USA - Land of Freedom and Democracy

Dear Jo,

More on the "conditionality" of Marshal Aid and so forth. Firstly it was repayable, and secondly trade was regulated according to US interests in the post 1945 era. Roosevelt had already told Churchill before WW2 ended that the US would henceforth be the "policemen of the World," and one of the US war aims was the disbandment of the British Empire, though this was not publicly laid out.

The Aims that were such as the restoration of free Eastern Europe were abandoned when it appeared that the interest of the US did not extend to facing off the Soviets. That would have been something Europe would have needed to be far more grateful for than what needs be for what actually happened. The situation with Poland was exceptionally tragic in this light. While Paris was liberated Warsaw was being destroyed block by block by the retreating Nazi army [225,000 Warsawians of which perhaps 40,000 escaped alive], with the Soviets sitting in Praga [a suburb just East of the Vistula] letting the Germans do their work for them before moving in and setting up an alternative governement after their own lights, and all in the knowledge of the US and UK governements who in one case wanted to do nothing and in the other no longer could. Polish Army Units were fighting for the Allied cause as their homeland was sold from under them most reprehensibly by Roosevelt, who felt it not the interests of the US to do other than even prevent the Poles returning to their homeland to fight for it, but rather putting them into some of the toughest fighting on the way to Berlin after the D-Day Landings.

Yes we can examine the US record alright. It bears scrutiny, though once again it the governement rather than the American public who undoubtedly bear responisbiity in this case as in so many others for acts that are actually terrible in foreign affairs.

If one goes on WW2 casualties the USSR certainly aided Britain more than the US in her [our forefathers'] military aims, but as Churchill wryly observed, "You walk with the Devil across the bridge."

In fact it was a close run thing about the US joining the War soon enough to prevent catastrophy. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbour, then it might not have been soon enough...

But again it must have begun to dawn on the US that if the Nazis had defeated the Britsh, and her Empire Allies, and the Europeans, with the USSR, then the risk to the US from the Atlantic side would be possibly fatal to the US with the Japanese being so successful in the Pacific arena.

If one doubts that the US really acts out of anything other than self-interest, consider the Falklands where there was a really strong public debate in US as to which side was in the interests of the US to join - UK or Argentine! defending their trade interests in [as they see it] their own backyard, or preserving their interest in preserving a reliable bulk-head against the Soviets in Europe. I think it was Madelene Albright who was the keenest proponent of the Argentine, but memory may have failed me [if not my memory that is was spearheaded by a woman], and the media in UK certainly let us know that the US population did not want to get involved.

All questions, perhaps, but certainly ones that should be examined before we consider the US some sort of pro-British charitable institution. I am sure Churchill did not regard the Soviets as that, but their interests co-incided with Britain's for a while at the time, but soon enough the Alliance would crumble to mutual fear. I am not sure that we have not viewed the US with rather too "rose tinted spectacles" for too long. The US certainly is not about to "invade" Britain, but she will maninpulate her without any shadow of doubt. A bit Anglphone "Chauvinism" may be a very good thing for Britain in the future I think. Enough payback is enough in my view, especially as it may be of interest to people to know that the UK has only recently finished paying the US loans, from the period, back!

Perhaps the US should be grateful to Britain for watching her back for two years from the Nazi menace between 1939 and 1941 rather than we should be any less grateful for the help when it finally arrived, on the spur of the Japanese. The thought would not be one I expect many would have, but I can see no reason not consider it.

I have to give credit to WS Churchill among other sources for an insight into the US war aims in his six volume book, "The History of the Second World War." Though Churchill avoids such issues as the morality of bombing Dresden, it certainly shows how the negotiations with Stalin and Roosevelt went, and Churchill's view of such issues as the "official neutrality" of Norway, let alone his dispair over the Polish Question. Churchill was roundly attacked in the UK Parliamnet for allowing that to happen, though he concedes that without US support there was nothing to prevent the fifty year catastrophy that actually happened for that Nation.

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

If one doubts that the US really acts out of anything other than self-interest, consider the Falklands where there was a really strong public debate in US as to which side was in the interests of the US to join - UK or Argentine! defending their trade interests in [as they see it] their own backyard, or preserving their interest in preserving a reliable bulk-head against the Soviets in Europe. I think it was Madelene Albright who was the keenest proponent of the Argentine, but memory may have failed me [if not my memory that is was spearheaded by a woman], and the media in UK certainly let us know that the US population did not want to get involved.

Hi Fredrik

You may not be aware, but as well supplying us with intelligence and the latest air-to-air missiles the US offered us use of an aircraft carrier.

