Great Britain is not an Island

[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.