Great Britain is not an Island

[Yoyoma1910]

Well, the UK did a good job.

By what, abandoning their allies in the begining, and then getting proped up by the Americans? The Germans had a saying, "The British will fight to the last Frenchman."

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

By what, abandoning their allies in the begining, and then getting proped up by the Americans? The Germans had a saying, "The British will fight to the last Frenchman."

Well, it did successfully fight off Nazi Germany. However it managed to do that, it still managed.

[Yoyoma1910]

Well, it did successfully fight off Nazi Germany. However it managed to do that, it still managed.

When did the allied forces become simply Britain? To say that is callous, and pays little respect to all those who were involved in the process. Do you really think they could have done it alone?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

When did the allied forces become simply Britain? To say that is callous, and pays little respect to all those who were involved in the process. Do you really think they could have done it alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

The Brits did hold off the German forces.

[Hax]

I'm afraid you mixed up the meanings of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland.

The United Kingdom consists of England, Wales, Scotland, the Island of Man, Northern Ireland and the rest of the overseas colonies.

[Yoyoma1910]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

The Brits did hold off the German forces.

From your own source:

International participation

Both sides received outside support during the Battle of Britain.

[edit] Allied side

Main article: Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain

The Royal Air Force roll of honour for the Battle of Britain recognises 574 non-British pilots (out of almost 3,000 in total) 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.[31]
126 German aircraft or "Adolfs" were claimed by pilots of 303 Squadron during the Battle.

This included 139 Poles, 98 New Zealanders, 86 Canadians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 29 Belgians, 21 Australians, 20 South Africans, 13 French, 10 Irish, and single figures from the United States of America, Jamaica, the British Mandate of Palestine, and Southern Rhodesia.

My point is, Britain does not stand alone. It has maintained its freedom because others have helped it do so. In conflict, it is therefore not an Island, working on its own, and would not have survived if it had been.

[Kagemusha]

Louis,surely if you are measuring countries based on GDP per capita, the Whole poor and unproductive per capita economies of EU should have been assimilated into EFTA back in turn of 90´s, rather then other way around.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

My point is, Britain does not stand alone. It has maintained its freedom because others have helped it do so. In conflict, it is therefore not an Island, working on its own, and would not have survived if it had been.

Of course it isn't working entirely on its own, no nation ever does. That's not really my point...

[JR-]

From your own source:

My point is, Britain does not stand alone. It has maintained its freedom because others have helped it do so. In conflict, it is therefore not an Island, working on its own, and would not have survived if it had been.

this is very true, (i know two polish RAF pilots from WW2* and know of the contribution of many others), but it is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

regardless of the fact the britain did, in concert with others, hold off and eventually defeat germany in 1945, what we are talking about is whether britain is indeed an island, and how that has effected the british mindset in such a way that we consider the EU via different criteria than 'many' continetal nations.









* he came from a part of poland that got annexed by russia into belo-russia (sp?), and after the end of the war he could not return to his homeland because he would have been shot as a traitor. he talked to his surviving sister for the first time in 60 plus years last year, because my polish girlfriend and her sister took the time to track down his surviving polish family. another example of continental stability no doubt.

[Yoyoma1910]

this is very true, (i know two polish RAF pilots from WW2* and know of the contribution of many others), but it is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

regardless of the fact the britain did, in concert with others, hold off and eventually defeat germany in 1945, what we are talking about is whether britain is indeed an island, and how that has effected the British mindset in such a way that we consider the EU via different criteria than 'many' continetal nations.



* he came from a part of poland that got annexed by russia into belo-russia (sp?), and after the end of the war he could not return to his homeland because he would have been shot as a traitor. he talked to his surviving sister for the first time in 60 plus years last year, because my polish girlfriend and her sister took the time to track down his surviving polish family. another example of continental stability no doubt.

That is the point, but you seem to be missing it.


No nation is truly an Island, and certainly not one as active in foreign politics as Britain. To claim that a nation were truly an island, in both mentality and policy, it would need to be exceptionally insular. Myanmar is far more so, but even they are forced to constantly deal with potential foreign influence.

Even many of your basic customs are derived from other cultures. Did tea originate upon your isle? What of porcelain? Heck, if you use a modern pencil you are influenced by the French Revolution.