ATB

Mike

Dear Mike,

Whatever the scale of the eventual military aid offered or taken in the Falklands War, and some of it may well have been suppressed in the Media anyway, what I do remember is that it was indeed touch and go which side the US would eventually join.

I am sured that as a man with military connections, if I am not mistaken, your knowledge of the actual logistic of the aid will probably be greater than mine, but I have retained a massive suspicion of the US since reading of the debate over which side to join!

That there should have been even a moment's doubt which side to join gives cause for doubt in my mind as to how solid and loyal is the US gov't in reality to the UK, and certainly now raises the question as to how far we should denegrate ourselves as a Nation in the name of highly dubious acts of US Foreign Policy, such as the current Gulf War.

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

wrong, but never mind.

Mike - do you mean to say that the English football fans in Rome would have been beaten up no matter what they did?

It is a grave matter indeed when a government uses any type of force against its own people. It ought to be subject to due process - either before force is used - or after force is used if the situation is an emergency (and a possible riot does count as an emergency.)

I will be interested to see if Los Angeles has moved on from the Rodney King debacle and properly and fairly investigates the use of force by the LAPD.

deane - i read yesterday that the fbi will look into it. now i can sleep easy (sorry for my clumsy attempt at "irony" - know i'm incapable of it, bieng a yank).

The effa-bee-eye.

Do they still have a cross-dresser in charge...?

What department was Edgar J Hoover in charge of? [CIA or FBI?] He liked dressing up a bit, I believe.

ATB from Fredrik

PS: Our US friends are very quiet this evening, which is curious as usually US Americans are so very voluble...

Deane

I watched the match, the Italian Police behaved very badly.

Did you see it?

M

Dear Mike,

I posted a nicely crafted post for you, on the previous page, and you seem to have missed it. It was in reply to your responding to my points about the equivocal reaction of the US administration on whether to support the UK or the Argentine over the Falklands War before siding with us. Perhaps you would care to comment, if it pleases you to.

To me it sems that the US ultimately decided that they could not afford to let a senior European Ally loose that War given the nature of the Cold War in Europe, and nothing more than it would have been more expensive for them to let us loose face at the time. Their interest served as it were. Hence the significant offer your mention of borrowing an aircraft carrier.

If they had thought that loosing trade in South America would cost them more I am sure that the administration would have supported Argentina, as was being actively proposed at the time in US.

Kindest regards from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

I watched the match, the Italian Police behaved very badly.

Did you see it?

Mike

I didn't see the match but the footage of the Italian police beating the football fans was all over the TV news here. It's disturbing to watch people struggling to escape from armed and armoured police, falling over and being beaten on the ground etc.

Did you see the footage of the "incident" in LA? What's your feeling about it?

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
The effa-bee-eye.

Do they still have a cross-dresser in charge...?

I reckon Eddie Izzard is just the man for the job!

Regards,

Willy.

quote:

Originally posted by London Lad:

In France the French riot police (the CRS) have a good system. If you see them on the street then go home or get off the street straight away. If you don't you stand a very good chance of getting clubbed. They can often disperse a troublesome crown just by turning up.

Have to agree the French are very good of dispersing a troublesome CROWN.


Regards,

Willy.

Wake-up call

Looks like many of you guys need to wake up.

You seem to expect that everybody and every nation-state should be the personification of absolute perfection - forever.

Get real - It ain't like that and it never will be.

At least in the USA, the UK, the "white" colonies, India, most of Europe and a few other places you get to vote every 4 or 5 years to change the government and the general direction of what we consider to be "right" or "wrong".

If you feel that institutional racism is rife and it should be top of the agenda for change, join the campaign (no doubt google will provide lots of options)

Personnal I don't think the problem is half as bad as the press would have us believe. The problem is being tackled here in the UK at an appropriate level and there are far more important things to allocate our energies and resources to.

On this basis, I think the USA and UK are reasonable examples of (practical) Freedom and Democracy.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Mike,

I posted a nicely crafted post for you, on the previous page, and you seem to have missed it. It was in reply to your responding to my points about the equivocal reaction of the US administration on whether to support the UK or the Argentine over the Falklands War before siding with us. Perhaps you would care to comment, if it pleases you to.

Hi Fredrik

My thoughts are that the US would not have wanted to be seen rapidly to be siding with the UK and allowed the facade of deliberation.

@ Deane - if you saw the footage of the Italian Police wading into the Man U fans, I asume you would agree that they would have been beaten regardless. Note that the Police made absolutely no effort to baton the Italian fans - in fact, they did not even enter their side of the fence. Order in the Italian area was "maintained" by stewards as the Italians usually attack the Police.

