Americans and Brits Shouting! - Page 20

Cheers Dave. Really, really didn't take any offence at all. Truly didn't. Just I was the one talking do thought you were refering to me. I didn't mind.

Regarding the 4th of July, I've often celebrated it. A friend of ours who was an exchange pilot used to hold a ceremony and fire a canon outdode the Mess (O club) every year. One year it went a tad wrong and took a chunk out of a tree. The guy had a plaque made which read something along the lines of "Damaged by US canon fire - 4th of July 1980".

Regarding the clotted cream, think you'll br ok, have seen that make down in Devon and the site insists you go for next day delivery. Should be ok.

Lastly, about my waffling on about the Pacific war. Maybe I should have just bitten my tongue but I know where Joakim is coming from, I've seen US documentaries about the Pacific war and you see nothing but US Marines storming the beaches. It's no real issue I fully understand why Wiseguy thought that - like I said I don't blame him.

Anyway, enjoy the range. Take care,

Nos

No my bad, Borneo and Burma. Thanks for the link. However I don't enjoy reading off a computer, but love to sit down with a good book. Gotta run out to McDonald's, sometimes you just have to look at food as sustenance.

The Bridge of the river Kwai is a British made film and the prison camp consisted of previously captured occupiers. The subject was island hopping invasion force. Not the reclamation of previously held provences such as Burma. Obviously only the obtuse would argue that the US defeated Japan by themselves. Just looking for factual documented history on the subject I stated in The invasion force of the following island hopping campain. Tarawa, Kwajalein & Eniwetok, Saipan, Guam & Tinian, Peleliu, Battle of Leyte Gulf, Battle of Iwo Jima, Okinawa. Any factual contradiction on who was the initial invading force? Please provide as I am not arrogant in that I may be misinformed.

 

No big deal, but please comment on the statement and not a sarcastic reinterprutation of what was stated.

 

 

The Bridge on the River Kwai comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously.  Hell, it was based on a fictional novel anyway.

No worries, it was mostly fiction but based on fact.

 

"The notorious Burma-Siam railway, built by Commonwealth, Dutch and American prisoners of war, was a Japanese project driven by the need for improved communications to support the large Japanese army in Burma. During its construction, approximately 13,000 prisoners of war died and were buried along the railway. An estimated 80,000 to 100,000 civilians also died in the course of the project, chiefly forced labour brought from Malaya and the Dutch East Indies, or conscripted in Siam (Thailand) and Burma. Two labour forces, one based in Siam and the other in Burma worked from opposite ends of the line towards the centre.

I don't think anyone has said the US alone won WWII or won the Pacific theatre alone.  However, as Joakim has so eloquently pointed out, the sheer quantity of material and forces the US was able to throw into many different situations of WWII were vital to victory.  If an attack in the pacific were comprised of 12 American ships, 4 British and 3 Australian, does that lessen the significance of the British or Australian contribution?  Absolutely not.  But could the 4 British ships and 3 Australian ships have had success on their own?  Probably not.  However, it's also unlikely the 12 American ships would succeed without the support of the other Allies - so there we are again.  The US was VERY important, but it took incredible deeds from all the allies to have success.

 

Interestingly, one of the major turning points of the war which I haven't seen mentioned is the British success at code breaking the Enigma.  That too was HUGE.

 

The Enigma code breaking was extremely HUGE. The German U-Boats were mostly rendered ineffective as the Allies could track them and blow them out of the water when they had to poke their heads out of the water. The Germans had a 75% casualty rate on U-Boats personnel. I watched a few BBC documentaries and what also is understated was the British Radar stations. They knew when and where the Luftwaffe was coming and ultimately lead to Allied Air Superiority.

 

The Americans breaking the Jedec code used by the Japanese was also HUGE. We had a heads up on D-Day, that we did not use to any advantage. However the Battle of Midway was a Huge advantage with the advanced warning and we were able to sink their 4 carriers to our one in their very large armada. Additionally we decoded a flight leaving with their Supreme Commander Isoroku Yamamoto and we shot down his plane and contingent during the final battles of Guadalcanal.

Correction... Japanese used JN-25 code. Also, I'm sure there were more uses and significance of the Enigma code breaking than my elementary knowledge.

Do you have stores called "Harvest Ranch"* way out there in AZ?  Upscale merchandise, pricey, organic-y, and they stock both clotted cream and powdered mix for making scones (traditional, raspberry, some other flavor that I forget).  Even yours truly can make a delectable panload of scones in about 10 minutes in a 375 deg oven, no problem.  You'd think you were at Wimbledon or Henley.

