Why did America save Britain in the world wars? Wouldn't it have made more sense for America to side with Germany than with its bitter enemies, the Brits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Rapprochement
>>464020
Because blood is thicker than water, and Eternal Anglo bands together like a plauge of locusts
In World War I, no not really.
The German Empire was preparing the last offensive they were capable of staging by the time American troops arrived in meaningful numbers. US troops played a role in halting the spring offensive and contributing to the 100 days offensive that ended the war.
France and Britain would have taken higher casualties, but I doubt the absence of US forces would have led to a total complete German victory.
I don't even believe so for World War II either, Britain was able to maintain control of the skies against the Luftwaffe, thwarting any German attempt to invade the islands. The Lend-Lease act played a huge role in keeping Britain in fighting shape yes, but the overwhelming bulk of the fighting was carried by the Soviets.
But fair to say, American troops played a huge role in making sure that the Western allies ended up at the Elbe River, if the Normandy Landings never happened, the Soviets would just continue marching to Paris and Bordeaux.
>>464020
1814 and 1914 are a century apart, in between, you had a lot of stuff happen that resulted in the US and UK becoming total bros, a status they've held until quite recently.
>>464020
We were never "bitter enemies" with Britain, we just disagreed on matters of international law.
The US helping the UK in WWII is not stranger than the UK siding with France (a traditional enemy) over Germany (a traditional ally) in WWI.
>>464067
Britain would have starved without lend-lease. The USSR probably could have won England and the US, but would have taken even more casualties. If the US AND Germany attacked, the USSR would have fallen. The US played an absolutely pivotal role in WWII.
America wanted to liberate Canada in 1812.
The British owed America so much money by the great wars end that it would have just been dumb to do anything but help
>>464020
Yes.
We fucked up. Twice.
Hopefully we don't make that mistake again.
British people are cunts.
>>464033
>America is tall, lean, and with a thick head of hair
>Britain is short, fat, and balding
Very well played.
>>464067
you realize the brits would have been fucked without lend lease and the soviets would have been butt fucked if we hadn't hadn't supplied them with raw materials right? and if we hadn't been banging it out with the japs in the pacific you think the soviets could have survived a two front war against them and Germany? na m8
>>464020
>Why did America save Britain in the world wars? Wouldn't it have made more sense for America to side with Germany than with its bitter enemies, the Brits?
Considering pic related, its no real surprise anymore where Anglosphere interests lay throughout the 20th century.
>inb4 Russian Civil War and the Cold War
>inb4 hurr ur a tinfoil
We helped the Bolsheviks into power at least indirectly by intervening, not to mention the US gave massive loans to the USSR during detente and other periods that never was repayed. Some of the wealthiest individuals in the US and UK made funding possible for the communists to seize power across Russia.
The Anglosphere created their own convenient bogeymen to justify literally any and all forms of Western interventionism the world over. If there is no enemy, then who is going to buy our guns, military equipment, oil, and invest in our markets to ensure we stay on top?
>>464275
It wasnt bitter enemies since 50 years after breaking up due to trade.
>>464275
It is tinfoil though. We sent soldiers to kill reds and didnt offer lend lease until we wanted it in ww2. The russians denied the marshal plan.
>>464288
When did we invade Russia? We killed Reds in Vietnam because the Reds were overthrowing our control of the region's trade routes and resources.
>>464068
Modern relations are sad. We shouldvd been more chill with our sanction enforceme t. If ww3 breaks out britain probably wouldnt help us.
>>464294
We killed reds in 1917 because we were allies with the russian empire in ww1. The reds were seen as an illegitimate rebellion.
>>464288
>We sent soldiers to kill reds
Read the book. The historian and economist who elaborates that Western Allied presence in Russia actually did more to help the Bolsheviks than to harm it.
> and didnt offer lend lease until we wanted it in ww2.
That is because Stalin had a different strategy altogether than the Western Allies in WW2.
>The russians denied the marshal plan.
They chose their own plan because they believed it would let them keep greater autonomy, despite the Marshall Plan receiving a mixed response.
No surprise though that a monster the US had a hand in creating might not feel like obeying its fickle master.
>>464020
A) Who the fuck in their right mind holds a grudge for several generations?
B) The Brits controlled all the information about the wars making to the USA. They cut all the German telegraph cables.
>>464294
After WWI we sent in troops to several Russian cities to "keep order."
Pic related was Vladivostok.
>>464319
>A) Who the fuck in their right mind holds a grudge for several generations?