I've not seen the LAPD footage.

Regards

Mike

I may have misheard or mis remembered but re the US assistance re Falklands issue, I heard that the US offered the store even while the discussion with Argentina were on going and that the US stance in the UN was not born out by their actions to the UK - actions speak louder than words etc.

Dear Derek, and Mike,

Though I repect that this is your view, I tend to think that the view you take can equally be seen as being the result of post opperative spin. There is far too much spin, and I have a reaction to being on the receiving end of it. So you will see that I find that the US were not brave enough to risk comming straight out in favour of the UK [over the Falklands crisis] as just too bad, considering what we were asked to do and did without hesitation [at the governmental level, and including the the opposition in Parliamant] over the invasion of Iraq without any hesitation at all.

It seems the street runs more one way than the other. I am sure you actually both did read my two long posts to Jo Sharp analysing the situation since 1939 on US/UK relations. Yet no one has addressed the fact that from at least 1943 [Tehran Conference] we have been "dancing to the US piper" without any exception ever since.

You may also note that the main reference point was the Churchill's historiacal writings on the period, though it is important to realise that what one has to do is first cement the historical framework in terms of chronology and then investigate other sources from a different perspective. Of course, for example, Churchill's view of say the bombing of Dresden is going to be partial, and it is important to counter-balance it with different perspectives. Churchill is very revealing on the high handedness of Roosevelt where they disagreed. Not that it is stated quite directly, but he certainly reports his disappointment if you carefully read the text.

Ironically some of the most damning writing on the way the US handled Churchill and the UK comes from US based writers with an independent viewpoint...

Kindest regards from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Derek, and Mike,

Though I repect that this is your view, I tend to think that the view you take can equally be seen as being the result of post opperative spin. There is far too much spin, and I have a reaction to being on the receiving end of it.

Well, yes; but the Fleet Air Arm carried and fired the missiles from the US I mentioned above so this is not spin, and the sensitivity of the carrier offer - being a very obvious vote in favour of the UK - could well explain why it was not broadcast at the time.

Google throws up a faire few mentions, however - specifically, Casper Weinberger made the offer. IMO there is too much evidence for it to be spin.

I must admit I've not read your posts mentioned above.

Regards

Mike

Dear Mike,

There is one thing for sure. we are not going to abuse each other, but I seriously doubt that I am about to change my view on the basis of Googling. I prefer the solidity and debuncabbilty of such as Churchill, for though his view is certainly spun to his advantage, it forms a framework to judge subsequent events, and other sources. Anyone remember Suez?

Okay not the UK's finest hour, but was it any less well judged than the Iraq situation?

I would guess that I may not live long enough to ever actually know what the truth of the Falklands aid situatiuon actually was, as the secret papers which will reveal all, will not emerge for another 25 years at least.

Perhaps you are compleltely right and I am completely wrong. Or perhaps the truth is somewhere inbetween. I have not come to my conclusion without a good deal of effort, as I am sure you have come to your's with as much objectivity as the available evidence allows for. We all read texts differently to some extend, I would think.

Kindest rgards from Fredrik

PS: Churchill was asked whether he was worried about the verdict that History would find on him. He said,

"No! I intend to write the History!" And he did! But it is not the only source of course!

As a matter of interst does anyone remember how the French built Super Etondards were serviced and stocked with spares? How the parts got to the Argentine? That is another intersting story, and the machines were serviced and maintained with spares, but perhaps the absolute truth of that will never really come out!

I must admit that you you have the advantage over me on the Military Logistics of course, though my A-level Electronics Tutor told me some fascinating stories about the Rapier Missiles [among other things] that he was responsible for maintaining in the Falklands Conflict! That kind of insight is priceless, but not for public dissemination, I am sure you will agree.

ATB from Fredrik

Yes and the Royal Navy trained some of the sailors on the Belgrano and other Argentinian ships.

UK officers knew and had worked with some of the chaps that died on the Belgrano.

And the Belgrano was originally USS Phoenix

Strange as it may sound, I did not find anything serious in the controversy over the sinking of the Belgrano. To me it was irrelevant which way she was steaming. She was in the area, and potentially a significant threat if not blockaded in port.

ATB from Fredrik

What would have happened if the Falklands were at half the distance from Argentina?

They were not so it is not worth thinking about

Chaps

Why the fuss over the Belgrano. It was a war and enemy boats get sunk during a war.

They were warned what would happen so tough luck.

Regards

Mick