tweak the nose of the Brits and get them into another jolly good American bashing. I suppose the BBC likes to rehash the Battle of Waterloo when your leaders meet the French? Most of the comments here have been surprizingly accurate though, WWII is over and it was critiqued years ago. Oh well, carry on with the US bashing, we Americans kind of expect if from you all.
Complain about this comment
277. At 3:11pm on 22 Jul 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
To appease Obama Cameron has insulted all the people who fought and died for this country in world war 2.
It's comments like this and many others on these pages that show that we really have developed an unhealthy obsession with war in this country. You can't move without something there to remind you of past or current wars. It's becoming like a medieval religion with shrines (memorials), icons (statues of long dead kings & generals), religious symbols (poppies), martyrs (war dead), and any form of dissent or criticism is blasphemous!
Complain about this comment
Yes, it *is* important to get historical facts right.
Such as the fact that America was actually the "junior partner" to the country that did most of the work - us - in WWII.
Shame on you, Cameron! The Americans' collective ego is huge enough already, without you justifying their (quite utterly stupid) perception the they "saved everbody's asses" by turning up for WWII three years late!
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym (comment #70), if Ben Affleck shot down the “entire Luftwaffe” in “Pearl Harbour” then they must have got their facts from PM Dave when he was PR Dave. Incidentally, there was no ‘u’ in “Harbor” because the Americans don’t spell in English.
Since two-thirds of us did not vote for PM Dave, we can easily distance ourselves from his view of history, although I am sure that his former history tutor at Eton is still red with embarrassment.
Unfortunately we live in an era where the career politician has been replaced with the insubstantial grinning populist. Blair won three elections for New Labour by moving them onto the centre ground that the Conservatives had dominated. The conviction politician Brown then lost to Cameron, another triumph of the soundbite over substance. And how did Dave manage to win? Well he followed the example of Barack Obama and promised something to everyone and will be similarly unsuccessful in delivering.
Complain about this comment
This is hardly political suicide, but it still displays astonishing ignorance (and by a prime minister, to boot) of a critical aspect of pretty recent British history. In 1940, not only was Britain not the junior partner among the Allies, it pretty much WAS the Allies -- after the fall of France and other European nations. What has British education come to if a 43-year-old privately- and Oxbridge-educated pol doesn't know that!!!
Complain about this comment
All I can say is thank God we had Winston Churchill leading us in WWII & not this idiot!
Complain about this comment
286. At 3:17pm on 22 Jul 2010, krokodil wrote:
God this is boring. The war is history, Cameron made a slight error. GET OVER IT!
----------------------
Some slight error!
In terms of the duration of the war, a year is one sixth of the British war period and one quarter of the American war period.
If the Americans had made that sort of margin of error when bombing Nagasaki or Hiroshima, they'd have ended up bombing themselves!!!
Complain about this comment
My mother now in her late 80s was a WREN during the Second World War and has been greatly upset by what Mr Cameron has said about Britain during WWII. In fact I have never seen here so anrgy at the comments made by a politican before. As she pointed out the Americans did not come into the war until 1941 over two years after we were fighting Germany. She was also upset because she lost family & friends during the conflict - a friend on HMS Hood - also one at Dunkirk, although she also had friends that were rescuced at Dunkirk. She also pointed out my late father and my Uncles were in the forces during that War some of which were injured and there would not agree that we were the junior partners in it. My mother has voted at ever election local or national since she was able to vote and has only ever voted Conservative even after the scandels that have surrounded politicans but now she has said that if this is the view of the current conservative party she wants nothing to do with them and will not vote for them again.
Complain about this comment
Not sure why this was removed the first time as the reference to the German minister of propaganda was clearly tongue in cheek.
251. At 2:49pm on 22 Jul 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
Yes, a familiar argument, but where does it come from? It's just an official British view.
Who told you that the Germans seriously wanted to gain air superiority or to destroy infrastructure on the ground? (Maybe they should have).
You should read German WWII historians, there is no mention of the "battle" of Britain.
Well, the propaganda I learnt (and history usually is the view projected by the winner) was that Goering boasted that the Luftwaffe could defeat the RAF so in the Summer on 1940 the Luftwaffe engaged in bombing of RAF bases in Britain. The RAF fighter squadrons engaged the Luftwaffe and prevented it gaining air superiority. However in mid Sept 1940, Churchill ordered a bombing raid against Berlin. This so infuriated Hitler that he ordered Goering to direct the Luftwaffe to bomb British cities instead of RAF bases. This gave the RAF breathing space to rebuild their bases and squadrons and get the upper hand over the Luftwaffe. However, the civilian casualties from the blitz led to escalation of city bombing ending with the Dresden raid on Germany.
Had there been such battle, they surely would have won it.
Odd logic: the Germans didn't win it so it can't have taken place. This would be how no doubt that the German minister of propaganda at the time would have portrayed it.
Complain about this comment
It's that Dastardly and Muttley partnership again. Everyone knows that Muttley was the one with the brains but not the one in charge. With the current government we are hostages to incompetence and I dread to think where it will lead us.
Complain about this comment
Britain was the only one fighting starting 1939. Once again we have a PM that sucks up to the Yanks. He'll be know for this gaffe forever, that and overseeing the American destruction of BP. Vote this puerile jerk out ASAP.
Complain about this comment
Of course it's important, unless you want the world to laugh at your ignorance! He's trying to make a name for himself on American TV, and by God he has - unfortunately the name is 'Dave the Dunce'!
At this point, can I just say 'thank you' to the Commonwealth. We should say it more often.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it's important that facts be quoted correctly. This is how spin is introduced into history books.
Complain about this comment
Is it important to get historical facts right?
Only the HYS editors would ask this question.
Complain about this comment
"why Cameron feels the need to start selling this pro-American revisionist worldview?"
Perhaps, he is, like (excuse me) Tony Blair - a realist?
[There's still a possibility to return to good old Blake, Blunt, Burgess, McLean, Philby, Hollis, Wilson, Scargill -days].
Complain about this comment
[99. At 1:04pm on 22 Jul 2010, Lard_Cheeses wrote:
As importantly, what do the Scots think about being badmouthed by him at the first available opportunity? Presumably they're third assistant to the junior partner in Dave's mind.]
Mostly we regard him and his witterings with the contempt they deserve; we'd rather watch paint dry than any of his sucking up to Obama. However, he's probably going to be the cause of a surge of support for the SNP in the coming elections. Far from preserving the Union, he'll be responsible for shattering it.
Is this what he was meant to learn on the fabled playing fields of Eton??
Complain about this comment
>> 138. At 1:25pm on 22 Jul 2010, DCHeretic wrote:
>>I find it curious that once again most posters on HYS completely ignore >>the Pacific front in WWII. Britain had many colonial holidngs in and >>around the Pacific theater. Whereas defeating the Axis in Europe and >>North Africa was a group effort, the US did the bulk of the fighting in >>the Pacific region.
Well actually it may surprise you to know 3/5ths of the Japanese army were deployed against China who fought them for a lot longer than the Allies did so they did the bulk of the fighting and tied up more men than either the US and the UK singularly or put together. British involvement included the greatest defeat in British military history with the fall of Singapore and the so called Forgotten Army of Burma which inflicted the only defeat of a Japanese field Army in the entire war! Of course the US destroyed the Japanese Navy and their submarines crippled Japan's industry which was also bombed and the US were poised to invade Japan,but they were more than helped by not having to deal with the majority of the Japanese Army.
Complain about this comment
If somebody still doesn't now what (FSB) Web-Brigades are and can't recognize their members - they better educate themselves.
On the double.
Complain about this comment
292. At 3:23pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Actually some Lancasters were Canadian built, manufactured by Victory Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, and powered by Packard (Detroit) built Merlin engines."
My father (an RAF officer-pilot during WWII) ferried quite a few of those to England from Gander.
Between his regular tours of duty (Bremen, Essen, Cologne, Vilhelsmhaven)
P.S. Have I mentioned Berlin and Hamburg?
The visual difference between the Canadian and the British Lancaster was the Canadian ones had shiny paint. Apparently the Canadian toolkits were far superior as well.
Berlin? Lived there in the sixties (West Berlin that is).
Hamburg, Reeperbahn!
Wilhelmshaven, went to school there in the early seventies. Went round the town with an old WW2 RAF map, and found loads of buildings the RAF should have bombed, but didn't!!!
Complain about this comment
289. At 3:22pm on 22 Jul 2010, The Ace Face wrote:
Come on Cameron, if you love this country, show us you have a pair and call a General Election and let the electorate show what they think of you.
Err, we just had a general election. We don't need to have another one for nearly 5 years and asking for one to be called just because some (even a majority) are fed up with the current one is not a constitutionally valid reason for doing so. Had it been so, the Thatcherite revolution would not have taken hold. Whether you think that a good or bad thing is neither here nor there.
Complain about this comment
David may be happy to be President Obama's fag but I would suggest Winston Churchill did not see himself as a junior partner - that's why he said we needed a united states of Europe - but then he probably saw the UK in the driving seat rather than moaning about the shape of EU fruit. No doubt David is getting ready to make the same splash in Brussels! Sorry chaps no time for frogs - I have to butter Sir another crumpet.. Fco bending over makes a great toast rack as usual!
Complain about this comment
People really do need to grow up. Many of us make slips very frequently.
Cameron is human, that is probably a good thing. As for Miliband and the rest this is all too much. From the party that brought a "biggoted women" comment from Gordon Brown they would all be wise to consider their positions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
80. At 12:50pm on 22 Jul 2010, SussexRokx wrote:
40. At 12:20pm on 22 Jul 2010, Pat Burger wrote:
What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941.
--------------------------------
Obviously taken from the script of yet another completely inaccurate Hollywood script...
I've never read such rubbish...
It would be interesting to know how we had effectively lost the war by 1941...
Yes the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), sent to help the French had been driven back to Dunkirk (May 1940). The BEF made up just one tenth of the defending forces.
We were fighting in North Africa quite successfully from 1940, before the USA even entered the war.
----------------------------------------------
Your as bad as David Cameron!! Get your facts right, we were losing the war in North Africa which is why we were driven back to within 60 miles of Alexandria in 1942. Our first major victory of the war came at El Alaheim in late 1942.
We were woefully prepared for war in 1939, which is why the BEF was defeated in 1940. What saved us in 1940 was the fact that we were an Island, if we hadn't been the Germans would have just kept on advancing and not stopped at the channel. The other thing that saved us was that Hitler was very impatient and rather than concentrate all his forces on Britain, decided to open up a second front and attack Russia. In the end this is what lost the Germans the war as they lost thousands of troops on the Eastern Front.
I agree we should be proud of the fact that we stood alone in 1940, and rather than surrender or negotiate a peace deal, which a lot of the cabinet actually wanted to do, we were determined to fight on, largely due to Churchill. However we would not have won the war without America's help and Hitler's folly in attacking Russia.
Complain about this comment
" 171. At 1:43pm on 22 Jul 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
" 82. At 12:53pm on 22 Jul 2010, Mustafa Yorumcu wrote:
Cameron is right.
Britain was never fully engaged in WW-II (unlike WW-I. Now, that is different.).
British presence in the Continental Europe ceased almost as soon as the war started. There were some battles in North Africa and Southeast Asia. The rest was about defending Britain from German invasion, which didn't take place thanks to USSR and then USA. "
Another Eton graduate!
in 1940 Britain fought in Norway, in France, in Belgium. In 1941 we fought in Greece then Crete, in Egypt, in Libya, in Malta. We fought in Malaya, Singapore and in Hong Kong. In 43 we fought in Dieppe in Northern France, in Tunisia and in Italy. Throughout that time we'd dropped agents and raided occupied europe (like the St Nazaire raid) In '44 we fought right across Europe (D-Day was not lead by Eisenhower but by Monty) and in 1945 it was British troops in Northern Germany ensuring the Russians didn't take Denmark.
Thats just the army. At sea the Royal Navy fought everywhere from the Arctic Ocean to the River Plate (Uruguay/Argentina) in the Pacific and the Med. I lost relatives in the arctic convoys which supplied Russia with weapons we could ill afford to give. The RAF bombed Germany for 6 years losing 80,000 men.
The reason we weren't invaded in 1940 was because the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe. No air superiority meant no invasion. Russia wasn't invaded until May 1941 and it was BRITISH tanks defending Moscow in Dec '41.
The 'some battles' in South East asia were Kohima and Imphal- battles you've probably never heard of but which stopped the 'invincible' Japanese army at the gates of India with bayonet charges across tennis courts.
The US army didn't see combat against Germany until 1943 where in the Kassarine Pass Rommel gutted the US armoured units and needed Scottish troops to rescue them."
--
So, I am right. You're talking about participation in the war here and there. Even Yugoslavia lost more soldiers than Britain in WW-II.
I am not trying to denigrate Britain. I just like history, and want to keep it clear of exagerrations.
Hitler was crazy enough to send 3 million soldiers to Moscow. It was not the RAF that stopped him from trying to invade Britain. Hitler did not wish to invade Britain. He still believed that Britain would be the naval partner in the future Aryan Empire.
I insist. Britain was not fully involved in WW-II. Not in the same sense as Germany, USSR, USA and Japan.
