Americans and Brits Shouting!

[Nosevi]

Chas, Thanks for springing to our rescue. Unfortunately I wasn't alive in the 50s to comment........ or the 60s........or early 70s......... How old are you mate?!? Just larking about :-)

Joakim, thought you lot did like tea. Then you let it go cold and add lemon and stuff. Not sure as a country you really get tea thing still but I'll let you all off.

So Wiseguy (hey, that works pretty well!). Anyway, baring some comments on hygene it's good for you to try to redress the historical ballance. Pretty good stab at it too other than one tincey wincey detail. I've gone through your mega-paragraph and I just can't find any mention of your allies in the Pacific War. What of the Australian and guys from New Zealand fighting along side you? What of the British Pacific Fleet fighting along side you? OK, small compared to your fleet but still bigger than your Pacific Fleet was at the start of the war in the Pacific (I think) so not totally insignificant. My Great Uncle served with the Gurkhas in that region fighting against the Japanese, did their contribution not count for anything? Would it surprise you to learn that more than 250,000 Gurkhas fought in the War and that doesn't count 8 regular Nepalese battalions (not all in the Pacific, I realise, but mostly). Did they do nothing towards the 'American war effort'. I'd argue that the fear they struck in the hearts of our enemies alone was worth a great deal. If I wanted to play the emotional card I'd tell you my Great Uncle was taken prisioner by the Japanese. He could never talk in detail about his time as prisioner of war being held by them. He was a really gentle bloke but he never forgave them as a nation for what him and his friends in the prisioner of war camp went through. Shame his and his collegues' sacrifices didn't make it into your 'history of how the US won the Pacific War.' (OK, unfair of me but mensioned to drive home a point).

A better question would be, would the US have won on their own against the Axis Powers and their allies? Would you have defeated Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romainia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Thailand, Finland, Cambodia, Albania, Slovakia........ to name a few but there were obviously other troops that fought along side Axis Powers during different stages of the War. Or why did Britain stand virtually alone for a year and a half? Why did we have to? Truth is we didn't entirely as our French, Norwegian allies and others never gave up the fight and fought from our shores as well under their German occupations.

Truth is, Wiseguy, you seem to be a clever chap, but in your rush to counter some of Monte's comments you've fallen into the trap of 'The US did it all on our own.' Frankly I don't care what history books you've read, (or even written) your comments about how you single handedly defeated the Japanese just shows how you see the contribution of your allies in that particular theatre of the war. I wonder if your history books are written in this vein or is it just a view held by you and I'm guessing some of your countrymen?

Without the US contribution WE would be talking German? Yes, possibly, even probably. We weren't doing too badly but our backs were against the wall, awfully glad you came to help. But I could say that without your allies you would be speaking Germo-Japanese. Many of your countrymen (particularly pilots) came to our shores to fight the Axis Powers long before your country entered the war. They did it, on the whole, because it was the right thing to do and I really do take my hat off to them. Your country as a whole entered the war when it became threatened itself. I'm not criticising, however that may seem to come across, I am merely stating a fact. It was what was right for your country at the time.

Try your best, though, not to lecture a nation who had, what, 70 times the civilian casualties you had during the war, largely because we were 'standing alone'. That said, to put our 'sacrifice' into perspective, China lost somewhere in the region of approaching 15-20 million people during the war - between 10 and 16 million of which were civilian. Weren't they sort of fighting the Japanese? Shame they didn't get a mention in your history lesson, don't you think?