If you can celebrate any point of your history spanning back to a time preceding said grudge, then you can also accept input from those who feel differently from a more recent part of history.
>>464020
we almost did in WWI over half the country had ties to Germany but britain cut the trans atlantic cable to main land europe so we couldn't get any german propaganda
>>464020
profit
>>464020
Because the Anglosphere countries might bicker with each other over law and clay but there's a bit of traditional wisdom that prevails in conflicts that involve other nations.
>Fuck with me and you fuck with the whole trailer park
>>464356
>in some capacity
Sure, but keep in mind
>it is extremely hard to monetize such volatile situations
>especially when reds nationalize assets
Such investment cases are very likely fringe.
>>464392
E
T
E
R
N
A
L
>>464408
G
O
D
S
A
V
E
T
H
E
Q
U
E
E
N
;
^
)
>>464020
No. Despite our initial status as enemies, many American values and governmental ideas were lifted directly from the British. Like it or not, we are their daughter civilization and the apple never falls far from the tree. Given time, a shared language and a new generation on the ground, we were able to heal the rift between our civilizations and due to those shared values, they became a natural ally. As opposed to Nazi Germany who's values were inimical to our own.
>>464183
His name is john bull, it's a thing.
>>464183
The U.K is a very old country
while the U.S is a very young country
>>464333
>accept input from those who feel differently from a more recent part of history.
The fuck are you trying to say?
>>464518
>plainly stated English
Is it not your first language?
>>464183
Let me sing you the song of my people.
>>464522
>The orange orangutan slides gently into the pool of chairs.
I'm confused by the relevance of your statement. So how about you make statement more explicit.
And yes, English is very much my first language.
>>464404
>it was all just seized by the Reds
No, it wasn't.
Even still in the cases it was, that is pretty fucking stupid on the part of the people financing it.
To use one example, Trotsky was living in New York on a pension, despite the fact the British, Canadians, and Americans at least knew he was connected with revolutionaries trying to unseat the Tsar in Russia. What did they do about it?
Give him free and secure passage to Russia, where he founded the Red Army.
>extreme stupidity to the point Anglo foreign policies should never be seen as trustworthy or reliable
>intentionally engineering these conflicts to profit or benefit of them somehow, making the people doing this malevolent
Pick one.
>>464560
>I'm confused
Right there is your problem.
I cannot simplify or reword something already at its simplest state.
Learn to read and comprehend the point I am making properly.
>>464563
benefit off*
>>464571
I didn't say simplify. Now I'm confused why you are going out of your way to be an ass. If you don't want to discuss stuff then why are you here?
>>464576
>I didn't read it properly
>therefore the other side has to fix it
>if he doesn't fulfill my demand then I can't see why he should be here
More erroneous assumptions.
What don't you get about what I stated?
>>464582
Honestly, I don't want to discuss anything with you because it seems like you will take every opportunity to be an ass instead of trying to learn and inform.
Have a good night.
>>464588
Yes, and you've just been wonderful, haven't you?
No, from the outset you were quite rude, and there is no onus on me to coddle your emotions or baby you in reply if you're going to act that way.
Have a nice life.
>>464435
>Despite our initial status as enemies, many American values and governmental ideas were lifted directly from the British. Like it or not, we are their daughter civilization and the apple never falls far from the tree. Given time, a shared language and a new generation on the ground, we were able to heal the rift between our civilizations and due to those shared values, they became a natural ally.
t. alfred babcocke
>>464591
You think "the fuck are you trying to say" is rude? This is an honest question. I personally don't take it as such.
>>464611
If it isn't then your complaints are even less valid, because 'me being an ass' is in response to you.
You get back as good as you're putting out, I thought this was obvious enough, but apparently not to you.
>>464621
If I was insulting you with swear words it would be different. I was using "fuck" for emphasis.
My issue with how you were conducting yourself was your willingness to attack my reading comprehension repeatedly instead of lifting a single finger to reword your original statement. It comes off as rather defensive, that you care more about "winning" than discussion anything. If you cared about communicating your thoughts then you would have been willing to lift that finger in my experience. But attacking the other person's reading comprehension is the more expedient way of ending the "argument' in your favor.
In your defence, that perspective on discussion is very common.