Complain about this comment
"We fought the Germans with the same number of troops as the americans but the number of russians fighting the germans dwarfed what we had."
Really? And here I was thinking that in 1939 we had a comparable population to the continent sized USSR and USA and they were all too busy claiming benefits to be bothered joining up.
Complain about this comment
"it is about time we stopped saying WE won the war and start admiting that we made great sacrifices but were after all junior partners."
Watch " The Cruel Sea"
Most of the stuff (planes, trucks, howitzers, ammo, (even cans of pork) was American, but convoys which sailed to Murmansk to prop Soviet Russia were British, and it was Brits who did most of the DYING.
[Not that (crypto) Russians posting here appreciate your sacrifice.
Complain about this comment
Is it important to get historical facts right?
It's about time some did, according to the Americans they were the only ones fighting in the last great war
But I do think that David Cameron is right
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Apologize & move on.
There's bigger fish to fry.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't be suprised if our prime minister in 3010 is picked up when trying to remember the finer details of the last time this country actually participated in something worthwile.
Complain about this comment
293. At 3:24pm on 22 Jul 2010, JohnH wrote:
I was born in 1949 and long for the day when (probably after I die) that we finally look at WWII with a health dose of reality.
Cameron may have been wrong saying we were the junior partner in 1940, but for most of the war that is exactly what we were.
We fought the war with American weapons, mainly tanks but also aircraft, because our industry lacked proper investment from the time of the victorians.
We fought the Germans with the same number of troops as the americans but the number of russians fighting the germans dwarfed what we had.
The same with the japanese, whilst we were fighting a bitter and forgotton war in Burma the americans were rolling them back all the way to Japan.
Churchill was correct in saying 1940 was our finest hour, we did stand alone when the entire world (and a lot of people in the UK) thought we should seek an armistice. But that is as far as we could go. We would never have won against either Germany or Japan without the allies.
I think it is about time we stopped saying WE won the war and start admiting that we made great sacrifices but were after all junior partners.
-----------------------
Any nation that sacrifices the lives of its own people in order to bring about what it believes to be right, also has the right to idolise those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. To demote such sacrifices and to make them out to be just a small cog in a big machine is offensive to the descendants of those who have died. Regardless of race, colour, creed or nationality.
The part any country played in "winning" either of the two World Wars is just as important, regardless of whether those countries are large or small. To refer to such countries as a junior partner is unacceptable.
Lest we forget...
Complain about this comment
While the American "we saved your butts in WWII" is obnoxious, the constant diminishing of our role is just as bad. Look at yourselves in the mirror and be honest. Brits have a huge chip on their shoulders and it's really, REALLY pathetic and weak. The facts are, we didn't enter WWII until we were threatened and you would have fallen without us. Be honest and thank us.
Complain about this comment
Mr Cameron should explain himself. If he was trying to ingratiate himself with the Americans that's alright. We may all have to do that one day. If he simply made a mistake and meant 1943, that's OK too. He would have been right. But he needs to explain to us what he meant or we will lose confidence in him.
Complain about this comment
I wish to distance myself, my family and most of my friends from what Cameron says and does. This upper-class twit can debase himself and his crummy party as much as he likes, as long as other nations do not believe that he speaks for me, my family or friends.
Complain about this comment
I look forward to Dave's return, as he disembarks from the plane, walking down the steps,
"I have in my hand this piece of paper, signed by Mr Obama. It states that although we thought we had paid off our WW2 debts some years ago, it seems that as part of the agreement every British PM must make a complete fool of themselves to the whole world in Americas favour.
I have now completed the first part of this impotent task to the American publics satisfaction and now look forward to the future, safe in the knowledge that no future grovelling, toadying task will be beyond me"
Complain about this comment
Well being Prime Minster and having meant to have gone to Eton and then University I think factual historical accuracy is important. Particularly as he is meant to be representing Britain on the world stage. It is also insulting to a generation that died and suffered during that war for his freedom amongst others. Cleary by posts on here by serving members of the army particularly post 42, Britain was far from being a junior partner to anyone in the WWII. It is a well known fact British forces fought alone, with no allies in the Battle of Britain and were undefeated when mostly the continent was under Nazi occupation. It was the begining of the end for Adolf as he turned his attentions to the USSR. I think the country deserves some credit for its part. Its not like Britain is claiming we saved everyone else "ass" unlike some we could mention..
Complain about this comment
I think its pretty fundamental! Next will we hear 'Call me Dave' confuse other essential facts!
I can hear him now - 'Hitler and Mussolini our greatest allies in our determination to prevent the evils of democracy from engulfing Europe'!
Mmmm - now that would fit more accurately with our Zeitgeist!
I mean, did this guy go to the BEST public school? How could he possibly make such a fundamental error in relation to the relationships of WW2? America did not join the war until 1941! And I do believe Russia had a more crucial role in winning the war!
Maybe the British public should have a collection and buy Cameron a few History books!
How did this idiot become PM? its beyond reason!
Complain about this comment
Oh dear. Cameron is even more inept than I feared. He's reminded me of Chamberlain before, but now he's turning into a carbon copy.
Complain about this comment
One is always amused by how little the younger generation really knows, about the past.......and in many instances.....the future.
I am reminded of the old adage:
When I was young, I thought my father was very smart.
When I became a teenager, I thought my father knew nothing.
When I reached 30, I was astounded by how much the old man had learned!
Complain about this comment
Im a Labour supporter myself but I tend to agree with Cameron if he means that we were the junior partner purely in military terms. We contributed to about 20% of the Western Allies in terms of numbers of troops and if you include the USSR since they were part of the Grand Alliance against Hitler then this falls to about 5%.
The Great mass of Allied forces that invaded Normandy and France then went on to liberate Western Europe were American.
However in moral and pyschological terms we possible contributed more than either the USA or USSR. Both these nations had to be attacked before coming in.
Britain's disaster was in the 30s when the did not listen to the warnings from the Left and Churchill, our disgrace over Munich when we disasterously handed the Czechs over to Hitler gave him the belief that the West would not stand in his way over his Lebensruam dream in the East and it was a complete disaster as it excluded the Soviet Union. This led directly to the Molotov-Ribbentrobb pact in August 1939.
However in purely military terms Britain was a junior partner and the real winners of WW2 were the USA and USSR.
Complain about this comment
A gaffe on many levels; in its most obvious interpretation his comment was factually incorrect, and was it wise to suggest that we were a 'junior partner' during WW2, considering most British feel that Britain was important, if not the most important player among the Allies, and this is the period in our history of which many people feel proud?
Still, it's just a gaffe; a slip of the tongue; these things happen to everyone. I'd rather crucify our leaders for enacting silly policies than their silly interview mistakes.
Complain about this comment
40. At 12:20pm on 22 Jul 2010, Pat Burger wrote:
What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941.
i dont know where you went and learned your world war history from most likely from the back of a cereal box
we were indeed noones junior partner we were the leading force and power behind a great deal of the attacks and great defences in world war 2
to say we had little enthusiasm and lack of initiative is a blatant falsehood and to be honest i have no idea where you concocted that idea from
through the battle of britain where london was bombed through and through did we fall back and surender no we did not we kept on going because we knew that if we showed strength and a willingness to carry on at home that it would inturn feed our troops with a sense of self worth and the ability to do great things
and it worked
for example when the americans failed their landing in north africa leaving the british forces totally out numbered by the 300,000 italian troops the italian troops came close to conquering North Africa but it was due to the commanding officer Bernard Montgomery and his initiative that the british forces as outnumbered as they were to move around and destroy the supply train of the italians Montgomery only needed to last 4 days for reinforcements but with all the new supplies he gained from the italian supply train he could last out for aslong as he needed to
and through this he created a decisive defeat against the italians and pushed them back to tunisia
but not only that but he through his startegy and tactics and might i use a word you might like "enthusiasm" they went on to conquer land that would be the size of france and great britain combined
Complain about this comment
If I was his parents I would be asking Eton for my money back. Perhaps if he had gone to my comprehensive he would have been taught the facts. Just goes to show you money cannot buy intellegence.
Complain about this comment
Actually, Cameron did not make a mistake. It was the Red Army which first defeated and then broke the back of the Wehrmacht (at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, December 1941-July 1943) long before the Anglo-American-Canadian armies arrived in Normandy. And for those who think that Lend-Lease saved the USSR, American supplies did not begin to arrive in large quantities until _after_ Stalingrad. Franklin Roosevelt himself said that Nazi Germany was done for after the Soviet victory at Stalingrad, that is, in January 1943. Political cartoonists David Low and Leslie Illingworth also knew who beat the Germans, to judge from their cartoons of that period. So Cameron was quite right, but perhaps thinking wrongly that the Americans dominated the war effort. This Anglo-Saxon myth should really be debunked once and for all.
Complain about this comment
oops spelling not too good 'intelligence' I will take a hundred lines and sit at the back of the class!
Complain about this comment
I think it's like asking: Is it important not to lie ?
Complain about this comment
If Cameron is this reliable over something as well known as the details of WW2, how can we trust his judgement in anything. I thought we had seen the back of America's poodle when Blaire finally went but it seems the little fellow has come yapping back, anxious to impress the Americans by his "gosh how wonderful you are" claptrap. Its time we stood up to the Americans and made them see that the rest of the world doesn't think they are quite as wonderful as they believe they are. Whether it was right or wrong to let the bomber go, it ws our call, we made it and its none of some American senators' business. The guy done for hacking into the American defence computers is British, he did what he did in Britain and he should be tried here if anywhere. He hasn't committed a crime here so the case should be thrown out and the Amnericans told to sort out their IT security. The Americans came late to WW2 and made a fortune out of it - respect them - what a joke.
Complain about this comment
Either Mr Cameron is showing that he was a 'slouch' at school when it came to history or that he is following Mr Blair's leadership as a 'puppet' of the US.
Complain about this comment
I am very disappointed with this comment. It was simply not good enough. Hollywood already portrays The U.S. as winning the war, and now we have a British prime minister groveling and toadying to the yanks. A former prime minister Winston Churchill, said to the americans. Something like "Give us the tools and we will finish the job". We did not give in we carried on the fight.
American business did well out of the first two years of the war. But they were not our partners in 1940 Mr Cameron. Then when the U.S. did join in the fighting they were our equal partners militarily. The allied forces were a team made up of many nations. The Soviets lost millions of soldiers and civilians. The Yanks were the richest nation, with the largest forces of the western nations, and they were the paymasters and mass suppliers of arms and materials. But the americans could not have fought that war by themselves. That is the important point. The german army was so ruthlessly efficient that it required many nations armed forces fighting on two fronts for it to be finally defeated. With a great cost of human life. In the Pacific against the Japanese the U.S. were the dominant force. But the British, Indian, Australian, N.Z and Commowealth were the main forces in Burma and Indo China. The Chinese forces, communist and natonalist, were driving the Japanese out of China.
After 1941 we were not a junior partner or a senior partner we were simply a partner. We helped them and they helped us. To say anything else disgraces the memory of all those british people who died as a consequence of that war. It is a truly ignorant and appalling coment by our prime minister.
Then after the war we had to pay the paymasters. We lost our way. Harold Wilson stood up to the U,S, and we did not fight in the Vietnam war. Then successive prime minister decided to back the americans foreign policy regardless. This has resulted in the U.K. becoming the junior partner today, and our prime minister certainly looks and sounds junior.
Complain about this comment
284. At 3:16pm on 22 Jul 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
At 1:24pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Is it important to remember historical dates?"
Yes, many people don't know that WWII began, because till June of 1941 Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were staunch allies.
And that at Yalta US and UK sold their WWII allies down the river:
into half a century long Soviet slavery.'
+++++++
Powermeerkat, like DC you need to get your historical facts right.
It's Poland and Germany that were staunch allies. The German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 anyone?
Poland also willingly participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia by grabbing a piece of its territory in 1938.
In 1939, on the eve of the war, Poland agreed to all German demands and promised to join it in an attack on the Soviet Union but failed to deliver the signed documents on time.
I think Churchill was right when he called Poland the "Hyena of Europe".
------------
Poland also had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union as well (1932). One "staunch ally" attacked Poland on 1 Sept. and the other attacked on 17 Sept. The German-Polish non-aggression pact required foregoing armed conflict for 10 years. Germany broke this pact on 1 Sept. 1939 because Poland would not let Germany annex the Free City of Danzig. What imaginary documents do you speak of? As far as Czechoslovakia, most of it was taken by Hungary. I'm not defending the partition of CZ, however, most of your other "facts" are wrong.
Complain about this comment
334. At 4:13pm on 22 Jul 2010, David wrote:
80. At 12:50pm on 22 Jul 2010, SussexRokx wrote:
40. At 12:20pm on 22 Jul 2010, Pat Burger wrote:
What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941.
--------------------------------
Obviously taken from the script of yet another completely inaccurate Hollywood script...
I've never read such rubbish...
It would be interesting to know how we had effectively lost the war by 1941...
Yes the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), sent to help the French had been driven back to Dunkirk (May 1940). The BEF made up just one tenth of the defending forces.
We were fighting in North Africa quite successfully from 1940, before the USA even entered the war.