 

I'd rather discuss food than warfare in this thread, but Gerry also had very serviceable radar that detected many British bombers heading for Baltic ports and the like.  Pity the Americans didn't get the hang of radar until after that fateful day in Dec 1941.

 

This thread is quite absurd. Please carry on ....

 

Looked up their website.  I could only find Harvest Ranch in California.  No biggie.  Was just one of those things I miss from England...not necessarily something that keeps me up at night.

Some comments:

 

1)  Something is buggy with this site - I have tried multiple times to edit my post and turn it from the ridiculous megaparagraph the site turned it into, back into the long, but semi-manageable series of paragraphs that I originally wrote.  However, I cannot even get an "Edit" icon to come up now.

 

2)  My comments about hygiene were based upon my personal experiences as a 13 year-old of modest height riding the Tube who often found himself standing with an adult Brit's armpit in my face as he held on to the overhead bar or strap, which I would not wish upon even trollish Monte.  I stand by my comments - in the early 1980's, the average Brit did not bathe daily or wash his clothes after each wearing.  Now that was not true of the bulk of my neighbors in an upper-middle class suburb of London  (and there was a definite correlation between higher socio-economic status and better hygiene) but I absolutely, positively remember vastly more B.O. amongst the British population than I encountered back in the States before or after we lived in the UK.  I am confident that anyone denying the accuracy of my statements on this topic did not have the perspective I had of living in both England and the US at that time period.  And I will say that when I visited the UK in the 1990's, hygiene had improved considerably compared to a decade previously and I imagine it's even better now.

 

3)  I also stand by my comments on British food and let me clarify that my family visited nearly every part of Britain other than Cornwall - we traveled very extensively throughout the island during the three years we lived there and were not limited to London as someone suggested above.  I tasted no beef the entire time I lived there that was above mediocre and we eventually stopped eating it because it was so bad.  British sausages of any sort are disgusting, over-ground, mealy, mushy and lacking in seasonings.  We ate a lot of pub fare throughout the country but most of what I enjoyed was ploughman's lunches (i.e. featuring the excellent breads and cheeses that I previously acknowledged).  Oh, and let's mention that wonderful British meat industry,which instead of destroying cattle afflicted with BSE (mad cow disease), churned the infected animals into protein pellets that they then fed to - you guessed it - other cows, infecting them with the disease.  Since I ate beef in England in the early 1980's, I may be carrying BSE and thus cannot donate blood to the Red Cross.

 

4)  Thanks Nosevi for completely mischaracterizing what I wrote - you aren't much better than Monte and you're the one whose national pride and arrogance has usurped his intelligent and fair participation in this discussion.  My point was never to present a thorough, balanced history of the entire Allied campaign against Japan in WW II, it was to refute Monte's ridiculous statement that but for the development of the atomic bomb (which I will concede was aided by the British Tube Alloys nuclear research project as well as the imput of numerous non-American born scientists), the Japanese would have won the war.  Did I omit mention of the British, Aussie, Kiwi, Indian, etc... forces?  Yes.  That wasn't germain to the point that after May of 1942, the Japanese had no major victories and the war was assuredly won by August 1945 even without the development of the atomic bomb.  If you notice, I did not discuss the war against Japan in general, I discussed the war in the Pacific, which, as someone else mentioned above, was predominantly fought by the US forces.  The Commonwealth forces were more focused on the war in Asia proper.  Certainly they did tie-up substantial numbers of Japanese forces that might have otherwise have made it more difficult to win the war in the Pacific - all of the Allies contributed, not just in terms of their military successes, but in terms of their loss of lives.  However, Japan was defeated by the near-complete destruction of its navy and its army and naval air forces, which enabled the victories in the island hopping campaign that eventually led to a near-blockade of the Japanese islands and the intensive bombing of the Japanese mainland by the USAF. 

 

5)  I find it ironic that Nosevi is calling me arrogant and implying that my point of view is bigoted when a) I presented a very balanced assessment of both my experiences in the UK (i.e. while I stated that some British food was awful, some of it was excellent) and a summary of the British involvement in WWII (praising Britain's courage, mentioning the contribution of its intelligence services - I could go on at great length about that topic, but did not find it necessary to go into details given that this is a golf website, not an history website).  I concluded by stating that it was silly so long after the war had ended for Americans to continue to hold our role in WWII over the heads of Europeans.  But Nosevi, I guess you either didn't bother to read any of that part of my post or conveniently chose to ignore it.  Incidentally, I had a great uncle who fought the Japanese in World War II and while he wasn't a prisoner of war, he fought in the brutally hot jungles of the Phillipines.