[Nosevi]

Wiseguy, on a more measured note, do you begin to grasp where I am coming from? Your version of events has the US almost singlehandedly winning the war, in the Pacific in particular. Quite literally millions of people died fighting the Axis Powers in that region, a very small proportion of who were US troops. I believe you tipped the balance, and boy did we need it, but to claim the US defeated Japan is just such a totally inward looking view of what went on, it's quite remarkable. You were the ones who swung the tide but you did not do it alone, not even close. Like I said, many of your countrymen joined the war long before your government. US citizens decided that what was going on in Europe was wrong and gave themselves to a cause they believed in - this says a great deal about the mentality of those guys and girls from your shores at the time. As you yourself said, your government leased us equipment. Just digest that for a moment. Some of your citizens were prepared to give up their lives, your government charged us money for its support. What does this all mean, why am I taking the time to type this? (Other than coz my wife has just asked if I'm going to the supermarket, or is she?) Simply put the view you hold is widely held, it is also wrong. In Britain we have delusions of grandeur which normally means my government send me off to some far flung corner of the world to 'fly the flag', ie show that Britain is still a power on the world stage. Awfully annoying at times, particularly because I can't stand deserts. In the US the same attitude often manifests itself in a total belief that you 'did it on your own' when it comes to things like WW2. Just as annoying, just as wrong.

[Joakim]

Just a few more to your list of participants, over 20 mil. Russians, 7.7 mil Polish, Philipines, Netherlands, Canadians, etc. etc listed below.

World War 2 Total Deaths (Approximate):

COUNTRY

CASUALTIES Soviet Union 23,954,000 China 15,000,000 Germany 7,728,000 Poland 5,720,000 Japan 2,700,000 India 2,087,000 Yugoslavia 1,027,000 Rumania 833,000 Hungary 580,000 France 567,600 Greece 560,000 Italy 456,000 Great Britain 449,800 United States 418,500 Czechoslovakia 345,000 Netherlands 301,000 Austria 123,700 Finland 97,000 Belgium 86,100 Canada 45,300 Australia 40,500 Bulgaria 25,000 New Zealand 11,900 South Africa 11,900 Norway 9,500 Spain 4,500 Denmark 3,200 TOTAL: 63,185,500

Military Deaths (Approximate):

NATION

CASUALTIES Soviet Union 9,750,000 Germany 5,533,000 China 3,500,000 Japan 2,120,000 Yugoslavia 446,000 United States 416,800 Great Britain 382,700 Italy 301,400 Rumania 300,000 Poland 240,000 France 217,600 Finland 95,000 India 87,000 Philippines 57,000 Canada 45,300 Australia 39,800 Bulgaria 22,000 Netherlands 21,000 Belgium 12,100 New Zealand 11,900 South Africa 11,900 Spain 4,500 Norway 3,000 Denmark 2,100 TOTAL: 23,620,100

When scholarly sources differ on the number of deaths in a country, a range of war losses is given, in order to inform readers that the death toll is disputed. Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead : from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.

Just another note, as told by my Grandpa, ring the start of WWII we had memories of our Civil War that killed more Americans ever there was apprehension, between Yanks and Confederates for the freedom of slavery, we had the war of 1812, we had WWII and we were finally coming out of a devastating depression.

Also, not sure…. your probably aware I was referring to the Boston Tea Party. I’ll take a cup now and again. I guarentee if it was Whiskey and Rum we wouldn’t have thrown it in the harbor. Lol.

In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked. A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled on a near-by hill. Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.

Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement. In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston. The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.

[Nosevi]

Hi Joakim, sorry didn't get the Boston Tea Party reference, you're too subtle for me, mate. Regarding the other figures, you're right, truely horrendous when you see what some people went through over that period. Perhaps I was a tad harsh on Wiseguy, but it was for a reason that I used the Chinese casualties as an example. Wiseguy said he would put the historical record straight but gave a wholly American-centric view of what happed, particularly in the Pacific. The Chinese casualty count was certainly there for shock factor, but it is true and was to make a point. How can anyone truely believe that the US defeated Japan and her allies, basically singlehanded (and I'd encourage you to reread the last section of Wiseguy's account) when faced with the reality of who was involved. How can someone say that the US came to save us all when faced with the fact that the US government charged the allies first for the sale then for the lease of equipment while Hitler and his allies occupied country after country? Some say the US entered the war because it couldn't afford to not be paid back the money we owed you. I personally think that's a tad harsh, it was largely because you could no longer remain out of it. All of that said, the fact that many of your citizens did in fact come to our aid, regardless of the view of your government, does do you great credit. If the tables had been turned would our guys have done the same? Not sure to be fair. Anyway, it was interesting to get Wiseguy's take on it all even if only to demonstrate or rather ask that, while I think the US is great, like the people on the whole, like the place, please please stop with the 'US is no 1' 'US won the war' 'US is the greatest' stuff. It's a great place, just not that great and those views are what sometimes cause a little resentment around the world.