----------------------------------------------
Your as bad as David Cameron!! Get your facts right, we were losing the war in North Africa which is why we were driven back to within 60 miles of Alexandria in 1942. Our first major victory of the war came at El Alaheim in late 1942.
-------------------------
December 9 1940, Sidi Barrani.
Tobruk , Benghazi, Cyrenaica - 1940.
Alam El Halfa August/September 1942... Check it out, a defensive victory yes, but still a victory pre-Alamein.
And you say I get my facts wrong!!!
Complain about this comment
Is it important to get historical facts right?
LOL
Does that include the formation/creation of this planet and all the life forms upon it.
Ask the pope how and when this planet was formed, I bet he disputes evidential historical fact, as such, should he really be allowed to visit the UK and preach his gospel words, which in reality are extremist words far from the truth/facts, as are religious employees who are allowed to preach non truths in religious buildings up and down the nation.
Camerons slip of the tongue is totally inconsequential, especially in comparison to religions deviant version of history.
Complain about this comment
It was no error on his behalf. Notice the colour of his tongue!
Complain about this comment
Considering America only joined the war because Pearl Harbour was bombed, I find this comment insulting. Britian were not a second rate power in 1940, and the USA was only just emerging into a first rate power. How can a western country that cannot even provide free health for it's population ever be called civilized.
Complain about this comment
The Russians won the war against Germany. Stalingrad was long before D Day.
Only an idiot would claim otherwise.
Complain about this comment
On this occasion, David Cameron has made an error of fact. After the fall of France in 1940, Britain stood alone against Hitler. Granted that, at considerable cost to Britain, some material aid was supplied by the USA, America did not enter the war as an active combatant until December 1941. Together, Britain and the Commonwealth, the USSR (after Jun 1941) and USA, supported by other allies, eventually defeated the Axis Powers. Although Britain could not match the might, muscle and resources of her two largest allies - the USA and USSR -she was no 'junior partner'. Somehow, I cannot imagine Winston Churchill accepting such a definition! Lesson No 1: 'Engage brain before opening mouth'. That said, we should accept David Cameron's apology, if one was made.
Complain about this comment
I think he has overstepped the Mark he wasn't there, I was as an 81 year old pensioner I think he has accted foolishly I started work at 14 during the Blitz and it was Mongomery who with the desert rats thet soted out the German,s and the Yanks only came into the ware after that brilliant attack by the Japanes on Perl Harbour He doesnt kn ow what he is talking about Regards Barrie Mayes
Complain about this comment
Cameron was only saying what most Americans seem to believe anyway.
Complain about this comment
Lets look at the facts - France, Belgium and Poland had been overun, America was sitting on the sidelines, didn't want anything to do with a european war, the truth is, it was sitting on the sidelines waiting to see which way it went. Then the Japanese came along and gave them a rude awakening they felt then they had to join in. So, from September 1939 to late into 1941 Britain had no partners, we as a nation were standing alone against the axis forces (not forgetting those from Poland and France, individuals not their nations that helped us), how on earth could you describe that as being a junior partner? If Britain had fallen, and the Japanese had not attacked Pearl harbour who knows which side the Americans would have jumped. When you have a mish-mash nation you have people from all countries so there would have been many amongst them waving the German flag. Note, when the Japanese attacked, the Americans rounded up all the Japanese in their country and imprisoned them until the end of the war, that is a fact. We should make allowances for America because they still haven't grown up. I can remember shortly after the war every cinema showed cowboy and indian films, their glorification of the theft of the native indians land. Then we have the mobsters glorifyed on film during the 1930's. So I suppose it can only be expected that they would glorify their part in the second world war ( that's the one they joined in on at a later date ), and every war they've been in and made films of since. Cameron should, if his history is poor, keep his gob shut, ordinary Britains (civilians) went through hell in the early part of the war standing up for freedom. What he needs to do is send some of the actual footage of the blitz years to America for their edification. It wasn't a one day event like 9/11, most major cities were bombed night after night for at least 8 months. It wasn't a film set, but there were thousands of heroes, ordinary people, dealing with it night after night. That in my book makes Britain the major player in world war 2, not a junior partner, got it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
David Cameron made a mistake on dates but not about assistance afforded to UK from the USA when they joined in WW 2.
As most of the soldiers I know would say: Forget it, get over it and move on.
Army veteran 1965 - 1996
Complain about this comment
" What's the big deal? Britain WAS the junior partner in World War II. It's an open secret that your armed forces, particularly the British Army, performed with a distinct lack of initiative and enthusiasm throughout the war. Regardless of the Battle of Britain, you had already been driven out of Europe and had essentially lost the war, with little hope of recovery, by the time America entered in December 1941."
Interesting post I am undecided, is the poster trying to be provocative by making statements he knows to be completely wrong just to annoy British readers? or does he REALLY believe this?
I would be dissapointed at the first, and completely appalled (though not that surprised) by the 2nd.
The British empire/commonwealth made an enormous contribution to WW2, certainly a much higher contribution in Europe than the US did at ANY time of the war, not just 1940 when they were not in the war.
The US did carry out much, though by no means all the fighting in the Pacific.
Try watching the history channel or any other US propoganda channel and you will see the drivel that America won the war single handedly.
British/Commonwealth forces performed very well throughout most of the war. I believe you are referring to veteran units in Normandy who had already been fighting for 4 years and believed it was about time someone else did some of the fighting. I can understand why they may feel that way, but it was a relatively isolated incident. In their first major battle in North Africa at Kasserine pass the US army was routed and ran away. Does that mean ALL US units fought badly for the whole war? Of course not, it was a one off incident and the US troops learnt their lessons very quickly.
I read an interesting statistic a while ago, I may have the numbers out slightly but it went very much like this
US losses in WW2 approx 0.5% of it's population
British Commonwealth losses about 2% of it's population
German losses 7% of it's population.
Russian losses 25% of it's population!!!
Whilst we in the west were fighting 20 odd German divisions in Normandy in June 1944 the Russians were encircling German army group centre on the eastern front. I believe the Germans LOST more than 100 divisions in that battle, without an American being present at all.
I think a number of people on this forum are getting very confused. One post stated that at the END of WW2 Britain was bankrupt and in a terrible state. This is TRUE.
The same and similar posts claim that Britain and the commonwealth were in dire straits before WW2 broke out. That is NOT true. Britain was still a major world power in 1939.
Everyone knows Britain was the worlds largest super power in the 19th Century and that after the end of World War II we were a broken bankrupt bombed out country (mostly because we fought and financed a huge chunk of the war on our own). The transition from one to the other seems very misunderstood.
WW1 cost Britain a lot of money and men but the country was still strong at the end of it.
WW2 finished us.
It is not widely known but a significant US war aim was the dissolution of the remnants of the British Empire, America correctly felt that it was in their interest to hasten the demise of Britain and did everything they could to ensure that whilst Britain did not lose the war, nor did it come out of it in a strong financial position.
Complain about this comment
'When in Rome do as the Romans do' is a good old saying and a little flattery in the process will do no harm to Cameron.
Most would admit they know very little of the history of WW2 apart from the fact that if the US had not come in we would probably have lost.
History has been written and re-written and spin is not a new phenomena so we have to believe whatever slant those at the time believed that we should know.
At least Cameron didn't say 'We saved the world'.
Now that would have been controversial.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it's very important that he gets his facts right, especially for the USA citizens who assume that America alone won the Second World War.
I feel he has belittled and insulted all our servicemen who fought against the Nazis.
How dare he imply that we were the 'junior party' in the war? He has tried to diminish the role that Britain played in saving the free world, and all to stroke the ego of the USA.
Totally disgraceful, and I hope he withdraws that comment publicly.
Complain about this comment
Come on now, this is a fuss over nothing. It's not about winning the war anymore, it's the taking part that counts. Just don't forget your goggles and high-vis vests!
Complain about this comment
This was not a tricky or obscure historical fact. Basic common knowledge. If he can't get this right frankly he should step aside for someone who can.
Complain about this comment
He made a stupid misxtake and should Openly appologise for it
Complain about this comment
With WW2 history shows that the UK stood alone in europe, if it was not for our commonwealth forces, we would have been well and truly stuffed, as the USA did not want to help us with any forces, they did supply us much needed equipment, but they sold us everything at a expensive price, you could say they had us over a barrel and charged the UK maximum price, US citizens who wanted to volenteer to come to the UK and fight for us, were theatened with jail if they did so. So as for the americans saying they saved our necks in WW2, it would be fairer to say they profited first and foremost, our country only recently managed to finally pay off our WW2 debt. AS for the forces fighting in europe, 80% of the forces were from the UK, and our commonwealth countries.
god bless those nice little isreali american investors who indeed did help the UK by supplying us, but at extreme profit, way back then.
America have actually overplayed their actual part in the war in europe, the history books actually show this.
Complain about this comment
305. At 3:43pm on 22 Jul 2010, SussexRokx wrote:
Hitler really wanted Britain and the British Empire to side with the Third Reich, to jointly become the greatest power in the world. With the abdicated Edward VIII as king!!! Goodness knows what he would have done with Mrs Simpson!!!
No junior partnership there...
We were after all Germanic...
+++++++++
Spot on, Sussex Rokx, it is well documented that almost all senior Nazi German leaders were Anglophiles (closeted or otherwise), Hitler and Goering, included. In the German population at large Anglophilic tendencies were also strong at the time.
The only known Anglophobe in the Nazi leadership was von Ribbentrop.
Personally, i think this Nazis' love of Britain turned out to be their downfall. They never managed to bring themselves to fight Britain seriously enough, especially at the beginning of the war, instead chose to entertain themselves with (stupid) hopes of making an ally out of Britain yet.
This may have cost them victory (over Britain at least).
Complain about this comment
#334 wrote "Your as bad as David Cameron!! Get your facts right, we were losing the war in North Africa which is why we were driven back to within 60 miles of Alexandria in 1942. Our first major victory of the war came at El Alaheim in late 1942"
Actually that is only a partial story. The North African theatre was original a fight between Italy and Britain. Italy lost and the Germans stepped in to stop the entire front collapsing. Germany then pushed British troops back with a series of until 1942 when El Alaheim was the first major victory against the German army. El Alaheim was a truimph for Monty but it should be remembered that the German supply lines were seriously over extended and the very fact that Germany had pushed the British Army back meant the British Army was able to concentrate its force.
Anyway back to the main subject.
DC made a silly mistake, it happens.
Personally I am very grateful to Amercia for their support in WWII (and WWI). Without that support the war would have lasted much longer and killed far more people. I do not care who was the senior and junior partner, it was an allied victory
Complain about this comment
oops!That sort of comment would not have gone down well in Eton! Would have got lines for that Cameron and probably the cane as well. Its a bit worrying to have a Prime Minister who isnt very good at history so it doesnt look very good for future of the "very special relationship" because we will have to put up with endless yanks reminding us of the role we played in their war against Germany.
Complain about this comment
In response to many comments.......The "Battle of Britain",was a definite battle,fought by the RAF over the countryside of(mostly)England,Hitler had an invasion plan for Britain(Codename Operation Sea-lion),but insisted,quite rightly,that no invasion could proceed without the Luftwaffe gaining air superiority over the country by the destruction of the RAF,Herman Goering promised to do just this,and failed,Hitler had even chosen the Nazi who was to rule over a conquered Britain,General Brauschitz.With the abject failure of the Luftwaffe to achieve their objective,the plans were put on hold.If,as some ignorant(of the facts)posters say,"there was no Battle of Britain",why was it that "so much was owed by so many to so few",and what exactly was happening over the fields of England in the summer of 1940? I suggest that these self-same posters read "Fighter boys" by Stephen Ambrose(an American war-historian)who meticulously collated information from RAF Veterans,RAF war-records and the Imperial War Museums war-Service Archives.Please check the historical FACTS before making such inaccurate assertions,the insult to all who served,fought and especially those who died defending freedom is a gross re-writing of true history which serves only to underscore the hideous levels of opinionated ignorance which seems to plague this country.
Complain about this comment
[199. At 2:06pm on 22 Jul 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
Yes it's important to get historical facts right. However in the case at hand both DC and those who criticize him know little about said facts.
In fact Brits are among the most brainwashed people in the world. There's much they have to learn and even more government propaganda that they have to unlearn.
To start with, there was no battle of Britain. Of course something happened but it never amounted to a battle -- just low level air activity in which by the way the Germans beat them soundly. ]
My great-uncle flew Spitfires in the Battle of Britain - forgive me if I prefer to accept his version of what went on to yours!
Complain about this comment
Re: lend lease supplies. As I am aware they began in late 1941 to both the UK and USSR. In fact the Red Army would hardly have been able to defeat the Germans at Stalingrad in Jan 1943 if it were not for US supplied Trucks which gave them a mobility they did not possess before. However it was the USSR who broke the German Army and you must consider that 80% of Wermacht casulties were on the Eastern Front.
However the Western Allies defeated the Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe.
In terms of overall casulties.
UK about 400,000
USA about 350,000
USSR about 28 million of which 13 million were military.
No other nation could have lost so much and still proved to be a victor than the Soviet Union and outwith the Navy the USSR matched the USA in Tank and Gun prodution though did not have a matching strategic bomber Wing.