>>464631
>My issue with how you were conducting yourself was your willingness to attack my reading comprehension repeatedly instead of lifting a single finger to reword your original statement
>attack
Your interpretation. The reply between you emphasizing your lack of understanding and an attempt to equate what I stated with gibberish was a simple question, so yes, you were clearly reacting to what was stated, and it characterized my later responses to you where I stated that your inability to comprehend it is not my problem.
>reword
Which I responded to, and it flew past your head, unsurprisingly.
>It comes off as rather defensive, that you care more about "winning" than discussion anything.
I care about the point, you seeing it as 'winning' is your own interpretation. The fact you keep doing this is, ironically, a sign of you being defensive. You can't accept you repeatedly fail to grasp the point, so instead its my fault you don't, and if I don't respond to your misrepresentations and obliviousness with nothing but warmth, then I'm 'being an ass.'
>It comes off as rather defensive, that you care more about "winning" than discussion anything. If you cared about communicating your thoughts then you would have been willing to lift that finger in my experience.
That is entirely dependent on your ability to listen and be open to said points.
So far I'm not getting that message at all, until just now.
>But attacking the other person's reading comprehension is the more expedient way of ending the "argument' in your favor.
>attack (there is that word again)
...or explaining to you that you misread it, in a plain manner, which you keep doing even up until now.
>In your defence, that perspective on discussion is very common.
If you don't think there was any issue with how you replied, then there is no issue with the response given.
idc desu, what I find more irritating is your desire to pretend as if you don't care, while you keep coming back with... this.
>>464643
>desu
that was supposed to be 'to be honest' abbreviated
Didn't know 4chins did that... must be because of the 'to be honest family' shitposting.
>>464643
>You can't accept you repeatedly fail to grasp the point
Which is my point. You come off as caring more about pointing that failure out repeatedly than lifting a finger to mend that communication failure. You should fix that.
>>464020
they might have but the anglo propaganda lead into anti-germanic sentiment
>>464645
>You should fix that.
>you should
>should
...or you can read it properly instead of reacting, especially with a reaction in a place where doing that =/= actually being interested in hearing the point.
Though fine, I shall, because I am assuming you are genuinely interested.
>telling people you don't understand that people can hold a historical grudge from several decades ago
Your point.
>when most human beings, when it comes to history, celebrate or discuss subjects going back beyond that time period
>if you can feel positive or discuss the better aspects of it, you can also be on the receiving end of hearing people voicing the darker aspects, which is valid
People who try to take one over the other negate or screen out parts of history that make them feel uncomfortable, or because it doesn't mesh with their patriotic mindset.
There are other ways to interpret it properly, but that was what I was alluding to anyway.
Example:
>be American/British
>celebrate founding of their countries or some distant idea they pioneered
>complain when others point out their history isn't so wonderful... or far from perfect
>>464668
>especially with a reaction in a place where doing that =/= actually being interested in hearing the point.
That's a weird conclusion.
I appreciate you rewording your original statement.
>if you can feel positive or discuss the better aspects of it, you can also be on the receiving end of hearing people voicing the darker aspects, which is valid
Romanticizing national successes in order to bolster the feeling of national identity is useful. I'd say defining one's nation by historical boogeymen is not sensible and doesn't work out in the long run. The boogeyman nation will have changed over several generations such that it isn't the same nation that committed the purported atrocity in action and operation.
>>464687
>That's a weird conclusion.
>I appreciate you rewording your original statement.
On 4chan, it isn't all that weird. People can pretend to have knowledge or be advocating a serious position, when they could be shitposting, baiting, roleplaying, or just being idiots engaging in damage control.
There are posters around looking for genuine discussion, distinguishing them at times isn't all that easy.
This will also be one of the great challenges of /his/, to try and have these discussions... on 4chan of all places, without the board quality diminishing or the problems of other boards taking this place over.
Would like to see how they handle the government-bankrolled trolls that frequent this place and plenty of discussion forums on these subjects.
>Romanticizing national successes in order to bolster the feeling of national identity is useful. I'd say defining one's nation by historical boogeymen is not sensible and doesn't work out in the long run. The boogeyman nation will have changed over several generations such that it isn't the same nation that committed the purported atrocity in action and operation.
Agreed for the most part, it is very useful, as governments exploit various narratives to bolster themselves as the good guys, to rationalize interventionism abroad. When its pointed out these same countries have data locked up in archives that will never see the light of day, they could only do that if they had our best interests at heart... right?
IMO... something is very fishy when countries do this. I understand historians investigate the evidence given, but 'given' is the key word here, and if we don't have complete access to all the facts, then the distinction between propaganda and facts blur... and I could even argue that there is no onus on an individual believing whatever idea they prop up until they get all the data first.