[Chas]

Joachim, The events in Boston Harbor that you describe are very poorly communicated in British history classes - along with a lot else. OTOH they're very strong on Stamford Bridge, Crecy, Agincourt and the like. :>) Gastronomically speaking, I failed to mention "The Little Chef" (does this chain still exist btw?). My advice to visiting American golfers, on your way to a course in England, is to never, and I do mean NEVER, stop at a Little Chef for a quick 'hamburger' on the way to the first tee. You will not shoot your handicap, and your game may never be the same. Just stop at the local chippie and you'll do fine.

[Nosevi]

Joachim, The events in Boston Harbor that you describe are very poorly communicated in British history classes - along with a lot else. OTOH they're very strong on Stamford Bridge, Crecy, Agincourt and the like. :>) Gastronomically speaking, I failed to mention "The Little Chef" (does this chain still exist btw?). My advice to visiting American golfers, on your way to a course in England, is to never, and I do mean NEVER, stop at a Little Chef for a quick 'hamburger' on the way to the first tee. You will not shoot your handicap, and your game may never be the same. Just stop at the local chippie and you'll do fine.

Chas, your right, the Boston Tea Party doesn't figure that strongly in our history lessons. I'm aware of it but, and I'm just guessing, your average Brit probably doesn't know what you're on about. I knew about it, I was just being dull. Regarding a lot else, you're possibly right. Is this a veiled and nice dig at my understanding of WW2? I'm not sure I'm too far off but would be happy to be corrected if there's something I've actually got factually wrong. Re the Little Chef, still going strong, "All day breakfasts" and all. I think they do an "American Breakfast" too. Would make you cry mate!

[Chas]

I'm a forgiving sort.  Maybe I'll try the Little Chef again next year - just as long as it isn't before a game of golf.  Perhaps it has improved as much as pub food has in the past 30 years or so , which is to say - a great deal.  I survived on Shepherd's Pie, Scotch Egg and Bangers & Mash for about a decade and I'm not complaining.

Which 'side' am I on anyway? ..... I can never remember.

It is natural for many to have delusions of gradure about their own history, I agree.  This is not something unique to the French though it's a specialite de Maison there ..... (visit the Halle de Batailles at Versailles if you want the full experience).  But both Americans and Brits also know how to fully recognize their more spectacular defeats -  such as in 1941 and 1066, respectively.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by Nosevi

All of that said, the fact that many of your citizens did in fact come to our aid, regardless of the view of your government, does do you great credit. If the tables had been turned would our guys have done the same? Not sure to be fair.

That is a very interesting comment.  I am not sure either.

[Nosevi]

Chas, Little Chef now do a Steak Dinner (well that's what it's called on the menu anyway). I'm pretty sure it comes from a cow but that's about as close to what you guys call a steak as it comes. I practically dare you to order one. There are now places you can get a decent steak over here, Little Chef is not one of them.

Regarding 1066, that was a biggy for us, no doubt. The way I see it though, is that it was yet another way of showing that the French don't play fair. No one had told them that it simply isn't cricket to invade us when we're busy fighting off a Viking invasion in the North (Stamford Bridge). Fought off the Vikings and a week later that army was hundreds of miles south facing the Normans. Not sure what the pep talk was like to the troops at the end of the first battle but I'm guessing they were pretty miffed.

When you say "Which side am I on?" I think the refreshing thing is that you're on neither. I'm really not at all anti American, not even close, hopefully that is coming across. What I am is just a tad anti the sort of attitude that Wiseguy so eloquently demonstrated. He 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. =========== Having established some historical accuracy in this thread ,......."