Britain was wrong to instist on attacking Germany through the so called soft underbelly ie Italy and the Balkland due to the horrendous mountainous terrian which did bog down the Allies march through Italy and the USA was right in its insitence on attacking in Through France.
However it was the Red Army that broke Hitler eventually because at Moscow in Dec 1941, Hitler could not achieve his ambition of a fast knock out blow to finish Russia and the Germans were caught in a War of attrittion she could not win.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If wikipedia can get it right then the prime minister has no excuse. The script writer should be put on probation or sacked.
Complain about this comment
Just another gaff from this clown, who just wants tobe the big man, who does not know British history if this is what they teach them in private schools thank goodness we have state operated schools in this country is this the best we can do for prime minister? roll on the next election.
Complain about this comment
Just forgive this time. He will improve on it. Dear Sir, Britain is the cradle of education - go to Black Wells, they have very good collection of history books.
Complain about this comment
I consider it offensive for someone who does not even have the guts to identify themselves to call David Cameron a complete fool. David Cameron is in fact highly educated. I doubt if 'fedupwiththelotofthem' could muster an NVQ
Complain about this comment
Ignorance of history on the part of those who are supposed to be capable of running our country is one of the main reasons such a mess is being made of our economy, society and environment.
Complain about this comment
132. At 1:24pm on 22 Jul 2010, BEN_G wrote:
Oh and Trevor Mallory qoute you: "We led as senior partner until the Americans came on stream and they took over. Its why Eisenhower was the overall commander of D-Day, for example, and not a UK general"
Might want to check historical facts. Eisenhower was given the Supreme Commander position from 1944 for political reasons, however the person who planned and was in Command of all Allied ground forces during Overlord (including D-Day) was Field Marshall Montgomery.
****************************
Yup. Facts known at time of writing re checked, and there is nothing I woant to amend about who was the SUPREME (in terms of rank and overall command of all forces) commander of Allied forces on the D-Day invasion
Complain about this comment
We couldn't have won the war without the US.
They were more powerful than the UK.
Just don't keep rubbing it in!
Complain about this comment
we exist and are breathing today cause some people died for us in 1940 fighting mighty Germans
Complain about this comment
What Mr. Cameron said, if take from the point of view that Dwight Eisenhower being the Supreme Commender of the Allied forces during WW2, then his statement makes sense. But I wouldn't have put it that way.
Complain about this comment
It runs in the family. Was it not another member of Mr Camerons family who made a similarly disparaging remark about British Soldiers. Namely Nancy Astor. I believe she referred to the troops fighting a bitter and deadly campaign in Italy as "D Day Dodgers".
It must be in the genes.
Complain about this comment
Being the PM of our great country, you'd think he would be pro British and tell it like it was.
Being in the US, this was just success by suction!
Complain about this comment
Of course it matters to get your historical facts right, or you look like an idiot, or in this case, a sycophant. Makes you question the quality of an Eton education, doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
I am very disappointed with this comment. It was simply not good enough. Hollywood already portrays The U.S. as winning the war, and now we have a British prime minister groveling and toadying to the yanks. A former prime minister Winston Churchill, said to the americans. Something like "Give us the tools and we will finish the job". We did not give in we carried on the fight.
American business did well out of the first two years of the war. But they were not our partners in 1940 Mr Cameron. Then when the U.S. did join in the fighting they were our equal partners militarily. The allied forces were a team made up of many nations. The Soviets lost millions of soldiers and civilians. The Yanks were the richest nation, with the largest forces of the western nations, and they were the paymasters and mass suppliers of arms and materials. But the americans could not have fought that war by themselves. That is the important point. The german army was so ruthlessly efficient that it required many nations armed forces fighting on two fronts for it to be finally defeated. With a great cost of human life. In the Pacific against the Japanese the U.S. were the dominant force. But the British, Indian, Australian, N.Z and Commowealth were the main forces in Burma and Indo China. The Chinese forces, communist and natonalist, were driving the Japanese out of China.
After 1941 we were not a junior partner or a senior partner we were simply a partner. We helped them and they helped us. To say anything else disgraces the memory of all those british people who died as a consequence of that war. It is a truly ignorant and appalling coment by our prime minister.
Then after the war we had to pay the paymasters. We lost our way. Harold Wilson stood up to the U,S, and we did not fight in the Vietnam war. Then successive prime minister decided to back the americans foreign policy regardless. This has resulted in the U.K. becoming the junior partner today, and our prime minister certainly looks and sounds junior.
i agree with this man
we were both just partners but we were in noones junior partner you can say that we were but just think about the time period and and state that great britain was in at this stage in the war
think about condition that great britain was in we were bedraggled running out of resources quickly and the only way to get more was through the disruption of enemy trade routes
but to state that the ussr had broken the back of the germans is wrong by this point britain and its allies had invaded france the benelux countries etc and had themselves broken the back we had at that point broken their backs
the reason they broke the pact of steel was through a desperation and need for a new front to try and gain morale for their troops
the yanks however did as little as possible out of the 5 beachs in dunkirk they took 2 of them out of the 2 they chose they chose the 2 safest beaches the germans had no faith in the americans fighting capacity and so sent only 1 panzer division out of the 8 that they had on the beaches
so tell me now who had the easiest fight in that war who chose the most opportune moments to join that fight they did this out of an advantagist ideaology
so mr cameron i think you need to apologise to your country to your world and the honoured dead who fought for the freedom that you now flaunt around as a small pittance on their part
Complain about this comment
I had family in both armies. One of the most amazing family gatherings of my childhood was when the WWII vets from each side of the family/pond met each other. They instantly bonded in a way that the rest of us could never understand.
I'm glad they're not around to see this.
Complain about this comment
Cameron obviously gets his history facts from Hollywood and is proving to be a liability as Prime Minister for the UK.
Complain about this comment
Sadly he was right, without the USA, we would probably all be speaking either German or Russian now. This fact however takes nothing away from the courage and sacrifice of the British and Empire troops who fought and died in the second world war. It's just a pity successive governments of the country they died for have largely forgotten them and allowed the freedoms they fought for to be eroded and controlled by foreigners.
Complain about this comment
I guess this is Cameron's way of sucking up to the President. Personally, I find it inexcusable that UK Prime Ministers continue to downgrade our country at the expense of trying to look good in front of the United States. We are one of the few trillion dollar economies in the world, with an important historical legacy and a potentially very bright future. Why someone with such power as Cameron can't make it count when it matters, and instead chooses to acquiesce to Washington in the most annoying way possible, is a mystery. He should be going over there representing our country, getting the best trade deals possible and making the most out of opportunities to ensure our stability. All i've heard is a bumbling apology over the Lockerbie bombings and this latest comment.
He needs to learn very quickly that US politicians are very adept at letting short-term populist soundbites rule the airwaves. He doesnt need to stoop to that level, but he has and worst still he's shown naivety by giving them everything they wanted. What have we got in return? A reputation as a country whose best days are behind us, cemmented further by a prime minister whose credentials have 'Junior Partner' written all over them.
Complain about this comment
Churchill and Thatcher will be turning in their graves, what? she's not dead yet, then I'm sure she'll be round to bash him with her handbag.
How on earth can a person calling himself PM of the UK be so ignorant of WW2, what a disgrace to the millions who died. Still what do you expect from someone so shallow.
Complain about this comment
354. At 4:33pm on 22 Jul 2010, karenjewitt wrote:
If I was his parents I would be asking Eton for my money back. Perhaps if he had gone to my comprehensive he would have been taught the facts. Just goes to show you money cannot buy intellegence.
-----
Why is everyone attacking his background and his education?
There is a lot of misinformation regarding WW-II history.
The man is right !!!
Only in Britain you will hear such a British-centred depiction of WW-II. Britain was a junior partner in WW-II. This has nothing to do with Eton or how a privileged background Cameron had.
Complain about this comment
Serious error for something which only happened 70 years ago... Britain was surely the senior partner through '40, and '41 and I believe straight through the North African campaign in early '43. Sometime between the three Italian landings and D-Day the Americans assumed the senior role.
Complain about this comment
we were not alone we had Irish free state volunteers, Australians , Canadians, Indians and many more that made up the dominions free countries of the Commonwealth or the Empire. We was an island of liberty of democracy, we paid through the nose for supplies from the USA and they only entered when they know that they could not stand by and that Hitler would never honour any agreement made and that he would be bring fire and death to the shores of the USA like he did to the East End of London.
Stand up Cameron say sorry and get on with the job, but say sorry because i don't think that many see there sacrifice in the war as Jouion. You have been doing fine so far so show us what kind of man you are. Could you imagine Churchill's response to these comments by a British Prime minister.
Complain about this comment
I am an American and I wouldn't even go that far. Granted that our idle factory capacity did a great deal to win the war but without Great Britain as a starting point, things might have turned out quite a bit different.
Complain about this comment
365. At 4:56pm on 22 Jul 2010, MizzJShaw wrote:
"Considering America only joined the war because Pearl Harbour was bombed, I find this comment insulting. Britian were not a second rate power in 1940, and the USA was only just emerging into a first rate power. How can a western country that cannot even provide free health for it's population ever be called civilized."
So why are you blaming us for his insulting comment? He's a product of your own posh schools, isn't he? He's not uncivilized like us.
Complain about this comment
1/ Cameron's comments re: WWll were much more than a "slip" of the tongue.
2/ Yes, I'm sure it could alienate the troops, it's alienated everyone else.
3/ It is important to remember the dates (roughly) of "monumental" events.
4/ History is about the (questionable) development & progress of mankind.
5/ No matter what the subject of the discussion was the man made a fool of
himself.
Churchill (whoever he was) must be spinning in his grave.
Complain about this comment
BTW Just to get the facts straight. Cameron said this twice, on Sky news and on another channel, ABC I think.
So all this stuff about it being a slip of the tongue is just rubbish.
The fact that they are now trying to say it was a slip of the tongue indicates that they (the government)recognise themselves it was factually incorrect, and a king size boo boo.
What an idiot, good job he's got Nick there to make him look competent.
Complain about this comment
355. At 4:34pm on 22 Jul 2010, Georgievich wrote:
Actually, Cameron did not make a mistake.
Sorry but you are mistaken. Cameron made his comment about the position in 1940 and Russia was still an ally of Germany at that time. After Hitler attacked Russia the contribution of the Russians in WW11 was enormous and although the UK and her Commonwealth allies plus individuals from many nations were resisting strongly in 1942 victory was a distant hope. The entry of Japan into the war in late 1941 could have been disaster for the UK but by attacking Pearl Harbour Japan ensured the US joined the conflict and after Hitler attacked the USSR the balance was changed completely. The contribution of many nation led to the allied victory but in 1940 it was the UK plus the Commonwealth only. I have no idea whether Cameron lacks knowledge of UK history or was pandering to an audience but what he said was wrong.
Complain about this comment
It was a silly thing for Cameron to say. It was certain to brass the Brits off. There were no senior or junior partners in the war. Britain and the empire slogged away on their own for years without direct help from the USA. The overrun European countries did what they could. The US entered the war and was very important to the eventual victory. The war was won by the sacrifices of individuals, sometimes very personal sacrifices. It is nonsense to talk about senior or junior partners. A politician should know better.
Complain about this comment
I do possess the complete World at War series on DVD! Maybe I will post it off to Number 10! Cameron could watch it while signing away our country to the corporate fascists he appears to have little actual knowledge about! Mmmm me thinks we have an idiot in charge of the country!
Not only has he, and the political cliques destroyed everything that us British value, now he is attempting to destroy our history too!
Marvellous!
Complain about this comment
Behind every newsreader there seems to be a 'puppet master' pushing the reader to take a negative and aggressive attack on every single action by this new coalition government.
Newasreaders should be just that:BBC top management - CUT OUT the overt BBC policy to work against a government that is trying hard to reverse the diabolical economic and social UK which an IMPOTENT Labour government left us.
The majority of people to whom I talk see the need for coalition government and as patriotic Brits are willing to give Cameron and Clegg time to prove (or otherwise) themselves.
BBC Policy seems to be wanting . . . .what? Surely not a government led by the awful set of Labour Party Leadership candidates!
Complain about this comment
Why all the hullabaloo? In 1940, although we were not technically allies, America was our de facto ally by supplying war materials like the 50 Lend Lease destroyers, one of which just happened to be the leader of the flotilla in which my destroyer was a part. We were ill-prepared to withstand any invasion of our island by the Germans, and of course Hitler made the mistake that turned the tide by ignoring Britain as sitting ducks after Dunkirk and turning east to invade Russia. That gave the Americans and the UK the respite to build the armaments that enabled us as eventual allies to win the war.
Complain about this comment
Cameron's comments are without doubt an insult and a mockery of all those of our people that fought and died in the war, even before America's harbour was bombed. That he laughed while implying our insignificance is a further insult to the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
Ever watched any BBC or Hollywood revisionist docudramas or films?
Complain about this comment
374. At 5:03pm on 22 Jul 2010, virtualsilverlady wrote:
'When in Rome do as the Romans do' is a good old saying and a little flattery in the process will do no harm to Cameron.
Most would admit they know very little of the history of WW2 apart from the fact that if the US had not come in we would probably have lost.