>>464725
I couldn't agree more. All nation building is about using fudged facts for the benefit of political agendas. It can pay off in how it allows humans to cooperate on large scales but building nations based on a permanent group of "bad guys" does more harm than good to everyone involved.
For fuck's sake, there were Americans "clapping" on facebook and elsewhere as Fukushima was exploding, claiming that this was God's punishment for Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.
I'm glad we could work out the communication issue.
>>464735
>For fuck's sake, there were Americans "clapping" on facebook and elsewhere as Fukushima was exploding, claiming that this was God's punishment for Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.
This, admittedly, I missed out on. Is there any images or links for this? It doesn't sound all that out-of-character for Americans... or any powerful group when looking down at their client states. Reminds me of pic related.
>I'm glad we could work out the communication issue.
Me as well, after all, it does always need to be remembered where we are.
>>464735
Y'know, it doesn't help your case when you pick out the biggest bunch of retards and hold them up as medium reference.
What about the Israelis caught on camera dancing as the twin towers fell? They're not representative, just used by people to drive home a distorted image.
Are all Brits Jeremy Corbyn?
>>464750
>This, admittedly, I missed out on.
I don't have anything on it. I saw it first hand on facebook though and saw screencaps of the retardation in the following weeks on 4chan.
>Y'know, it doesn't help your case when you pick out the biggest bunch of retards and hold them up as medium reference.
Should I redirect you to /int/ or /pol/?
>>464764
Yep, first respondent here. (communication issue)
I'm heading off, thanks for the chat and clarification.
>>464761
Neither, actually. /k/.
Oh, and go fuck yourself. That was the antithesis of /pol/. I accused you of cherry picking. How do you respond?
>>464735
>For fuck's sake, there were Americans "clapping" on facebook and elsewhere as Fukushima was exploding, claiming that this was God's punishment for Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.
Really? Kek. Here in Russia some bishops proclaimed that it was God`s punishment for Japan not acknowledging Russian sovereignity over the Kuril islands.
>>464778
I was just giving an example I experienced firsthand. I don't comprehend how your example goes against what I was saying.
>>464818
>Really? Kek. Here in Russia some bishops proclaimed that it was God`s punishment for Japan not acknowledging Russian sovereignity over the Kuril islands.
When will the geopolitical butthurt end?
>>464020
>save
The U.S bankrupted Britain and destroyed it economically so that it would be a joke of a nation until the 1980s. If they'd made peace Britain would likely still be a world superpower.
>>464856
>You gave an example that doesn't represent the view of most Americans. Our charitable contributions in the wake of the Fukushima disaster dwarfed most others.
I wasn't taking a jab at Americans. I was taking a jab at national boogeymen persisting beyond a single generation.
I aint dodging shit. I'm American as fuck.
>>464867
Well you could have fooled me.
>>464874
I call it how I see it and don't play favorites with nations. America is great and I don't need to pretend idiots don't exist in order to believe that.
>>464453
>American symbols
>Columbia - a beautiful woman
>Uncle Sam - tall, slender, determined old man
>Bald Eagle - a noble bird native to North America
>British symbols
>John Bull - obese balding manlet
>Lion - a species that doesn't live in Britain
>Bulldog - fat, inbred monstrosity of a dog
Like pottery
>>464836
nah the empire was already cracking. the world wars may have sped things up but it was really only a matter of time before it split
>bitter enemies, the Brits
lazy bait
>>464076
>Britain would have starved without lend-lease.
unlike americans, we don't need to eat 10,000 calories of mcdonalds everyday.
>>464892
That's a shitty defence. You should have just pointed out all the crazy amounts of grain coming from Canada, a constitutional monarchy still controlled by England.
>>464892
>le Brits are not fat meme
Please. You're basically 51st state already.
>>464898
or i could just ad hominem the clapistanis.
>>464905
B-But America is slightly fatter. How else are we supposed to feel important geopolitically if we don't make fun of America for being ever so slightly fatter?
>>464905
>y-you're just as fat!
billybob please, we'll never get to the size of you mammals.
>>464912
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/worlds-fattest-man-keith-martin-4751943
>>464909
>protecting children from falling glass and debris is bad
Are you fucking serious right now, nigga? That's some next level safety measures right there. All my school did was tell us to march off to some hallway, bend over, and kiss our assesses goodbye.