During this period the Allied forces involved were (and I'm bound to miss a few): the United States, China, the United Kingdom, India, Australia, the Philippines, the Netherlands, New Guinea, New Zealand, Canada , Mexico, France , and forces from other several other British colonies and also Latin America. At the end the Russians attacked the Japanese in China for good measure. The campaign is full of battles that the US featured heavily in but also some that you did not or were secondary to other allied forces. Wiseguy's 'establishment of historical accuracy' is totally and utterly American-centric. It does not acknowledge any of the involvement of a huge number of your allies and quite literally says that the US did it alone.

This, I feel is a misguided view of events. We were allies, we fought together. Really glad you lot joined in, I think the crack about us talking German if you hadn't joined has a great deal of truth in it. But the way Wiseguy depicts the US winning the Pacific war alone niggled, I'm afraid. Great nation, great people, just try to stop looking down on the rest of the world as it can sometimes be annoying.

[dave67az]

This thread needs to be re-titled "Americans and Brits Shouting."

Seriously, we're going to start arguing about wars?  I don't think anyone really believes that America won World War II "by ourselves", though it certainly sounds like some of you folks certainly think that's what all of us American-types think.  I think the statement was that if we hadn't been involved (both with weapons, manpower efforts in the states, and military effort across the globe) that the results would have been much different.  Is that untrue?  Seriously?

ON THE OTHER HAND...if we hadn't been involved, I don't think it would just be England that would have lost that war.  A German empire would (probably?) have been formed which would have changed the nature of the world as we know it and who knows how many more innocent civilians would have been killed because they weren't the right color or belonged to the wrong religion.  So did the U.S. do it simply to help other countries and not their own interests?  No.  Definitely not.

So can we please drop it already?  I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again:  if you're an American who insists on trying to portray the British as ungrateful because they don't bow down to us and acknowledge our sacrifices in WWII, and you insist on using the moronic cliche' about how they'd be "speaking German if it weren't for us" then you only make yourself look ignorant.  You slam the British monarchy and then act as though you should be respected simply because you descended from war heroes.  A little like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

To argue what would have happened if the U.S. hadn't intervened is pointless.  I could equally argue that the United States wouldn't be here as we know it if the British had sent their troops to crush the Rebellion in the Colonies (that's what most military museums in England call it, by the way) at the first hint of dissent instead of waiting until the "rebels" in the colonies had amassed public support for Independence.  Personally I think we would have turned into another Northern Ireland.  But NOBODY KNOWS.  That's the point.  And NONE of the nations that were involved could have done it on our own.

It took a concerted effort from ALL of the countries involved in order to stop the war.  England didn't do it alone.  The U.S. didn't do it alone.  It was a TEAM effort and every team member was just as important as any other.  It'd be nice if we saw more of a team effort between the countries today, but instead we argue and bicker about history.  I realize we have pricks in both countries.  Neither of us has a corner on the bigotry market.  On that, I hope we can agree.

On the subject of food, I got around quite a bit when I lived in England and found places with good steaks and places with nasty, gamey-tasting steaks.  Know what?  I live in Arizona and I have a similar list here.  If you're an adult and haven't figured out that just because a restaurant serves something called a "hamburger" doesn't mean it's going to taste like the last good hamburger you had, then you need to get out more.  Maybe you should stick to McDonalds and stop bitching about food if you want everything to taste the same.

I remember Scotch Eggs.  I tried them, but next to them in the ready-to-cook section of my local Tesco was something called "Savoury Eggs" that I liked way more.  I'm glad I didn't do like apparently a lot of Americans do and just stop after tasting a Scotch Egg because I would have missed out--Savoury Eggs, way better in my opinion.

Beef and Boddington stew is also incredible.  I even got to where I could cook some decent Yorkshire Puddings (it helped to learn the "tricks" from my neighbor's mom).  Peterborough had a nice course, close to me (I lived in Yaxley at the time) called "Orton Meadows" that I loved to play because their "19th Hole" was a Beefeater pub called "The Granary" right there next to the clubhouse.  Yeah, I know it's not exactly as charming as the little, local pubs, but the food was awesome (hope it's still there).  The course was a nice challenge for me, too, especially the angry geese that seemed to not appreciate me playing through their colony next to the lake on #3.