History has been written and re-written and spin is not a new phenomena so we have to believe whatever slant those at the time believed that we should know.
At least Cameron didn't say 'We saved the world'.
Now that would have been controversial.
==================================
History of WW2 is well documented and easy to find. WW2 would have just as likely to have been lost if Russia had not been invaded by Germany or the Battle of Britain had been lost or none of the Common Wealth countries had supported Britain.
Complain about this comment
I saw it in real terms. Taken at face value, David Cameron is an Ambassador for Britain in another country. If what he has said sets a diplomatic example, I see no harm in it.
It is very easy to criticise after the event and when the facts are written in text. The British people really don't need to remind any one how great we are - maybe some do - if that is the problem.
Those who seek perfection will have the opportunity to take him to task on his return as no doubt they will.
Complain about this comment
@ 5. Togodubnus who wrote
'Although much as i dislike defending Cameron (i shall wash afterwards), its perfectly possible to put forward an argument rooted in sound historical sources that Britain was indeed the 'junior partner' in 1940.'
This is total ignorant nonsense and it compounds Cameron's insulting gaffe.
Here are the facts:
In 1939 Britain, France and the Commonwealth declared war on Germany following the invasion of Poland. Serious military operations started in 1940. In 1940 also, in spite of later becoming an ally, Russia signed a trade pact with with Germany in which it received weapons in exchange for raw materials – this pact was specifically designed to circumvent a British blockade. In June 1940 France surrendered. The USA was neutral.
Only in 1941, after the Axis invaded Russia, did Russia form an alliance with Britain against Germany and, ultimately against the Axis. The USA remained officially neutral until late 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour.
Britain is the only country to have declared war on Nazi Germany at the outset and to have seen the war right through to the end without surrendering. While it may not have been entirely alone in 1940 it was certainly the most important obstacle to Hitler's plans and the leading nation fighting the Nazis at that point. In spite of the vital role of other countries in WW2, without which the Axis is very likely to have won, what Britain did was to show rare true and brave leadership and to dismiss it as a junior partner is an unforgivable corruption of history.
Here's Cameron's gaffe ""We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."
That may well have been a genuine slip of the tongue – though I am cynical about that. But to compound it by suggesting history might support that view without being brave enough to advance any evidence is a total insult to this country and all who suffered in WW2.
Complain about this comment
Is it important to get historical facts right?
Depends what historical facts you are talking about. I'm surprised Cameroon didn't congratulate the yanks for winning the Vietnam war while he was there too. Not to mention civilising those red skinned savages that used to think America was theirs.
Complain about this comment
People should be more gracious to the USA, her Wartime production was astronomical, a liberty ship per week was one instance. And bear in mind that the USA was also fighting in the Pacific to defeat Japan. Too many folks confuse US imperialist agression from Vietnam onwards with what was a breathtaking performance in WW2.
It was a Grand alliance and so each nation played its part and contributed. What I find offensive is when people forget that British Soldiers returned home after the War and voted for a Labour government in August 1945, that would liberate us from Poverty. They were not going back to the condiditons of the 30s and demanded a health and welfare service which have greatly benefited the Nation since. Cameron has NO right or mandate to run either of these institutions down out of ideology. They were the brainchild of the War and MUST remain or we kick him out.
On historical facts, it depends on who is writing the book and have they researched it well and attempted to look at both sides of the situation or battle. Some of the accounts eminating from the Cold War, Stalinist, and rightwing neo-conservatives are worthless.
Historical facts often demand access to official and unofficial archieves. Soviet War time archieves have only been opened since the fall of the USSR but those who have had access to them have written often brilliant accounts.
Complain about this comment
Britain was hardly a minor player in WW2 so I think Cameron is way off the mark.
It also always amuses me when we still get Americans who come out with "you'd be speaking German if it weren't for us" type of comments. It could easily be counter argued that they'd be speaking German if it weren't for us!
Complain about this comment
I totally agree with 386 above. Come on BBC they are getting away with murder.
Complain about this comment
I take it that History wasn't tought very well at Eton
Complain about this comment
342. At 4:20pm on 22 Jul 2010, SussexRokx wrote:
293. At 3:24pm on 22 Jul 2010, JohnH wrote:
I was born in 1949 and long for the day when (probably after I die) that we finally look at WWII with a health dose of reality.
Cameron may have been wrong saying we were the junior partner in 1940, but for most of the war that is exactly what we were.
We fought the war with American weapons, mainly tanks but also aircraft, because our industry lacked proper investment from the time of the victorians.
We fought the Germans with the same number of troops as the americans but the number of russians fighting the germans dwarfed what we had.
The same with the japanese, whilst we were fighting a bitter and forgotton war in Burma the americans were rolling them back all the way to Japan.
Churchill was correct in saying 1940 was our finest hour, we did stand alone when the entire world (and a lot of people in the UK) thought we should seek an armistice. But that is as far as we could go. We would never have won against either Germany or Japan without the allies.
I think it is about time we stopped saying WE won the war and start admiting that we made great sacrifices but were after all junior partners.
-----------------------
Any nation that sacrifices the lives of its own people in order to bring about what it believes to be right, also has the right to idolise those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. To demote such sacrifices and to make them out to be just a small cog in a big machine is offensive to the descendants of those who have died. Regardless of race, colour, creed or nationality.
The part any country played in "winning" either of the two World Wars is just as important, regardless of whether those countries are large or small. To refer to such countries as a junior partner is unacceptable.
Lest we forget...
====================================
MORE IMPORTANTLY- LEST WE FORGET TRUTH AND FACTS .
Dont you dare say that we should deny the TRUTH because it doesnt sound nice, those that died are WORTH THE TRUTH and I hold them much higher in esteem than todays generations.
A plain and simple fact is that britain survived more from luck than anything else.
Our men and women made huge and courageous sacrifice which is indisputable, but what is completely diputable was the competance and ability of this nation to resist defeat, and also the MASSIVE failures and incompetance/neglect which resulted in so much dangerous failure, INCLUDING events which led to Dunkirk.
If you bother to read the REAL history and ALL the facts, it is NOT such a glamourous picture of events or reality. There were MANY MANY courageous acts and MUCH MUCH self sacrifice, but had politicians and military and even liberalist anti-war public been competant and realistic then believe me the LOSS of life in WWII would NOT have been as substantial and terrible as it was.
The battle of Britain was won MAINLY and FACTUALLY due to Germanys OWN mistakes and incompetance, NOT by the extraordinary courage of our airmen alone.
Had the German airforce been competant and taken out our radar stations then it would have been a far different story. Even though the German airforce suffered huge loss, had they also continued for much longer our already depleated airforce would have just no longer existed. Our army just would NOT have been able to withstand an invasion as 80% of our military equipment was in FRANCE on and around the beaches of Dunkirk and spread over our retreat to Dunkirk.
Had Germany invaded we would have been lucky to last 2 weeks.
Our military and political incompetance was even more blatantly visible in Burma and Singapore etc, where we had just upped our troops by 100,000 only to NOT have even the BASIC necessary military equipment for them to withstand a better equiped Japanese army, which resulted in our troops having no other option than to surrender to the Japanese army resulting in more than 50% of them dieing in attrocious prison of war camps and on Japanese railway projects etc.
Basically, those who presently scream and shout about how unecessary it is for us to have such an army, and government cuts, are putting us into an even WORSE situation than in 1937/1938/1939/1940 and 1941.
This government doesnt even know where or how the next recession or banking collapse will come from or why, & they didnt see this one coming either. Yet they categorically state that there is NO present enemy of such a threat to our nation, hence we basically disect our military into an anti terrorist force, all this while the world is yet again facing mirror image realitys as pre-WWII, but with further and greater competition for a MUCH reduced quantity of limited resources. Our industrial capacity to produce any rushed need of military equipment and supplys is even LESS able to meet such needs than at ANY time in modern history, or 200 +years.
Good thinking batman.
NOT.
Try reading- US wartime aid to Britain, 1940-1946 By Alan P. Dobson , which is an in depth FACTUAL account of British/USA events/politics/economy/finances in the build up to war and during, especially loans and provison BEFORE Lend Lease and also after and also after the war, some of which is available to view/read on the internet but total pages are limited to a pre-view quantity.
It provides a huge in-look into the seriousness of our position and our inability to do or provide ourselves with what was needed required. It even points to a significant factor of USA providing what we needed due to Britain defaulting on WWI loans which resulted in introduction of the USA Debt Default Act in 1934 preventing the USA from extending loans to or buying bonds from defaulters, of which Britain was a defaulter of payment.
If it doesnt make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up then basically you dont have any.
There are miles upon miles upon miles of pages of books with FACTS of events of WWII, which document the factual history FAR FAR beyond GLOSSED over films and snipets of events in many educational history books or on Wilkipedia or other such irrelvent and INCOMPLETE media.
To deny the FULL TRUTH is the BIGGEST INSULT of all to those who gave and lost their lives.
If anyone on HYS bothers to read actual and FULL events of 1940, it was 1940 that we actually did become the junior partner in WWII, solely because we were practically right out of cash and our industry was so inept at providing what was actually needed, though it did the best it could, it was NO-WHERE near enough.
This slip of David Camerons, I would suggest is NOT exactly a slip, but a factual and indisputable point of the reality in 1940, especially after June 3rd, a reality which is not often heard or documented in the mainstream, but you can bet your life, that David Cameron has read up on the ACTUAl REAL FACTS of UK/USA relationship and of which this slip of partnership information is the precise reality as early as 1940. There are lots of twists and turns in UK/USA economic/trade and military power struggle, just as there are with present USA/China.
I havent got time to write a whole book to explain to dimwits on HYS hence suffice to say that those who say camerons comments were poor, basically just DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, including the muppets in Labour opposition or some newspapers, ANYTHING for a bit of a stir up, its what they are about, and NOT so much the TRUTH.
Complain about this comment
Just by way of comparison; how does David Cameron's craven subservience toward the USA stand up against Alex Salmond's stout defence of the Scottish Government's decision on Al-Megrahi? Agree with it or not, I know which one of these two men has impressed me more in the last few days.
Complain about this comment
While the PM's comment was a bit of a gaffe, I don't think it was intentional. What I was much more dissapointed at was the comments made by Conservative MP Nicholas Soames (and grandson of Sir Winston Churchill) stating in the TV interview on the PM's 'junior partner' comment that before the USA joined the war in 1941 that the UK was standing alone against Germany. Having seen what his PM said, he should have learned the lesson. The UK was far from alone in the early years of the war. Australia, India and New Zealand declared war on Germany on the same day (within hours if Chamberlain's declaration of war) as the UK did and deployed troops to fight alongside England's armed forces. Plenty of other nations were also in the fight against Germany and the Axis powers before the USA entered the war.
So, Mr Soames, you should read more on England's history and not belittle the effort of other countries, let alone the men that lost their lives in the protection of England.
Complain about this comment
361. At 4:51pm on 22 Jul 2010, Paul wrote:
284. At 3:16pm on 22 Jul 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
At 1:24pm on 22 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Is it important to remember historical dates?"
Yes, many people don't know that WWII began, because till June of 1941 Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were staunch allies.
+++++++++++++++++++
Powermeerkat, like DC you need to get your historical facts right.
It's Poland and Germany that were staunch allies. The German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 anyone?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powermeerkat refers to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 -- THAT's the one where the Soviet Union and Germany agreed on spheres of influence in Northern and Eastern Europe, divided and invaded their respective sides of Poland and agreed on mutual non-aggression, including neutrality of each to the others aggressions.
This pact was secret except for trade and credit provisions until 1945. It was Stalin's great betrayal of all political movements sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and explained after the war Stalin's aggression against eastern Poland and the Baltic states 1939-1940. It was obviously followed by Germany's great betrayal of the Pact on June 21, 1941.
Complain about this comment
Yes, we were the junior partners but not to the USA. Both us and the US were junior partners to the Soviet Union which is why Europe was divided by the iron curtain.
Complain about this comment
He made a mistake, which is OK, we all do, but he should still apologize for it. It is hugely important to get the facts correct. The vast majority of Americans still believe that the WW2 started in December 1941. In fact, a West Point trained friend of mine did not know that the first American war ship to be sunk was in the North Atlantic by a U boat in the autumn of 1941, and he owned a recently published book on the second world war that showed that it started December 7th, 1941. These kind of gross inaccuracies should not be allowed to be perpetrated. It is important to all those who were involved, all those who gave their lives, our national identity and those who believe in the pursuit of knowledge and accurate facts.
Complain about this comment
Pat Burger, reversing the facts won't wash here.
If anything and by very many first hand accounts, it was the US forces sent over here who lacked enthusiasm.
There were many cases of US troops conveniently marching in the opposite direction to the front after the Normandy landings, don't tell me you did'nt have compasses.
Of course it's never wise or diplomatic to admit that sort of thing regarding an allie.
The US made a mint out of WWII and pulled itself out of recession, the UK and indeed the commonwealth were left virtually penniless and in debt to the US for the next 60 years.
The Germans who were fined (extremely moderately) after WWII for war damage to the UK, decided to stop paying anything more in the mid 60's claiming poverty.
