First off, I'm British and proud of my country and have no wish to live anywhere else. I also love the US and the people (with the exception of some politicians - in both countries!)
When should bygones be left as bygones?
Personally, I'm not happy with sharing aircraft carriers with the French, and I suspect a lot of French people share the view from their perspective, but quite simply its a matter of economics, and we're both on the same side - whatever that is!.
I won't disput your general line but I feel I must correct a bit of your re-telling of 'World History'.
Adolf Hitler embarked upon an expansion plan for his Third Reich which resulted in the alliance of Britain, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands stating that unless he withdrew from invading other countries war would result. War was declared in September 1939. Fearful of invasion, the allied countries in mainland Europe requested help from Britain and the USA. Britain immediately responded by sending a force to France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The USA decided to remain neutral.
A war at sea ensued, with the Nazis attempting to starve Britain into submission. Without the help of neutral USA, this could easily have happened. (The US provided ships to replace those sunk, asking for payment only after the war - putting much debt onto the British economy for decades after).
The land war commenced in May 1940, with their much better equipped armies amd tactics, the Nazis had soon over-run the Netherlands and much of Belgium. They soon had the British and French armies enclosed in a pincer manouvre resulting in a last stand for the British, elements of the French Army, and the remnants of the Belgian Army at Dunkirk (note this was a big time retreat to save what was left of these armies to fight another day - it was not an invasion. Note also that the concept of 'Free French' did not exist at this point.) Some 338,000 Brits and 140,000 French were evacuated from Dunkirk by British boats. These rescued French later formed a government in exile situated in London, England and called themselves the 'Free French'. The only supplies from North America at that time were from Canada. Because of their neutrality, no supplies were sent from the USA to the land war to any of the soon to be occupied countries.
It was not until after Pearl Harbour that the USA joined the war in Europe, to the great relief of Britain and the Free Governments of many occupied countries. Money, supplies and the many graves of young US service personnel bear testamount to the fact that the US involvement shortened the war by many, many years. It must also be noted that the 10.5 million Russian military losses also shortened the war.
I agree that the Suez invasion was a debacle. Israel, France and Britain went to war following the communist nationalism of the Suez canal. For their own political purposes the US did put pressure on the UK to withdraw unilaterally. The French have never forgiven the US for that action and relationships between France and the US have been sour ever since. Some argue that the Suez crisis was the end of France and Britain as 'world powers' and the start of the USA and the USSR as 'super-powers'.
Since my first post, you ask about lend lease. Perhaps you misread my original post - we all do it. The US did supply ships to the UK prior to the Battle of Dunkirk, but these were either paid for in gold or came under the 'Destroyers for Bases Agreement'. The Evacuation of Dunkirk took place between 27 May and 2 June 1940. Lend Lease (which covered many different types of armaments etc) was brought into USA law in March 1941 (Clearly before Pearl Harbour) but almost a year after Dunkirk.
I have no idea when supplies were made to China, but they did not commence to Russia until 1942 (after Pearl). But, of course, as you know, neither China nor Russia were engaged in Dunkirk, the prime topic of your original point and my first response.
· 9 years ago