<p>One can make a somewhat plausible argument that the British quest for Empire was prompted by the ruling elite getting fed up with their own native cuisine*. Just look at the wide variety of foreign cuisines they’ve gained access to as a result. :D</p>
<p>I’d also say the Imperial Japanese had similar motivations as the ruling elite were probably bored stiff with having to eat pickled plums, rice balls, and various variations of raw fish all the time. They probably were astonished at finding out how ga ga US/Allies were during/after the war for those very variations of raw fish, sukiyaki (shoutout to Kyu Sakamoto), and other forms of Japanese cuisine.</p>
<p>Neither of those societies nor many others thought about trying the American approach…some efforts at empire building with a much heavier dose of encouraging widespread immigration. Why go to the troublesome effort to build an empire like the Brits if one creates policies to encourage others to willingly bring such culinary traditions to our shores. :D</p>
<p>And for some more comic relief with some educational content on this thread:</p>
<p>The study of history is a constant process of revision. </p>
<p>I’d say America does a much better job of looking at the bad parts of its past than Britain. We now recognize the great injustices and harm inflicted on Native Americans. We argue constantly whether it was right to drop the bomb on Japan. We bluntly discuss slavery (which is not the same as saying race is not an issue). And so on.</p>
<p>Britain is a long way from being as introspective. For example, the idea that Britain brought good to colonies ignores what those places might have done over the same time period. But I’m more interested in the lack of introspection than arguments. I see little acknowledgement of the role Britain played in destroying Burmese civilization. Yes, you can read aspects of it in a handful of novels, but Britain so wrecked Burma that half supported Japan and the aftermath drives the conflicts that continue to this day. This is an issue colonial powers seem to have: a collective amnesia about what happened elsewhere. The Dutch like to think of themselves as good guys but they were terrible as imperialists. After WWII, their attempts to reassert control killed into the millions. We at least now know of the Belgian mass murders in the Congo, with over 10 million killed, but the Belgians don’t talk about it. The French do a little better, perhaps because Dien Bien Phu retains power. </p>
<p>But the US talks about our failures in the Philippines. We argue whether they should have been “set free” though Germany was waiting in the wings to grab them. We talk about the truth and myth behind our takeover of Puerto Rico. We discuss bluntly how our arms destabilized countries like El Salvador and led to many, many deaths. </p>
<p>We are open to criticizing ourselves. Britain still tries to argue the Empire did a lot of good and glosses over the death and destruction.</p>
<p>Blind criticism of Wiki is mere snobbery. I am always impressed by the quality of Wiki as a first port of call for a decent and accurate overview of most any topic.</p>
<p>Well, at no time does the OP back up his assertions with statistics…wiki or otherwise. Why let facts get in the way of a good story? The OP’s WWII knowledge may be based on the following history.
No American jokes are evident:</p>
<p>I’m somewhat mixed on this as I love wikipedia for being a great cornucopia to jump-start one’s research on any topic. However, I am wary of using wikipedia as the only/main source because I’ve corrected several glaring errors in various wikipedia articles<em>…some of which ended up being reverted back by folks who don’t want to admit they’re wrong/lack access to reliable foreign language sources due to language issues.</em>* </p>
<ul>
<li>I.e. Emperor Guang-Xu, the second to the last Emperor of China was NOT Dowanger Empress Cixi’s son. He’s actually her nephew. Anyone who has had a cursory overview of modern Chinese history would have known that. It’s about as bad as saying FDR was the son of Theodore Roosevelt.</li>
</ul>
<p>** The supposed and actually erroneous “fact” that Chiang Kai-Shek attended the Imperial Japanese Military Academy creeps up a lot not only in wikipedia, but also many otherwise respectable English language sources in which the authors don’t have linguistic access to Chinese/Asian sources. In reality, he only attended one of their prep schools as a Chinese government sponsored foreign student and failed to score high enough on the Academy admission entrance exam. In short, he’s really an Imperial Japanese Military Academy reject. Not really that shameful considering it is said they admit only 1 out of every 30 or so domestic applicants.</p>
<p>Appreciate Cobrat’s comments about the tragedy of Adowa in Ethiopia and the ‘Rape of Nanking in China.’ All the world’s powers did was…nothing. Shameful.</p>
<p>A little nitpick. The Battle of Adwa/Adowa actually took place in 1896 and was actually a humiliating rout at the hands of the victorious Ethiopians. Still celebrated as the first anti-colonial victory by an African nation over a European colonial power with a modern army.* </p>
<p>Agree with your sentiments, however…especially considering one factor in Mussolini’s forces using poison gas and widespread brutality in their 1935 invasion was to avoid a repeat of Adwa.</p>
<ul>
<li>If you go to a certain Ethiopian restaurant south of Houston Street near the Soho area, there’s a nice tapestry depicting that battle.</li>
</ul>
<p>For the most part, Wikipeda vetting is just a reader seeing something and correcting it. It appears to work well for commonly read non-controversial topics. Controversial topics can be a different story, however…</p>
<p>However, some who disparage Wikipedia do not cite sources for their own opinions, or cite sources that are even less vetted or more dubious. Of course, there are also the textbook wars, such as efforts by some to minimize the importance of Thomas Jefferson in high school US history text books.</p>
<p>Of course, in hindsight, one might know what the correct course of action was. But, without the benefit of hindsight, making the correct decision can be guess work, with high stakes involved (particularly if it means going to war to prevent a possible worse war or other humanitarian disaster).</p>
<p>For example, what is the correct course of action for others to take with respect to the situation in Syria?</p>
Over 1.4 million tons of bombs dropped.
Goering wasn’t talking about the RAF when he said, “When I saw your bombers over Berlin protected by your long-range fighters, I knew then that the Luftwaffe would be unable to stop your bombers. Our weapons plants would be destroyed; our defeat was inevitable.”</p>
<p>There’s a reason why in addition to our substantial military contribution the US became known as “The Arsenal of Democracy” during WWII. US manufacturing and organizational capabilities were such that we supplied Britain, Soviets, China, and other Allies with weapons, vehicles, and munitions like those bombs. </p>
<p>As a result, the US ended up enabling the Allies to have the transport, weapons, and ammunition to such an extent Italy, Germany, and Japan were literally drowned by an avalanche of munitions mostly produced in the US. </p>
<p>Moreover, while the Soviets did contribute to the eventual victory…one must not forget that they also participated in the very invasion of Poland with the Nazi Germans which caused the European war to break out in 1939. </p>
<p>Interesting tidbit: In the aftermath of Germany’s defeat in 1918 and the Soviet Union’s victory over the White Russian forces in 1922, both nations were international pariahs. As a result, both nations collaborated in maintaining and building up military technical expertise in secret. A factor in how the Germans secretly maintained tank/aviation training units and how the Soviet Union built up its armored/aviation forces and technological base. This was crucial to the rapid rearmament of the German armed forces…especially its Panzer divisions and Luftwaffe and the rapid modernization of the Soviet military industrial complex.</p>
<p>Cobrat, I am afraid nothing you have said changes the fact that Russia saved everybody in WW2 (it may be a simplistic view but it is true). The war was not won in the Pacific, if the Japanese had beaten the Americans it would not have significantly affected Europe. Britain certainly does not owe its survival to the defeat of Japan.</p>
<p>There is no evidence to support the assertion made in this thread that ten thousand more American soldiers than British ones resulted in the defeat of Hitler. Yes, the Americans supplied the allies with a lot of food, equipment and weapons (although it was hardly charitable giving). A good case could be made that Britain saved America from economic depression, it was WW2 which revitalised America’s economy and enabled the US to become the supreme economic superpower of the twentieth century. The US contributed a lot to the war, but it was only ever a minor element in the European theatre. By the time America entered the war in Europe the British had in effect destroyed the Luftwaffe and stopped it posing any real threat, and Russia was in Poland. In other words the war was coming to an end without American help.</p>
<p>To quote Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, in response to post #176, “Nuts!”</p>
<p>During the Battle of the Bulge, the 101st Airborne (US) and Combat Command B of the 10th Armored Division (US), were surrounded by the Germans in Bastogne, Belgium, just before Christmas, 1944. The Germans demanded their surrender. Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, who commanded the 101st Airborne, sent back the official response, “NUTS!” typed up on a sheet of paper. The German assault was defeated. The Panzers were destroyed, and Gen. Patton’s 4th Armored Division broke through the German attackers, to open a clear route to Bastogne.</p>
<p>This was just one of multiple battles grouped as “The Battle of the Bulge,” the last real German offensive of WWII, December 16 to January 25, 1944. It has various other names: the Ardennes Offensive, the von Rundstedt Offensive, Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein. BBC History has a web site describing the battle overall. There are multiple reliable sources about it.</p>
<p>My father heard about the Battle of the Bulge as it was being fought. A B-17 pilot, he and his crew had been shot down over Germany and were taken prisoner of war. The men in Stalag Luft I had a radio that was somehow kept secret from the Germans, and circulated news of the progress of the war. For a short period at the time, there was serious concern that the Germans might drive the Allies back out of Europe. Although the Germans did drive through the Allied lines, and carried the offensive rather far, they were stopped.</p>
<p>American dead in the Battle of the Bulge: 19,000
British dead in the Battle of the Bulge: 200</p>
<p>The American military suffered losses of about 180,000 in the European theatre of the Second World War, whereas the British (not including its colonies) lost over 380,000. You can spin the figures as much as you like, but you have not disproven my original statement, that the US did not save Britain in WW2. I do not deny America had an impact, but it was minor compared to what the UK and Russia did.</p>
<p>If the last enemy offensive succeeds, that generally changes the outcome of the war.</p>
<p>The figures that I have seen put American military deaths in WW II excess of 400,000. The British suffered losses at a higher rate per capita in terms of the total population (roughly 3 times as many).</p>
<p>Of course, the British resistance to the Nazis was essential to the war effort. The bravery of the British people, both military and civilian, is staggering to me. Of course, the contributions of the Soviets were essential. Their losses were awful. (It is my opinion that with better leadership, the Soviet losses would have been fewer–but that’s a counter-factual that cannot be checked).</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the American war efforts were also essential.</p>
<p>Among the posters here, there are few if any direct chains of evidence in the oral tradition that stretch back to the Revolutionary war. But many of the “Parents” here in the “Parent Cafe” have heard directly from our own parents about WW II, and I don’t think you are going to get much traction with your arguments about it, Dionysus58.</p>
<p>Britain would not have survived without US aid. They would have lost the submarine war, which we came close to losing anyway. There would have been no invasion of Northern France if not for the landings first in N. Africa, then in Italy and the constant fighting there. By D-Day, the US had more troops in Britain than Britain had. </p>
<p>Now if we want to play what if, I think the Soviets would have beaten the Germans over time because the Soviets were willing to take levels of casualties beyond comprehension. The Germans were far more interested in killing innocent non-combatants but tried to avoid heavy casualties of their own. While the US provided a lot of war material, the Soviets made enough of their war supplies, particularly tanks, artillery and planes, to defeat the Germans. </p>
<p>I suspect some things in the conduct of the war would have happened differently as well. For example, I doubt Stalin would have let the Germans destroy the Polish resistance in Warsaw - by waiting outside the city - because if America weren’t approaching from the West he would have needed the Poles to fight for him. They would have been worth more alive than dead.</p>