As we all know they then went on to become the powerhouse of Europe whilst UK had to devalue against the mark. So much for justice in a world by that time totally dominated by the self-serving USA.
I'm really getting fed up with the misinformation machine that masquerades as the US educational system.
Complain about this comment
Heads of state should have their facts at their finger-tips. They know that every syllable will be broadcast, televised and any slip would be seized upon by journalists or members of the Opposition. The Prime Minister should have paid more attention to detail. Nevertheless he knows that the relationship with America will not be affected by that gaffe. Everyone knows he is astute. After all to err is human.
Complain about this comment
324. At 4:05pm on 22 Jul 2010, Its_an_Outrage wrote:
///Is it important to get historical facts right?
Only the HYS editors would ask this question.///
Well the BBC tends to get contemporary fact incorrect so not much chance they care much about historic facts really!
Complain about this comment
It was said at the beginning of WW2 that Britain
would fight to the very last American.
Without America joining the war, Britain and the other allies
would have not have defeated Germany.
'junior partner' is an accurate statement.
Complain about this comment
I've just spoken to my mum who didn't feel a junior partner when being blown through the front door, as her family house in Holborn, London was destroyed by the Luftwaffe, nor did she feel a junior partner whilst waiting on news of my father who lay in a ditch after having his leg partially blown off during the first wave of the invasion of Normandy. They like millions of Brits, our Commonwealth friends and free Europeans were actively engaged in fighting Hitler whilst America sat twiddling its thumbs for the first 18 months of the war and then made us pay fulsomely for their initial aid. This man is a fool in denegrating the country he is supposed to represent.
Complain about this comment
365. At 4:56pm on 22 Jul 2010, MizzJShaw wrote:
Considering America only joined the war because Pearl Harbour was bombed, I find this comment insulting. Britian were not a second rate power in 1940, and the USA was only just emerging into a first rate power. How can a western country that cannot even provide free health for it's population ever be called civilized.
==================================================
ERM, sorry but you are FULLY and COMPLETELY and TOTALLY 100% WRONG as well as an ignorant and deluded muppet
Work this one out.
If Britain was NOT already a 2nd rate power, then how come we could only offer 4 army divisions to send to Europe and how come, that even combined with French forces, we were soon to be pushed into the sea and have inflicted upon us our biggest and most significant historical defeat resulting in Dunkirk and the loss of 80% of british army equipment.
Ignorance may be bliss today, but in 1940 ignorance resulted in Blitzkrieg (lightning war) and factually proved our ability of being self-righteously below that which we profess to be, as much now, as then.
Complain about this comment
I don't think David Cameron made a mistake, I think he inadvertantly revealed a state secret that he discovered whilst researching for his visit to Obama. The USA was actively involved behind the scenes in WWII long before they began fighting, in the diplomatic wrangling and skulduggery in foreign embassies and governmental corridors of power. The future release of "top secrets" and subsequent history books will probably reveal this and even further information that will challenge our long-held "we stood alone" contention. Or it may have been a slip of the tongue; a phonemic analysist might well establish that he actually said or meant to say "1940's" instead of "1940". In any case, I really don't think it's anything to get upset about.
Complain about this comment
I am sorry UK but you were the junior partner. When the war started in 1939, there was no help from the US...but you did get a lot of help from Canada, Austrailia and other parts of the Commonwealth.
The UK bravely fought the Battle of Britain with British pilots and Common wealth pilots - no Americans. But before 1941 and Pearl Harbor, the UK was being kept afloat by American loans and Lend/Lease. Also, the UK didn't have the population to push the Germans out of Western
Europe. American troops were needed.
I don't think there is anything wrong with Mr. Cameron's history. History is often not what the ego would wish it to be.
Complain about this comment
"309. At 3:46pm on 22 Jul 2010, scotbot wrote:
#25. ruffled_feathers wrote:
There are thousands of dates to remember in history - there are a few for the UK which stand out, such as:
1. Battle of Hastings
2. Great Plague
3. Great Fire of London#
The thing is, though, these aren't wholy pertinent to British history, for all happened before the UK came into existence as a political entity.
Battle of Hastings is English history, as is the Great Fire of London, and the Great Plague is pertinent to the whole of Europe.
Ironic that we're al here deriding Americans for thinking the world revolves around them, when you do the same regarding the English.
Here's a few other dates relevant to British history (even if not considered as such because they don't register on an Englishman's radar), but no less important:
1. AD503 ~ the Scottish kingdom of Dalriada in Argyll (the high ground of the Gael) is established
2. AD843 ~ King Kenneth MacAlpin unites the Gaels and the Pretani / Cruithne (aka the Picts) as one nation, Alba
3. 844-877 The Reign Of Rhodri Mawr (Rhodri The Great) who united all of Wales under his rule
4. AD1567 ~ Mary Queen of Scots abdicates and the one-year-old James VI becomes King of Scotland
5. AD1840 - 1850 ~ The Irish Potato Famine
That you never even considered these important events from British history just goes to show you demonstrating the why David Cameron chose to sook in with the Americans.
You think that because it's not English it's not important, failing to realise that without these events Britain, and certainly the UK, would not exist.
And this is why dates are important, because they inform us of who we are and where we've come from, perhaps even where we're going."
You are making assumptions based upon nitpicking.
You realise that an example does not constitute an exhaustive list?
I was trying to give examples that everyone might recognise - you seem to have recognised them without difficulty, despite apparently not having an English ancestry (as I have not)? Otherwise I suppose I could have written a small book.
I thought the Potato Famine extended to 1852.
Complain about this comment
I think he made a mistake, of course the BBC never makes mistakes. Not really the end of the world is it?
Now a big mistake woulld be taxing companies on pension contributions, or sending people to prison for non payment of a licence fee.
Complain about this comment
Yes. He should be. What is education in these private schools coming to these days?
Complain about this comment
In his (Baltimore) Sun editorial page coluunm, “Why Not Be Honest? published at the end of that momentous wek on Sept. 10, 1939, H.L. Mencken challenged Roosevelt’s proclamation of neutrailty.
Mencken dismissed the position as so much “preposterous rumble-bumble.” “Why the Hon. Mr. Roosevelt should indulge himself in this transparent hocus-pocus I do not know, and it would probably be in vain to inquire,” he write, “It may be that false pretenses run inevitably with the practice of statecraft, it maybe only that quacks, in the lng run, always swllow their own buncombe. “But whatever the cause,” he added, “the fact is surely plain enough. The hon. gentleman is actually no more neutral in this war than the British Ambassador.” In conclusion, Mencken wrote, “Thus the fate of fortunes of the American people are once more pledged to England, whose gratitude the last time took the form of calling us names and bilking us out of many billions. If things go badly on the Western Front, who’ll take over for a second time the burden of saving democracy and once more we’ll pay the check.”
Complain about this comment
Bearing in mind that we had to give away all of our inventions to the USA (most USA citizens probably believe that our inventions were their inventions) AND USA did not join in the war until after Japan hit them and Germany declared war on them AND we still had to pay for all of the materials and equipment they sold us AND USA nearly bankrupted us post WW2 when they only very reluctantly loaned us huge amounts of money that we have only recently finished paying back - I suppose that USA will always consider us a junior partner in everything.
I really do think that the UK should distance itself from getting too much in bed with the USA. At the end of the day, the USA will always put its interests above everything and everyone, will never listen to the advice from the UK and has no qualms at dropping us or anyone if it suits them.
As for Cameron's history gaff - shameful! I suggest that he spends his time when travelling between continents reading Andrew Marr's A History of Modern Britain'. Lessons for all modern politicians in that book!
Complain about this comment
What a load of total misinformed rubbish by most commenters. We were ill prepared for war in 1939.
Read the Lend Lease agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt whilst the US was still neutral, without America's aid to us before Pearl Harbour, it is likely that we might have lost the war.
Try checking historical facts before making comments.
Complain about this comment
Contributions to the masive effort varied .In shear size the US dwarfed all the western allies but that does not deminish the lesser parners.UK with Churchill had significant influence but he realistically knew that the victory only could be won with the enormous US forces and supplies.Cameron is wise to cast the UK as a junior partner now since it cannot afford a larger role and can best contibute by resisting the sycofancy of the Blair period which allowed Bush to bring us all to financial and military disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
In 1940 Britain and the whole British Empire led the fight on the Western Front against the Nazis. The USA were not even a combatant.
We were not a junior partner then and we should not allow ourselves to be treated as a junior partner now.
Unfortunately however there is a junior player in 10 Downing Street who in a couple of days has done more than any previous Prime Minister since Chamberlain to raise the morale of our enemies (the Taliban) and to put our troops and our national interest at risk.
This empty PR pot is a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
It's not the first nazi gaffe this man has maybe. It's not the first gaffe in fact, this man seems gaffe prone. Oh dear oh dear I hope the 40% who voted for this gaffe prone.....man are happy.
Complain about this comment
415, I heard about this story on sky a day or two before it I saw the BEEB report it. I thought Murdock and Cameron were friends...
Complain about this comment
The first U.S. troops arrived in the British Isles in January 1942, but nearly a YEAR PASSED before they went into action against the Axis, (post Pearl Harbour)
so WHEN the lads were on the beaches of DUNKIRK were they JUNIOR..
So do the words Junior to US make the lads in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN JUNIORS TOO?
I have been talking to those who show their fellow servicemen and women respect, they wont be forgetting this Cameron when you go to the country VERY SOON we hope.
This 'gaffe' in USA wont go away!!!
'lest YOU forget'
Complain about this comment
At this rate, the Americans will be claiming `victory` in Iraq and Afghanistan next...
Complain about this comment
Intersting maybe this is his perception of it or maybe this is what he would now like history to remebr it? Oficial historical acounts of are often manipulated by politicians and the media to be very diffrent from what trulley actually happend.
The BBC itself will have been complicit many times in helping shape the publics perception of historical events in recent years.
I now await moderation by your free speach department!
Complain about this comment
335. At 4:13pm on 22 Jul 2010, Mustafa Yorumcu wrote: "I insist. Britain was not fully involved in WW-II. Not in the same sense as Germany, USSR, USA and Japan."
This is rubbish. In 1940, Goering had promised Hitler he would defeat the RAF, thus providing open skies for the German invasion fleet, which was assembling in the Pas De Calais. The Luftwaffe policy of attacking RAF airfields was all but successful, and, if persisted with, would have defeated the RAF. However, RAF heavy bomber raids on Berlin, Hamburg and Munich so infuriated Hitler that he ordered Goering to retaliate, by bombing British cities(the Blitz). Thus the airfields were spared, the RAF regrouped and defeated the Luftwaffe. The Nazi invasion fleet could not be protected and the invasion plan was abandoned. Goering got the blame, but the pivotal decision was Hitler's (a quite impetuous chap, apparently).
Hitler expected Britain to seek terms but Churchill refused. Hitler then fatally decided to attack Russia.
It doesn't take an Eton-(ill)educated genious to understand all of this. If Britain had capitulated, there would have been no European war for the USA to join in 1941; it would have been all over, (although I think Japan would still have attacked the USA).
Britain, and it's valiant Commonwealth partners were the last men standing in 1940/41. You could probably say that Britain, in her defiance, determined the eventual outcome of the war. To suggest that Britain had some sort of "junior" role is ignorant, crass, insensitive to those who were lost, and I'm afraid an unforgiveable mistake which goes to the heart of Cameron's credibility as our Prime Minister.
Add to this his cringeworthy and embarrassing performance at his press conference with Obama and I think, for the UK, I would have to use another American cliche "Houston, We have a problem!"
Complain about this comment
I find this gaff absolutely ridiculous, Cameron is leading the coalition and the country; he has to establish credibility with the public for what has to be a very difficult cost cutting exercise to stop the country becoming bankrupt. This comment will not endear him to people who were not junior partners to anyone at that time. They fought, died and believed they would create a better future. When the country is being asked to support housing benefit at 20 times the yearly pension of some of the people that sacrificed life and limb in that war and he makes a comment like this, I despair that any politician understands the British Public and the realationship they must have to represent them.
Complain about this comment
"Junior partner" may have been an imprecise term. Great Britain entered WWII as one of the world's superpowers. She had the world's largest navy, was the number four industrial power (behind the U.S., Germany and USSR in steel production), and had the resources of the British Empire and Commonwealth. The key to understand here is that she was a maritime empire with the largest number of overseas colonies - she was NOT a great continental power.
Historically, it is correct to say that Great Britain and her Empire and Commonwealth "stood alone" from the Fall of France on June 25, 1940 to the invasion of the Soviet Union on June 21, 1941. The various commonwealth states and conies may have made individual declarations of war - but it was Great Britain who was leading this coalition. The armies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand were under British command. The Army of India was under British command.
Yes, Great Britain fielded the smallest field army of the three great Allied powers. However, the British Army was also the only army in WWII that was completely motorized. 90% of the German Army used horses until VE Day. The U.S. Army's infantry divisions were "straight leg" divisions - they depended upon independently assigned Quartermaster Truck Companies for mobility. Thus, a British division may have been bigger than its counterparts - but it also possessed total freedom of mobility.