>>464912
>>464905
>w-we are slightly less fat
>>464877
Yes, then don't cherry pick the worst of us and hold them up as representative.
>>464921
m8 they're anti-bullet mats. for when the daily shoot shooting happens.
>>464915
>mirror
lol k
>>464930
Yes we know all British media are tabloid tier joke, anything else you want to add?
>>464905
Quiet, Bong. If you were the 51st state, you'd be fiftieth in terms GDP per capita and everything that goes along with it.
Fucking Alabama beats you. I suggest you think on your sins.
>>464927
I wasn't doing that, as I've already stated.
>>464930
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
Granted, our murder rate is higher but you have a much higher violent crime rate. And we report EVERYTHING as a crime. You guys only report it as a violent crime if there's an arrest, thank Labour for that one.
>>464930
>shoot shooting
>>464930
>anti-bullet mats
I think you are gullible.
>>464948
Do you have the bong post too?
>>464948
Kek
It's because we love you Englishbros, even if you don't love us back!
DAILY REMEMBER: If you affirm something, or state smething, please, don't forget to back it up with a valid source.
>>464930
at least we don't force our school kids to kneel on top of mats
>>464319
A) Ask a Scot.
B) Not entirely accurate.
It was to America's best interest to intervene in the war in order to keep Soviet reach limited.
In a world where America doesn't join WWII, Soviets would have probably taken all of Germany and Japan after the war.
FUCKING WOODROW FUCKING WILSON FUCK
>>464020
Money
>>467989
>In a world where America doesn't join WWII
It lasts to 1949 due to the lack of lend lease.
The United Kingdom enters a revolutionary situation in India, Egypt and the Home Islands.
PCF & PCd'I are authorised "hot" in 1942/1943 to preserve the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is outnumbered by Revolutionary France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, UK, China and Stalinism undergoes a period of socialist humanism early.
IIRC, Midwest Republicans wanted to stay neutral/pro-German whereas Northeast Democrats were Britboos.
>>464020
Why didn't America stay out of both World Wars?
In WW1 we could have made lots more money arming all sides.
Same in WW2, except when Pearl Harbor happened, act submissive to Japan. Then spend all our resources on the Manhattan Project.
We could have bombed out all their cities in one night and went into the Cold War with a massive advantage against the USSR.
>>464067
UK and the Soviets wouldn't have been able to do shit without Lend Lease.
If the US didn't intervene even in an economic capacity, Britain would have eventually been defeated economically and the USSR would have lost a ton of territory west of the Urals. Japan would have also been free to consolidate their holdings in Asia without any significant resistance.
>>464275
>he doesn't know about the first Red Scare or The Battle of Blair Mountain
The US was fucking terrified of socialism, just like the rest of the Western powers.
>>464301
More that they've been bought into slavery to China, their former colony. That doesn't help though.
>>464878
Also dragons and unicorns
The short answer is money, history, and common international interests.
The Brits never treated us badly. The Revolution was about making them accept the reality that it was time for us to part ways. The War of 1812 was fought to make them take us seriously as a sovereign nation.
Before and immediately after these conflicts, trade was always brisk. Britain even backed us up with the Royal Navy when we declared the Monroe Doctrine.
>>468595
>The Revolution was about making them accept the reality that it was time for us to part ways. The War of 1812 was fought to make them take us seriously as a sovereign nation.
And yet Britain was resented until 1941
>>464878
>Bald Eagle - a noble bird native to North Americ
>>464892
>Forgetting you lived off the mountain of spam we shipped over
>>464544
wtf is this even trying to convey
are candians autistic?
>>464544
>"What do Frenchmen wear, Ed?"
>"I don't know, uh, shirt, pants I guess."
>"Anything else?"
>"not really, they're a strange folk."
>"What about Germans?"
>"A coat. And a red vest with periwinkles on it."
>>468713
Franklin pls go
>>469794
also the fez on the Belgian
>>464544
I like how the artist just drew whatever he wanted for the French, Austrian and Scandinavians.
>>468595
>The War of 1812 was fought to make them take us seriously as a sovereign nation.
Doubtful, the war seemed more like a stalemate.
>Before and immediately after these conflicts, trade was always brisk
Prior to the 20th century, protectionism was used by the US to prevent the British from gaining a monopoly, or even an economic foothold in American markets.
>>464506
God damn Italy had the best propaganda.
>>468005
Seriously, that guy is shit. Possibly even worse than Herbert dick-shitting Hoover.