 

6)  Notwithstanding that there are people like Monte and Nosevi living in the UK, my number one vacation plan, once my daughter is old enough to appreciate the trip, is to spend at least 10 days in Great Britain, including an inadequate 3-4 days in London, a day or two in York, and the remainder of the time in Wales.  I'm afraid I won't be bringing my clubs nor going to Scotland, though, as I don't care for the links-style courses that are the most famous ones in the UK, I'd rather devote my time to sightseeing, and the week I spent in Scotland in my youth convinced me that that part of the British island was by far the least scenic or interesting to me.

 

7)  The U.S. government in the decades since WWII, has engaged in enough unsavory conduct both domestic and throughout the world to occupy thousands of posts on dozens of websites.  However, we also tend to be the first country, both via the federal government and through private individuals,  to send aid to any other region of the world that suffers a catastrophe.

Ok Wiseguy, enough said. You must have missed the bit where I said I didn't think you arogant at all. Or the bit where I merely quoted you directly and entirely, not sure how that can misrepresent. So I'm like Monte, am I? Wow, have you completely lost the plot? I could say that the Ausis were involved with taking the Solomon Islands, a mere 1,000 island group, or that you're still saying things like "and the intensive bombing of the Japanese mainland by the USAF" when the British were involved with that bombing campaign as well. You simply don't seem to get what I was on about.

 

Look, I've upset you, sorry, but you can't say I'm making stuff up, or that quoting you directly is misrepresenting. For what it's worth I thought Monte was being a burk, but please don't lump me in with the sort of comments he was making. I've merely said that the whole of the Pacific War was a joint venture between the Allies. You said it wasn't. In fact you're kind of still saying it wasn't. Let's just agree to differ shall we?

Was going to reply to you by PM Wiseguy, but I'd prefer to do it in the open. I've clearly upset you. I have not misrepresented what you wrote - I've quoted directly, I've said you seem to be a smart bloke and I saw nothing malicious about anything you wrote. I didn't take offence at any of the jibes about hygene (think Chas did) but took them as all in good fun. Didn't take any offence about comments on our food, mostly coz some of them ring true from time to time - never had a steak over here that will rival ones I've had in the States. Took no offence at all. I haven't tried to say the Brits did it all or misrepresent the size of our contribution in the Pacific, I just don't see how that is arrogant. I've said some things were a little harsh, said for effect when they were.

 

You wrote:

 

"From mid-1942 onward, American forces steadily reconquered much of the Japanese territory in the Pacific and with the exception of some smaller bases that had been been ignored or rendered irrelevant during the island hopping campaign and a portion of the Phillipines, Japan had lost almost all of its Pacific islands conquests by the summer of 1945. The U.S. Navy had effectively blockaded the Japanese mainland cutting off all oil supplies except some run by submarine and the USAF was starting to pound Japan into submission. The war was won by August of 1945, it simply required the atomic bombs to break through the obstinancy of the "never surrender" attitudes of the Japanese. Given a few more months, the USA would have destroyed the last of the Japanese naval and army air forces and would have begun a relentless campaign of conventional bombing to soften up the country for invasion. The two atomic bombs ultimately saved millions of lives that might have been lost in the invasion of Japan."

 

You then in having a blast at me said "and the intensive bombing of the Japanese mainland by the USAF". If in every instance where it's in bold you meant the Allies then say the Allies. If you just blighthly put the US did this the US did that, that's what people will read. The Allied Forces were fighting along side you, not just in Asia proper, but in virtually every campaign in the Pacific War. You can acknowledge that if you like or you can say it's rubbish. I was saying that IF you do hold this view it's very US -centric. As it happens I was saying IF you do, it's likeley in no way your fault, more likely down to US history books and Documentaries, you seem like a smart bloke and it appeared to me to be a considered opinion, not said out of bigotted standpoint, just misinformed. If you don't hold this view fine. But don't say it if you don't want people to criticise you for it.

Edited by Nosevi - 10/14/12 at 4:47am

Can I just say one more thing that may or may not clarify what I was saying. I do feel that some US documentaries, books etc underplay the Allied contribution to the advance on Japan. I don't blame anyone who buys into that. Just let me ask a simple question. What was the size of the British Pacific Fleet at the time? Not the troops fighting on the mainland that Wiseguy has refered to, but those fighting in the Islands of the Pacific. Based on what you may have seen give it a stab. 10 ships, 20?

 

Here's the fleet breakdown at the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet#Order_of_battle

 

I'm guessing you're surprised as it's not the impression you may have got from documentaries etc. Our carriers were smaller than yours although we did send 4 additional larger carriers ready for the invasion of Japan. As it happens they were not needed.

 

Wiseguy, I am sorry that you took such huge offense at what I said. It was not aimed at you but more at the notion that, well there's no point in going over it but you must confess you did kind of say that we were just really in Asia proper, you guys did the Pacific bit. That is the impression that is often given in US documentaries, it's far from the truth though. Anyway, sorry, didn't mean to offend.

 

Nos

Edited by Nosevi - 10/14/12 at 6:52am

Nos,

 

Any comparison of you to Monte is absurd, I didn't recall any derogatory or offensive statements from you and basically as you stated. You should take into context that meanings on typed text can be misinterpret in Blogs. You should understand that we had 38k wounded and over 13K dead in Okinawa alone.This was right after Iwo Jima  where we had (to the best of my recollection) 7K dead and 19K wounded. Additionally we had 7k killed (my best recollection) in Kamikaze attacks.This was very tough fighting as the Japanese learned, no more Bonsai's, made heavily fortified machine gun,mortar, cement/rock emplacements and surrender was not an option.

 

Emotions run high when you consider these descriptions come down from family and/or learned in studying this endeavor. I realize most Allies had casualties at sea in the Pacific, but on the ground was all US. Also, all of the carpet bombing came from B17's, B24, B25's and B29 Fortress out of Tinnian which I believe was only manned by US as this was the base of the Atomic Bomb and secrecy was essential. Of course we realize EVERYONE involved have strong feelings and suffered during this time and we know several Allies assisted and died in this endeavor. However, we did make the landings in all that I know of in the Pacific Theater and if you disagree, than we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

I can not comment on the smells or food in England as the only complaint I heard of was the MRE's.

 

Take Care,

Kurt

I'm sorry Curt. You are right of course you had about 20 times the losses the United Kingdom suffered in the advance, you paid one hell if a price. I guess, and I want to say this without pointing fingers and name calling, I'd hope to be afforded the same, the sentiment that the US should no longer hold what you did in the war over us Europeans due to the elapsed time is really well meant, I do appreciate that, but it implies that we should have done before. The sentiment that the US would have bombed the Japanese into submission is true I feel, but I assume this is to include the 10 heavy bomber squadrons already en route from Britain as well as others that were promised if required. Regarding the bombing of the mainland, you are right in that we didn't get involved with the carpet bombing, aircraft from I think it was 5 of our carriers were assigned to taking out mainly industrial targets, primarily the oil refineries etc. The plans for the invasion of Japan included ground troops from all of the Allies, Australia in particular.

It's not in any way that I would belittle what you guys did, I just feel that none of the allies should feel any need to hold anything over another for their part and they never should have. Casualties during the war, we actually had a few more but it was pretty much the same. The way Wiseguy wrote it up was meant well but did sort of, like I said, imply the US 'went it alone'. Sorry to have caused offence, really am, but didn't see any harm in disputing that, especially as what appeared to be his view is, in fact, held by some documentaries I've seen made over your way.

Anyway, as I said, did not set out to cause offence (I'm actually not really sure how I can be compared to someone simply maliciously trolling). Anyway, about this golf thing......

Golf??? I thought we were going to talk about clotted cream, whatever that is or Scones. Actually never heard of clotted cream, I've seen a Scone but never had one.

Chas seems to be the expert at warming up clotted cream or was it Scones? I'm in California and know of Harvest ranch. Maybe I'll expand my horizons and get some clotted cream.

 

I seen your post about starting playing at 39 (Im a decade older) and you had some impressive stats about chances of getting on PGA as a beginner. I believe their goal should be the Senior Tour at best. What about someone like me that went through injury that changed my swing. I guess it's just adjusting to what you can do and not try doing what you used to do. Still adjusting trying to get my handicap to double pre-injury pwould be my first goal. Live within where you are rather than where you were.

 

One Last Note. We give Brits and friends all the credit for holding down the fort virtually on your own. Also, to all Axis races, no hard feelings and realize your hardships from WWII, this was long ago, hard on everyone and not your generation or legacy. Cheers to the day when all countries are Allies.

 

Peace Im out... Football time.

Mate, you have got to try clotted cream! Come to the UK, play golf and I'll treat you to some. Re the becoming a pro thing, I did say the OP in question should get good on a course first. I'm not aiming at that high, just like to make the PGA course, ie as an instructor, love the game. I'm pretty new to golf and have dropped about 16 shots in a little over 6 months, just starting to click, and on a good day can rattle round my home track in 1 or 2 over par. I practice maybe 6 hours a day and don't think I'd stand a hope. That said, Nick Faldo was under 5 years from first swing to pro. It's all about tallent to be able to do it in that timescale.

Re your last para I agree. As well as some of my best friends being Americans a couple are German. I really do go with the forgive and forget. Again, sorry to have caused offence, Wiseguy, if you ever read this. Was not my intention.