Up until July 1944, as between Great Britain and the U.S., Great Britain had more divisions in the field in contact with the Germans and Japanese. From that point on, the massive movement of the U.S. Army into Europe changed that balance. Also, from this point on, the British had to disband divisions to keep other up to strength. You can only do so much with 40 million Englishmen. In Europe, by VE Day, British (and commonwealth/Empire) divisions amounted to only 25% of the total.
The RAF was numerically smaller than the US Air Force. However, the Lancaster bomber could carry the largest bomb load of any Allied bomber, even the US B-29. Look up Tall Boy and Grand Slam. Tall Boys sank the Tirpitz. Grand Slam - the largest non-nuclear weapon ever built - was an earthquake bomb - look up what it did to the Bielefeld railroad bridge.
The Royal Navy really took the casualties and essentially sacrificed itself. It started out as the world's largest in 1939 - by 1945 it was still number two, but a shadow of its former self and no longer capable of competing numerically with the US Navy (put bluntly, you Brits were broke). All of the modern attack carriers - the three Illustrious class, the Indomitable, the Indefatigeable and the Implacable, combined didn't equal half the available US carriers in the Pacific (14 Essexes, the Enterprise and the Saratoga). You lost five battleships/battlecruisers - the US lost two. You lost many times more the number of cruisers than we did. Your destroyer fleet was bled dry. By 1945, you were putting all of the older battleships and many of the older cruisers into reserve because there weren't enough personnel to man them.
In the first part of the war - up until the late summer of 1944, as between the US and Great Britain, yes, Great Britain was the "senior partner" based on everything that was in the field. After that the roles reversed because American industrial and manpower mobilization finally kicked in while you had reached the end of your manpower pool.
No one is going to dispute the role the UK and its Commonwealth and Empire played in WWII. Yes, for the most dangerous year, it DID "stand alone" against Germany and Italy. If it hadn't, the Germans could have invaded the USSR in 1940 when the Red Army was in no shape to fight - and the US probably would have found itself being "Fortress America" trying just to keep the New World free. So, my fellow Americans, give the Brits their due - they sacrificed their empire and superpower status to keep the "good guys" in the fight. They shared their technology (radar, Ultra, the Rolls Royce engine that made the P-51 the best Allied fighter) - they even sent the carrier Victorious into the South Pacific in late 1943 because we didn't have enough big carriers to fight the Japanese Navy.
Complain about this comment
So DC made a mistake. He is the PM of a major country and should not make mistakes like this even if he is only human..Most if not all of us come from families affected by WWII whether family who fought and survived or died. It is a total insult to the people of this nation and the commonwealth to say that in 1940 we were a junior partner. An apology is owed not only to the UK but to every commonwealth nation and all of the free people of Europe who came to Britain to help in the fight for freedom.
Complain about this comment
When this illegal prime minster goes to the cenotaph in November may all the surviving veterans and the veterans familys boo him when he goes to lay his wreath. He should also be taken to the war memorials spread around the world and then repeat the fact that he thinks Great Britain were juniors in this war. For someone with a private education Mr. Cameron your ignorance and quite obviously lack of knowledge of such an important event in world history is quite unbelievable. Shame on you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis"
America - entered the war in December 1941
Russia - Not at war with Germany until the Summer of 1941
Once Germany had overwhelmed a large proportion of Europe, Britain was the front line for the British, for commonwealth countries and for fellow Europeans who managed to escape to this island. Fighting in France, Battle of Britain, bombing raids over towns and cities. Let us not forget later battles in North Africa. And I do recall we played some part back in France, Belgium and Germany in 1944 and 1945.
Sorry for the history lesson .... but SOMEONE badly needs one!
Complain about this comment
This is just another example of a British leader sucking up to the USA! Also, I regret Mr. Cameron doesn't seem to have a reasonable grasp of history. It is only British leaders who seem to believe there is a 'special' relationship with the USA. In fact, the USA couldn't give a hoot about Britain which has been ably demonstrated in the past - Falklands for example - It's about time Britain realised it wasn't a super power any more, and settled down to looking after it's own interests and people. Getting out of the Afghanistan mess would be a good start.
Complain about this comment
408. At 5:47pm on 22 Jul 2010, Tom wrote:
I am an American and I wouldn't even go that far. Granted that our idle factory capacity did a great deal to win the war but without Great Britain as a starting point, things might have turned out quite a bit different.
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom I thank you for your post, I am sure not even your lads then and now think our lads the 'junior'
The USA lease/lend agreement for WW2, encouraged the US to join the war, as they were having problems of their own both nationally and internationally.
Complain about this comment
Apparently Cameron's expensive Etonian education was a complete waste of money. Surely as the Prime Minister of Britain he should at least have a basic knowledge of its history. And why on earth is he sucking up to the Americans. Yes we would rather stay allies with our friends over the pond but why should our prime minister have to make comments about their superiority, which in my opinion they do not have.
In all honesty I think Cameron could do with watching the speech that Hugh Grant makes whilst playing PM in Love Actually. The UK and USA are allies....we are not here to be bossed around.
Complain about this comment
History is important "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" Thank you George Santayana. It has to be said that despite the intelligence of a lot of Americans it is not something special to hear mistakes being uttered from the white house.
Complain about this comment
Yes it is very important to know the facts and more importantly he is representing the country UNITED KINGDOM and not any african or asian country. I dont know why the position and appearance of U.K PM's is coming low after Margaret Thatcher went. U.K will have to improve a lot in all the fronts otherwise the past gain of several centuries will be wiped out like Gone with the winds.
Complain about this comment
As a Canadian, I find his statement kind of insulting.Many Americans wanted Britian and the Commonwealth to lose the war. They only joined in when it was expedient. Too, bad the U.K. is so brain-washed into thinking it's only friends and allies are the U.S. and the EU. In fact, the Commonwealth is a bigger trading market than any of them. And in many countries, the majority of people actually have British ancestors. (And that includes Canada where even the First Nations and Francophone population can often trace themselves to a Scottish Granny.)
Complain about this comment
You can't blame Cameron for getting the dates of a war wrong. After all it wasn't a very important war and we should blame his school and University for sending him out into the world so unaware of his country's history.
Complain about this comment
169. At 1:42pm on 22 Jul 2010, FedupwithGovt wrote:
...
Secondly, for Cameron to get his historical facts so wrong is a slur on our Nation who stood alone against the Nazis for nearly 2 years. It just about sums up him as a person and his cobbled together shambles of a Government. The sooner he and his despicable millionaire cronies disappear into history the better.
You are David Milliband and I claim my 5 pounds! Do you honestly think Britain 'stood alone against the Nazis' for 2 years of WW2? What about the commonwealth countries assisting us? What about the other countries being attacked by the Nazis - do you not think they put up a fight too?
Complain about this comment
What do you think of David Cameron's historical slip? Could his mistake alienate former troops? Is it important to remember historical dates? If so why? Given his speech was about the relationship between the US and the UK and not about WWII, does it matter that he got the facts wrong?
--
What "mistake" dear BBC HYS Team ?? What is "wrong" ??
You have already decided that what Cameron says is a factual mistake.
It is not !
Perhaps, BBC should present facts first to prove that Britain was not a junior partner in WW-II.
Complain about this comment
Knowing history.
Now, let's got back to Yalta.
Or even Tehran. :(
Complain about this comment
I have just heard the voice of Most Honorable PM of UK Mr. David Cameron, MP by going through the video clip as posted by BBC at its Video Section wherein I saw his delivering of a very short briefing out of excitement possibly due to wining over the confidence of USA over many issues which he had not specifically discussed or spelt out to say the phrase ‘Junior Partnership’ while referring to earlier existed relationship between both the Counties which don’t tantamount to deviation from the facts if we consider the context over which he had made the remark. The pronouncement or mentioning of the year 1940 is far unclear to say with confidence that he is unaware of Historical events when he delivered the speech under record.
His expression is clear enough to carry or display a meaning of Greatness being behold by the Country of UK of which he is the PM to help extending the cause of friendship more tightly for a much greater expansion of it than what we are beholding at the moment which had deteriorated lately with some degree of suspicion arose on the part of both for not doing things exactly as per desire of each other and which both the Countries value as an universal order although none of the actions undertook by both Countries violate the flowing order within the respective Country as well as outside notwithstanding both took different paths to arrive at the same place. It was purely due to confusion only; we have considered such actions on the part of the both as conflicting with views behold by each separately if we see the starting of the actions only without seeing the purpose served by such actions on reaching the end results.
Accordingly we believe that such Statement on the part of PM of UK is very much unintended for rising of an issue out of it which cannot constitute hurting the sentiments of us through taking of cognizance of it. We hope everybody shall ignore the said words as unrelated to the issue being raised or as understood by us.
(Dr.M.M.HAZARIKA, PhD)
Complain about this comment
This is the only truth I've heard him utter, and he's in the doghouse for it. Funny old game.
Complain about this comment
An inability to understand the history of his own country - despite the best education money can buy - is beyond belief. What an oik. He suffers from the illusion of many lazy rich people - what he believes must be right.
The Bullingdon Boy is becoming ever more obviously Del Boy.
Complain about this comment
However the Western Allies defeated the Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe.
Er, no. 62% of the Luftwaffe was destroyed by the Soviets, whose losses in one week often exceeded those in the whole battle of Britain. Cameron's comment was ill-judged and merely repeated popular history as understood in the USA. Without the USSR, Britain and the USA could only have defeated Hitler by use of the atomic bomb - the western allied land forces were neither large enough nor good enough. As to the post about the Mustang being designed by a Briton, it was actually designed by a German-American though without the Merlin it would have remained mediocre.
Complain about this comment
291. At 3:22pm on 22 Jul 2010, Brian Brown wrote:
I went to a lecture in the 1950's on the history of the RAF in the Second World War.
The Few who flew the Spitfires and Hurricanes were; Australians, South Africans, West Indians, Indians, British, Poles, Free French, British women deliverers from factory to airfield, Rhodesians (now Zimbabwe), Americans (Eagle Squadron), German Jews.
________________
Not much of an historian are you?, and I could'nt give a fig how many lectures you went to, they were'nt at ETON by any chance.
British pilots outnumbered the the total of ALL foreign pilots by 5 to 1. almost all non brits being from Poland, New zealand, Canada, and SA. the good old USA managing to contribute just 9, lol.
Complain about this comment
Gutted! I am too young to know about the war but I have parents and had grandparents. Did nobody bother to discuss the finer details with our Prime Minister? I do know that we did indeed stand alone against the Nazis. How dare he get that wrong! Mostly you can forgive a gaffe, but this is inexcusable really.
Complain about this comment
We are days away from the 70th anniversary of The Battle of Britain. Can one of his aides tell him what it was about please before he tells us the yanks won it for us?
Complain about this comment
IF the quote is absolutely correct and within context then the Prime Minister is in error. So what, it alters none of the real history. In 1940 (as I understood it) we were all that stood between Hitler and German domination of Europe. Not that anyone cares about that now. Churchill had tried every way up to involve the Americans and unusually for the Yanks, FDR and American popular opinion perhaps understandably wanted none of it.
Who knows what would have happened if Japan had not conveniently attacked Pearl Harbour and brought the USA Forces into the war, to back up the considerable aid they were already affording us. I think it reasonable to assume we would all be speaking German now and would not today have the pleasure of arguing over the E.U. So the USA were vital in the outcome.
If it were not for the resolute stubborness of one Winston Spencer Churchill from shortly after war was declared until America came into the war, there would have been no partnership junior or otherwise and the outcome very different.
While examining the history of these events lets also not forget that the nation we got involved to defend in the first place only got a different tyrant and only very recently thankfully gained their freedom. Pity those in Poland who fought alongside this country for their freedom didn't see that freedom in their lifetime.
Complain about this comment
I think we can reasonably assume Cameron meant to say 'in the 1940's', and move on from that point.
The bit that has everyone really wound up is the 'junior partner' comment. Most Brits are still obsessed by what we (as a nation) like to think is our finest hour, and a badge of courage- which, arguably, it may be. By extension though, we have an unhealthily myopic view of our own role in the war, and of our own righteousness. There is a sense that the plucky underdog won the day by standing up for what was right, despite the odds being stacked against us.
Most of my experience of living with, meeting, and working with various Europeans over the years teaches me that a) most Europeans do not share our view of our role in the war, and think it's pompous, self-inflated, and factually questionable. They generally assume we were on our knees, Europe was going under, and America bailed us all out and re-invigorated us just in time (however late in coming they were) b) Most Europeans have long since moved on from the war, and do not seek to constantly self-preen through the lens of something that happened the best part of a century ago.
You only have to look at the comments posted here to see how many possible interpretations of individual battles, strategies, events and actions there are. With so many fronts being fought by so many nations, I can't help but think trying to find an absolute interpretation is utterly futile. WW2 was chaos, and no one had or has a grasp of all of it. All nations will see these things differently depending on their sensitivities and roles. History isn't really about static facts (although obviously preserving what fact we can is important), it's about memory and interpretation and legacy. The fact is, outside our shores, a lot of people think we were a 'junior partner' in the war, so perhaps Cameron's biggest mistake has been to acknowledge this in front of the History Channel obsessed British people.