The thing I've missed the most is clotted cream.  You can't get clotted cream in the states (from what I've found).  There's nothing in the states that can compare, in my opinion, to clotted cream topped with fresh fruit jam on a warm scone.

As for the British "American-style hot dogs", I never had any luck.  I tried various brands from both Tesco and Sainsbury and they were all about the same.  The texture was just wrong.  They weren't firm, like they are in the states.  They were all kind of mushy, about the same texture as Vienna sausage.  Good luck keeping them together on the grill when you're turning them.

You can't beat fresh Cadbury chocolates, though.  When I lived in Banbury we visited the factory in Birmingham a couple of times and got some fresh "samples".  Hershey's tastes like wax compared to Cadbury.  It even LOOKS like wax, if you compare them side by side.

So which is better, America or England?  Is that what we're arguing about now?  I realize the OP was baiting us into that argument, and many have fallen for it, but how about we zip up the pants and agree that EACH has its advantages and disadvantages.  Each has its share of morons.  Some of them attend pro golf events (lots of video evidence for this).  Some of them apparently play the game (which is why we can so rarely play a golf shot from a properly raked bunker no matter what country I'm in).  Next time you're bragging about how your country is better than someone else's, you might want to remember that it's not being British or being American that makes anyone great.  If you think it is, then maybe you'd like to take a stab at explaining why BOTH countries have such a large share of douche-bags?

By the way, if anyone knows where I can get some clotted cream in the states, I'd really appreciate it.  Just about anything else I can manage (even got Bisto to go with my Yorkshires).

[Nosevi]

Here you go, Dave. http://www.englishteastore.com/british-store-cream-tea.html Hope this helps. That's not all either..... http://www.englishteastore.com/british-store.html

You know you're right, in all you say in fact. In amongst my ramblings I think you'll maybe see that I agree with you on every level. You've said that no one thinks that the US did it all by yourselves but that some of us (and you must be talking about me, don't mind) seem to think you all do. I've kind of gone out of my way to say that that is not the case at all. I've tried to say that, and not by shouting, I'll leave that up to Monte thanks. All I'll say is reread what Wiseguy actually wrote. I don't mean shake your head and say "enough already" I mean actually do me the courtesy of reading it. Is that or is that not someone saying that the US did it all by yourselves? Am I right or wrong to point out that just possibly the US had one or two allies fighting along side you and the view that the US singlehandedly won the War against Japan is, shall we say, flawed as well as arrogant?

I think you are right, we have morons on both sides of the pond but funily enough I don't count Wiseguy as one of them. Don't know him but he just doesn't come over that way at all. I think what he said is more than likely an honest, firmly held and considered view. It just happens to be wrong. I don't think Wiseguy is arrogant. I do think anyone who writes a history book from the standpoint that he gave either knows nothing about what they are talking about or is, at best, extremely arrogant.

Anyway, I'm done. Enjoy your Clotted cream, mate. Would treat you all but the PM system isn't that advanced as yet.

Nos

p.s. The Granary is still there btw. Eaten there some time ago now though. Nice place.

[Joakim]

Just a few afterthoughts. I have read many books and watched every movie and documentary on WWII that I could get my hands on as this is a subject that interests me greatly. Our President at the time Theodore Roosevelt was one of our greatest Presidents. Roosevelt knew the US would not support another war. However he did implement the Lend Lease program and this started our war machine rolling and supplied materials to England and Russia before we declared war. After Pearl Harbor the US was all in and had the backing of all US citizens and Governments and declared war on Japan and Germany. We agreed with Churchill to start in Africa, partly because our Navy contingent was decimated from the attack on Pearl and was a must have to get to the Japanese. We had previous to the war and throughout a force helping the Chinese but they were also involved in a Civil War and were more involved in fighting that than the Japanese.

Wiseguy was correct in that during the Pacific, all of the I on Island hopping was done by the US Marines with the exception of Borneo which the Aussies invaded and fought. A very important major invasion was that of Guadalcanal. With Japan holding that island they would controlled our shipping lanes to Australia and South Africa. It was a highly contested battle and one we almost lost. Also on the invasion of Iwo Jima we had more casualties than from D-Day. I say this because I am very proud of the marines and the guts it takes to invade islands with heavily em-placed fortifications.

I was also very proud of the way our country came together to develop the most formidable materials manufacturing facilities in the World. This had everlasting repercussions. 1) It thrust woman into the work force which previously had been taboo. 2) The same with the Negro population. 3) Most importantly it developed a country into a war materials dependent country.

This last point is the most prevalent in shaping our current countries activities. Our society was then dependent on manufacturing and developing more and new war systems and materials. Since then it is the number one Federal budget expense, dependent on conflicts to survive. It continued with the cold war and continues to date. As a pacifist, I believe that WWII was a necessary involvement but I do no like being called war mongers as this not the feeling of all or even most Americans. I do not wish to be the protector of other countries because the military and their subcontractors are our main sustenance. Our Government knows that dismantling this would be a near impossible endeavor. Additionally, our military and subcontractors have a great influence on who is elected President and other government politicians.

As someone that previously owned an Aerospace and military supply company, I shouldn't’t complain. IMO our economy would temporarily collapse in a Peaceful world. The truth is they just haven’t figured out how to switch it off.

Just wanted to express all Americans do not support the actions of our Governments, e.g. Vietnam, Irag war. All do not view that we are saviors of all.... and we all should be proud in our part of destroying a necessary evil in WWII.

Chas, you really gave me the munchies last night after describing that cuisine. If you go over grab me a go bag. LOL.

Nos, I’m not always clear in describing things as I just type this stuff and send. The Boston Tea party was part of our independence and at this point I just really like the Barbeque's on 4 ^th of July.

Also, I admit I was one of the ones that stated something stupid to the effect about the English speaking German. I copied a statement that was on a quote before me towards only to the individual that was Blaspheming my country. I apologized and retracted that statement. I never thought about it before, except in a comedy where it was used in “ A Fish called Wanda”, I stated more as a joke than my sincere beliefs. Excuse me, I’m sorry, It was a poor attempt at a humorous insult directed to one individual.

[Nosevi]

Joakim, please don''t worry about anything you may or may not have posted, haven't taken offence. In fact haven't taken offence about anything anyone has posted (yet :-) )

I was done, right? Sorry just one point. I hate to correct but no, Wiseguy was not correct in that the US were alone in their advance. I hate to refer to Wikipedia but it's just easier in this case. Just go down to the Pacific War campaigns bit if this doesn't open it automatically. Look at the flags of the main antagonists on the Allied side of each part of the campaign. I say main because there were often minor specialist units involved as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Allied_offensives If it can be believed that the US were alone in this offensive then I will stand corrected.

[Vermeer]

Originally Posted by Chas

I'm a forgiving sort.  Maybe I'll try the Little Chef again next year - just as long as it isn't before a game of golf.  Perhaps it has improved as much as pub food has in the past 30 years or so , which is to say - a great deal.  I survived on Shepherd's Pie, Scotch Egg and Bangers & Mash for about a decade and I'm not complaining.

Which 'side' am I on anyway? ..... I can never remember.

It is natural for many to have delusions of gradure about their own history, I agree.  This is not something unique to the French though it's a specialite de Maison there ..... (visit the Halle de Batailles at Versailles if you want the full experience).  But both Americans and Brits also know how to fully recognize their more spectacular defeats -  such as in 1941 and 1066, respectively.

Well, we hammered you in the Ryder Cup ( alright by a couple of iffy putts), and perhaps we would have beat you in the War of Independence if it had not been played away ( and we had included Europe!) But without a doubt our Diners in England  are a very distant second to yours in the States and Little Chef a very distant third.

Pub grub over here are the way to go.

Wiseguy in an earlier post remarked on the body odours of us Brits in the 70's and 80's. You are mistaken, we were 'Splashing it all over' with the Deodorant Brut as advertised by Henry Cooper. Last sentence put in strictly for the Brits !

[Nosevi]

Vemeer, not sure what you mean re the deodorant, but I remember seeing about Henry Cooper on a documentary ..... and I think my Dad used Brut..... :)

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Joakim, please don''t worry about anything you may or may not have posted, haven't taken offence. In fact haven't taken offence about anything anyone has posted (yet :-) )

I was done, right? Sorry just one point. I hate to correct but no, Wiseguy was not correct in that the US were alone in their advance. I hate to refer to Wikipedia but it's just easier in this case. Just go down to the Pacific War campaigns bit if this doesn't open it automatically. Look at the flags of the main antagonists on the Allied side of each part of the campaign. I say main because there were often minor specialist units involved as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Allied_offensives  If it is believed that the US were alone in this offensive then I will stand corrected.

Thanks Nos,

I was referring to the actual invasions of the islands, getting off the boats and heading directly into gunfire.  D-Day was the same situation, I just admire anyone that can do that.

Maybe it was just biased documentaries that I watched as all it showed was marines. You may be right though, we talked about slanted jounalism. There was Naval support from Aussies and Brits. Many British and Austrailian and US Naval vessals were damaged and many casualties from kamikaze attacts. Even the heroism of your recounting your dad's adventure in Falcon's amazes me.I can't honestly say I could do that without at least changing my drawers a couple times.

[Nosevi]

[QUOTE name="Nosevi" url="/t/61371/americans-and-brits-shouting/324#post_777257"] Joakim, please don''t worry about anything you may or may not have posted, haven't taken offence. In fact haven't taken offence about anything anyone has posted (yet :-) ) I was done, right? Sorry just one point. I hate to correct but no, Wiseguy was not correct in that the US were alone in their advance. I hate to refer to Wikipedia but it's just easier in this case. Just go down to the Pacific War campaigns bit if this doesn't open it automatically. Look at the flags of the main antagonists on the Allied side of each part of the campaign. I say main because there were often minor specialist units involved as well. [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Allied_offensives]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Allied_offensives[/URL]  If it is believed that the US were alone in this offensive then I will stand corrected. [/QUOTE] Thanks Nos,  I was referring to the actual invasions of the islands, getting off the boats and heading directly into gunfire.  D-Day was the same situation, I just admire anyone that can do that.  Maybe it was just biased documentaries that I watched as all it showed was marines. You may be right though, we talked about slanted jounalism. There was Naval support from Aussies and Brits. Many British and Austrailian and US Naval vessals were damaged and many casualties from kamikaze attacts. Even the heroism of your recounting your dad's adventure in Falcon's amazes me.I can't honestly say I could do that without at least changing my drawers a couple times.

I think you're right mate, huge bravery. Regarding getting off the boats as it were, I'm afraid I have to say it's exactly as you have said - slanted journalism. Like I said before, my Great Uncle served with the Gurkhas in the campaign, 250,000 Gurkhas took to the field, many in this part of the world. They weren't sailors. As an aside I've been in the jungle with the 7th Gurkha Riffles before - absolutely awsome soldiers in that environment. If you're truely interested in the actions in the Pacific War and want to see a slightly more broad view of who was involved, here's a starting point which shows a little of what just one of our allies got up to. They were fairly involved with a lot of the campaign and you'll see that divisions and battalions were often fighting alongside US troops. It's not always the view you get from some documentaries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_II#War_in_the_Pacific

[dave67az]

Nos, my apologies if you took anything I was saying personally.  I truly wasn't trying to single you out when I said some of you think all Americans feel we did anything on our own.  I was actually referring more to some openly critical posts earlier in this now 19-page thread that clearly stated how we Americans thought alike and acted alike (an idea which only requires watching our current political fiasco called "the campaign process" in order to realize how stupid it is to think we agree on anything, let alone everything).

I won't defend everything that Wiseguy said, but I would encourage us all to remember that each of us has our own experiences and we can only judge what is "truth" based on what we know.  In my travels I also hated the smell on the Tube.  We used to get those one-day travelcards at Epping station and make the long ride into London to play "tourist".  It only takes one person to ruin the entire trip because of body odor.  To assume it was a Brit, however, considering the multi-cultural assortment of my fellow Undergrounders, would have been stupid of me.  Every Brit I knew personally had great hygiene.  I'm betting you could ride public transportation in any American city and get the same odorous experience.  It's not a uniquely British problem, nor is it even a majority problem.  It's a few rotten apples making the rest of us look and smell bad.

His comments on meats and steaks were based on his personal experience, I'm sure.  He's wrong, in my opinion, but that's just because I was lucky enough to find a few places I liked.  But just as we've said, you can't judge food without searching for the good places and generally chains don't do justice to good food.  I hope to God foreigners don't believe that most Americans think McDonalds has good hamburgers, because just about every American I know feels exactly the opposite.  You want a good burger in the states, look for a Red Robin (just my opinion, but FAR closer to my homemade backyard creations than any fast foot chain).

As for his comments about the US Naval dominance in the Pacific, he does give the impression that we didn't have any allied support in the theater.  We all suffer from exposure to political propaganda, sometimes making its way into history books, and it's easy to fall into the habit of thinking we've been given the whole story in our education.  The Allies won the war.  The U.S. did not win the war, nor did England win the war.  But both countries take pride in the accomplishments of their military, and a failure to mention in textbooks or museums that they didn't do it alone shouldn't be regarded as an indictment of any other nation's efforts.  From my experience most of my British friends got a better, more impartial grounding in American history in school than we Americans did.  But I was a little put off the first time I went to a British War Museum and saw that the American Revolution had been named Rebellion in the Colonies.  I'm guessing a Brit visiting our Smithsonian probably has some of the same responses at some of our historical exhibits.

I know for a fact that the Brits were in the Pacific because I watched "Bridge on the River Kwai" and they wouldn't have put it in a movie if it didn't happen, right?  lol

I saw the "4th of July" mentioned and laughed, as I usually laugh when I hear it.  We Americans don't think anything about the phrase (well, some of us).  It reminded me of a conversation I witnessed between an American friend and one of my British neighbors.  We were having a fair and fireworks on base at Alconbury and my buddy asked my neighbor if he'd like to come to the base on the 4th to enjoy the festivities.  My neighbor asked what it was for.  "The Fourth of July," my friend replied.  "But what's it for?", my neighbor asked again.  "THE FOURTH OF JULY!" my friend replied.  After I stopped laughing at my buddy I intervened:  "It's our Independence Day."  Amazing how so many Americans forget that it actually has another name, other than the "Fourth of July", that might mean a little more to "foreigners".  Knowing what I know now about American History education in England, though, I think my neighbor was just messing with him, but it was still hilarious that my friend didn't realize all he was doing was repeating a date as though that was supposed to be a universal holiday.

Another thing I learned about holidays was that most of my British neighbors thought I was into Satan worship or witchcraft when I asked if they knew of anyplace where my son could go trick-or-treating on Halloween.  Some of them seemed to react as though I'd asked if I could sacrifice their pets.  Yeah, we stuck to the Base where most of the other Americans lived for that holiday...apparently it's NOT okay to dress up the kids as scary monsters and go door to door for candy, but it's okay in nearly every community, less than a week later, to burn an effigy of a guy (literally, a Guy) tied to a stake above a bonfire.  Go figure.

Thanks for the link to the English Tea Store and the clotted cream.  I had seen something similar before but I was a little put off when I read that it "keeps for months without refrigeration".  I used to get it fresh (well, as fresh as Tesco can actually be) and there's no way it would have kept that long.  Made me think it was certainly not the same stuff.  Know what I mean?

Okay, I'm done rambling again.  Lisa wants to go to the driving range and that sounds way better than sitting here and reminding myself how much I miss England.  Keep telling myself I'm coming back so I can visit my Welsh relatives but I've never made it farther than looking at the costs of flights, car rentals, and hotels.  I'm a cheapskate.  I did, however, learn the language while I was there last time.  :-)