And how many holes were sewn into your earlier argument?


Did not the "Glorious Revolution" include a Dutch invasion, and some battles?

British Colonies?
Indian vs. Pakistan
Palestine vs. Israel
Zimbabwe
Where is the great stability you claim you have left here?

What about the Suez Crisis?

Was not Britain involved in the Cold War? Then, Britain did suffer through the perils of communism, whether or not it was controlled by a communist faction.

And who did produce the despots? Was not Hitler's rise to power a reaction of the German people against the effects brought on by the policies of Britain and France after its defeat in WW1?

Are you saying the policies of Great Britain did not contribute to the start of WW1?


What about Ireland? Was not the whole island part of the UK not so long ago?




Is Britain an island?
Eh.

[Incongruous]

By what, abandoning their allies in the begining, and then getting proped up by the Americans? The Germans had a saying, "The British will fight to the last Frenchman."

The Germans also believed they could conquer and hold Europe, clearly anything the Nazi's had to say about the War was bollocks. Dreamers from the get-go.

Abandoning their allies? You mean the mighty French and their mighty army? Who were incapable of action throughout the whole thing? You mean, the same Brits who declared war on Germany for its' invasion of Poland?

[Yoyoma1910]

The Germans also believed they could conquer and hold Europe, clearly anything the Nazi's had to say about the War was bollocks. Dreamers from the get-go.

Abandoning their allies? You mean the mighty French and their mighty army? Who were incapable of action throughout the whole thing? You mean, the same Brits who declared war on Germany for its' invasion of Poland?

Your understanding of things is very thorough. Equaled only by your amount of laughter.

[Incongruous]

Your understanding of things is very thorough. Equaled only by your amount of laughter.

Tell me where I was wrong?

[Yoyoma1910]

Tell me where I was wrong?

You used laughing faces.



And also typed.



The French army, as well as the British initially failed together. Rather than, as previously agreed, offering addition help to the French, who had committed their troops to the Belgian front in an effort to stop the Germans, the British left the continent and their battered allies, which by the way were not just French. It allowed them to continue fighting, yes, but if you leave everyone else behind to face the slaughter, don't laugh at them afterward.




Would you like it if I covered Britain's own inability to effectively combat the Germans without the assistance of others?

[Meneldil]

Furunculu5, that's all nice and dandy, but your whole part about the colonial past of UK is kinda off, since Great Britain probably killed more people in India only than all other colonial powers in the whole world.

I wish I were in France and could link you the article written by two British historians about man-made famines in India. Sure the Brits were really nice settlers (not to say that France, Germany or the US did better, but I'm just tired by the whole "British colonization was cool" fairytale).

Abandoning their allies? You mean the mighty French and their mighty army? Who were incapable of action throughout the whole thing?

Funny that you say such a thing. When the French army proposed to invade Germany in september 1939 (which it did for a brief time), the Brits responded they weren't ready for a full scale war yet. Not that a positive answer from London would have changed a lot I think, both headquarters were just too damn stupid and stuck in the WWI mindset.

But then, I wouldn't go as far as saying that Britain abandonned France or its allies. I'm pretty sure a lot of Brits died on the French soil in 1940, as well as in Poland or Norway I guess.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let's get back on topic, gentlemen.

I understand the fascination for orgahs to bring all threads back to who won battles, but this is potentially fascinating thread about Britain's relationship to Europe, which Louis and Furunculu5 have developed with some challenging ideas.

The history of the continental wars is relevant, but only tangentially - and we have already descended towards blame and revisionism. I don't think many of us could stand another round of that.

Thank you kindly.

[JR-]

Furunculu5, that's all nice and dandy, but your whole part about the colonial past of UK is kinda off, since Great Britain probably killed more people in India only than all other colonial powers in the whole world.

I wish I were in France and could link you the article written by two British historians about man-made famines in India. Sure the Brits were really nice settlers (not to say that France, Germany or the US did better, but I'm just tired by the whole "British colonization was cool" fairytale).

i don't claim that it is, but i rather dislike the careless view (not proferred from yourself) that Britain as the visible colonizing nation must manfully shoulder the blame for all the excesses of colonism, like the total rape of south america by the spanish, and the grim and nasty little belgian and portugese colonies in africa.