I have nothing but respect for those who fought and died, including some of my own family, but America clearly emerged as the 'victor' of WW2 in cultural and financial terms, and the victor writes the history, as we all know. If only we could stop dwelling on the past, and focus on future successes, perhaps we could find glory in a way that doesn't rely on trying to maintain an image of Britain that is massively out of date and that seems to irritate so many other nations by insinuating their inherent weakness or moral laxity.
Complain about this comment
Two other points worth making. First of all, there was no Nazi-Soviet "alliance". Use of this buzz word dates from the post-1945 cold war, used by the Americans in an attempt to discredit the Soviet Union and the dominant contribution of the Red Army to the defeat of Nazi Germany. There was in fact a marriage of convenience between the two states due largely to the fact that the French and British governments did not want a war-fighting alliance with the Soviet Union. After six years of trying to obtain one, Stalin pulled a Munich of his own in August 1939. A.J.P. Taylor, who I would think needs no introduction, noted in his _Origins_ of the war, that Stalin had done only what the Anglo-French had failed to obtain at Munich. Second point, in fact, G. B. played a very important role in the war especially between May 1940 and June 1941. And yes the iconic Mr. Churchill kept Britain in the war when many of his fascist fearing/admiring Tory colleagues (Halifax for example) were ready to throw in the towel. Although at the Teheran conference in November 1943 jokers referred to the big two-and-a-half, the half being Churchill, G. B. played an important role upto the summer of 1944 when American troop strength in Europe overtook and far surpassed that of the UK and Commonwealth forces. In comparison to the the Soviet commitment and sacrifices during the war, however, the UK and even the hubris-stricken Americans _were_ the "junior" partners. Even the Normandy operation about which every Anglo-Saxon knows, paled in comparison to Operation Bagration, launched in the east by the Red Army in June 1944, about which few Anglo-Saxons know anything. This operation destroyed the Germany army group centre and stove in the eastern front leading to a 5-600 kilometre advance by the end of July 1944 when the Anglo-Saxon armies were only just breaking out of the Normandy pocket. It is high time that Anglo-Saxons recognised the enormous contribution of the Red Army and the Soviet peoples to the destruction of Nazi Germany. High time.
Complain about this comment
The endless sniping between & about supposed allies demonstrates just how thin the veneer of "civilisation" really is.
It takes only what is probably an unintentional faux pas to generate nasty slurs & ungenerous feelings between two Countries with much more to bind them than to separate them.How quickly could relationships deteriorate to something unthinkable if this is anything to go by?.
This Country has good reason to appreciate the invaluable support( even if altruism wasn't their main objective) from the US, not least by the thousands of their young lives sacrificed for the cause, & a comparitively trivial comment should neither deny nor diminish the magnificent struggle & sacrifices of ALL involved.
It's nonsense to speak of who is or isn't the senior partner - it's a matter of perspective anyway.
Complain about this comment
Cameron is right about one thing, there is no such thing as a special relationship between the USA and UK. The American president is not the leader of the Free World. His only legitimate concern is to serve the interest of the American people. He will seek to carry favour only with the American electorate. Presidents have always acted in this way, often against the interest of the UK. American behaviour during two World Wars and their aftermath was no different. How sad it is that yet again the UK is unable to produce a Prime Minister with the sense to realise it and appreciate that the UK's interest are not best served by acting as American lapdogs. We have another poodle at No. 10
Complain about this comment
Was Cameron's comment said in relation to him and Obama cozying up to each other while Cameron was in Washington, D.C.? Regarding WW2, history involves interpretation, and that varies from person to person. However, the U.K. absorbed quite a lot of homeland punishment from Hitler and Nazi Germany, fought off a planned invasion, battled (with colonial help) against Japan, and was in the forefront of the war effort in both the European and Asian theaters of the conflict. Practically speaking, the U.K. could hardly be referred to as only a "junior partner."
Complain about this comment
I'm not seeing the problem. In the European theatre of operations, Britain was by far a junior partner - to the Soviet Union.
Let's not play the foolish Anglocentric game of believing that America won the war.
Complain about this comment
I find it kind of interesting to read the posts from those who like to point out that GB was "going the war alone" until 1941 when the USA reluctantly entered the fray. If you want to be precise then let's be precise. On October 15, 1938, German troops occupied the Sudetenland. The Czech government resigned. GB was not in the war. On November 9-10, 1938, there was Kristallnacht - The Night of Broken Glass. GB was not in the war. On March 15-16, 1939, the Nazis took Czechoslovakia. GB was not in the war. Where was GB? Well, on September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler at Munich. France and Great Britain desperately did not want to go to war, and declared war reluctantly on September 3, 1939. The fact is that GB entered the war not when the conflict and fighting started, but when it decided the time was right. As did the United States in 1941. Europe had experienced many wars over the previous centuries. Was the world expected to intercede every time? The US had just fought 20 years earlier in the last European war, and suffered more than 300,000 casualties. When I see GB and other countries sending troops to every conflict around the world, because it is the right thing to do to protect the innocent, then the criticism of the US for putting its self interest first will be deserved.
Complain about this comment
I don't even have to read these comments to know that this thread is filled with people proclaiming that the US didn't help Britain pre 1941, that it only helped after it was attacked, that it therefore didn't care about Britain's survival and welfare; and that through said proclaimations imply that we betrayed you during your darkest hour.
While noone disputes the big facts of the war, we did supply you with war material before the Lend/Lease act in March of 1941, as this fireside chat by FDR elloquently speaks of, among other things.
In it, he states: '"We have furnished the British great material support and we will furnish far more in the future." as well as firmly and unequivocally declaring that "it is the purpose of the nation to build now with all possible speed every machine, every arsenal, and factory that we need to manufacture our defense material. We have the men -- the skill -- the wealth -- and above all, the will. There will be no "bottlenecks" in our determination to aid Great Britain. No dictator, no combination of dictators, will weaken that determination by threats of how they will construe that determination." Further to this vow, the president rightly praises the British for - in his words - "putting up a fight which will live forever in the story of human gallantry."
Another wonderful piece of the time, is the '"What is an American?" speech, delivered by the Secritary of Interior Harold Ickes. In it he also openly admires and praises the British, as well as does a superb job of explaining to the American people why it is crutial to have friends in this world. The text of it is here, if anyone is interested. Brilliant!!
Hopefully this will help to provide some balance to the debate about our role in the war during those first crutial two years.
I know one thing; we certainly couldn't endure the blitz with our constitution still in tact that's for sure!!
Complain about this comment
I think it's new time,all past has gone. And Germany and Great Britain are in European union.
Both are an active co operative countries.
These words can revise many memories.
Psychological harm to many families.
Complain about this comment
One wonders whether we should let David Cameron out on his own like this. He has managed to turn a visit to one of our most important allies into a sterile argument about the role of that country in World War II. This is diplomatic incompetence of the first order.
But then, Dave's not really very good at that "thinking on his feet" thing. This was apparent during the Prime Ministerial debates before the election, but partisan commentators didn't pick up on it.
Complain about this comment
History written by the victor is one thing and facts are another. Instead of digging in the archives, just study and form our opinion of what is happening now and the recent past.
Why was Afghanistan invaded, which is draining the life blood of the invaders and killing millions of locals.
The flimsy excuse invented to attack Iraq both times, destroying one of the best developed country in ME.
On going struggle in Palestine and the wholesale killing of Palestinians and Lebanese by Israel who are
illegal in the first place, even the Balfour Declaration is nebulas and some historian challenge it.
Aid carrying ships from Turkey, a nation friendly with Israel, are attacked by Israeli commandos, air force and
frogmen to deprive the Gazan's from their basic needs. Killing 9 Turks and injuring many others.
The 500 years of Irish problem, dig into it and see the reasons.
The hate in the Muslim world towards USA and the big Powers is because of the injustices done to them.
During Reagan's time USA was itching for attacking Libya, why?
An air liner with nearly 300 Iranians passengers was deliberately destroyed in Iranian skies by USAF.
Ask a Mexican and he says USA is arsenic. Why?
Hugo Chevez has no room for USA, he has worked wonders for his country, do we all know?
S. Allende a democratically elected President of Chile is deposed by the CIA, followed by planting a Dictator.
Iran is in the cross-hair of US, while Russia, Pakistan, India and Israel are loaded with NUKES, show the record
when was the last time Iran attacked any country. They defended against Iraq a war promoted by USA.
Addressing the question, Great Britain was not a junior partner in WW II, they suffered from start to finish, they defended themselves with what ever they could muster from their commonwealth countries, The 8th Army comprising of Indian, Australians, Kiwis, Canada and some units from the British Army bore the brunt, thanks to Lord Wavell and Lord Auckenleck who saved the 8th Army to fight another day. Some junior partner!
USA could not defeat North Korea and Viet Nam, despite their overwhelming strike power. In Indo-China US dropped more bombs than the combined total of bombs dropped in WW II. USA has a decoration for injuring your little finger and spitting against the wind.
One thing that cannot be taken away from them, they are past masters in the art of denials and inventing lies.
BUSH, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."
Complain about this comment
It is important to get historical facts right. But then history itself is distorted. history (and certainly more recent history, changes to what ever country you come from, or what religion you follow, or if you were the victor or loser in a war, or weather part of that history happens to be covered by a secrecy act. I'm sure if The truth were known about half of our history, the books would all have to be re-written.
As for David Cameron's comments, well he is a politician!
Complain about this comment
All this anti-American sentiment because an Englishman put his foot in his mouth? I think many of you havea an inferiority complex.
Complain about this comment
Why is this not the headline news? David Cameron's comment about our role in World War II is so outrageous, most of the population must be wondering what planet he's on! Churchill led our country into a war against Nazism with a passionate belief that right was on our side, a belief shared by everyone who fought for us and everyone who contributed to the war effort. He has been respected and revered by many many Americans as the man who spearheaded the war effort and whose passion and leadership led us to victory over Nazism. Junior Partner?? I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
I guess Eton must have failed school inspections while he was there! Very poor standards of teaching,especially History!
Seriously though, the man is an embarrassment.for a Prime Minister not to know the basic history of his own country is quite shocking. Of course anyone can make a mistake. But his speech would have been ore written,I'm assuming and such errors should have been corrected.
Complain about this comment
Many brave men and women of Britain, Poland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Many Many other countries of the Commonwealth who stood together in 1940 await your unreserved apology!
Complain about this comment
414. At 5:56pm on 22 Jul 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:
I do possess the complete World at War series on DVD! Maybe I will post it off to Number 10! Cameron could watch it while signing away our country to the corporate fascists he appears to have little actual knowledge about! Mmmm me thinks we have an idiot in charge of the country!
Not only has he, and the political cliques destroyed everything that us British value, now he is attempting to destroy our history too!
Marvellous!
================================================================
Oh come on Galty, don't over egg the pudding.
It was a Gaffe, a poor one at that I grant you, and he deserves some stick, go to the bottom of the class, that sort of thing!!
But he wasn't trying to re-write history. He was, as you already know, trying to place the UK-US relationship in its proper context.
The UK is and was during WWII, the junior partner, it’s a fact. And whilst Cameron clumsily failed to recall that this partnership didn’t actually exist at the time of the Battle of Britain, it's also an obvious fact, that preventing a German invasion was not the same as being capable of launching one of our own.
Complain about this comment
With all going on in the world today, a flip comment about the past is nothing to worry about too much. Maybe he meant to say Canada was the junior partner in WW2 - isn't that kind of the way the UK feels?
Complain about this comment
This lack of knowledge by David Cameron is alarming, this is the same man who not long ago stated that he wanted to get rid of health and safety laws which prevented children from playing conkers in the playground without goggles!! There is no such law, it's just a story he read in a tabloid newspaper and this man is Eton educated?!
1. It wasn't a slip, this man has time to check his facts before speaking.
2. It may very well upset former troops and who could blame them.
3. It is important to remember historical facts when you're making public statements and he has all the resources he needs to check these facts.
4. But part of his speech was about WWII and he couldn't be bothered to do his research.
The problem is that a lot of people hang on to senior politicians' words, trust what they say and regurgitate it in their conversations to others, this can lead to sterotyping and prejudice, we don't want a prime minister who talks like a tabloid headline.
Complain about this comment
I expect Mr. Cameron meant that the US was the dominant party in the alliance, after it entered the war, rather than who entered the war first. In that case, it was a political mistake, but not a factual one. No thoughtful and fair American, however, downplays the importance of the British role in the war, in being first and standing alone against Germany, and throughout the war for many crucial contributions (radar, codebreaking, and aircraft design especially, as well as many others).
I find discussions of who contributed the most to be pointless. The Allies defeated the Axis. That's what matters.
Complain about this comment
Is it right to get historical facts right?
Well that depends which country you are. Israel re constantly trying to rewrite history and some US wants to introduce creationism. So no historical facts do not have to be right if they serve a greater propoganda purpose.
DC should at least know his own history though.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown insulted one lady and was the focus of media approbation to the nth degree. David Cameron insulted the whole of Britain with his so smooth and ill thought out comments with but the tiniest whimper from the media. Perhaps Murdoch has a similar view of his latest citizenships part in WW11. Perhaps we could get some volunteer historians to instruct our ignorant leader to avoid any further insult to the British people
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS