Was the Second World War Britain's finest hour?

[oldironside]

"The Second World War was a monstrous planet-wide catastrophe – on which the British tend to look back through Union Jack-tinted spectacles. And yet, says Adrian Hamilton, there was honour among the horror, and deeds of nobililty and courage as well as atrocious cruelty."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/was-the-second-world-war-britains-finest-hour-1780732.html

[fedsron2us]

1. Yes. For the reasons which the Independent article sets out.

However, it has to be said that trying to stop a single European power dominating the land mass of Europe is a policy that can be traced right back to Elizabeth I if not earlier. In that respect it was business as usual. Indeed, it seems that the desire to avoid domination by a continental neighbour (a folk memory of 1066 perhaps) actually trumped the desire to hang on to a world wide Empire. The latter might have been possible if a deal had been cut with Hitler who unlike the the half English Kaisar seems to have had no enthusiasm for Germany becoming a naval power. Of course, the irony is that Britain merely swapped a European overlord for an American one.


Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

[oldironside]

2. There's a very good reason Hitler didn't trust the German navy...

He was an infantryman. He'd spent four years up to his ears in mud and bullets during WW1 while the fleet sat in port soaking up resources (steel, coal, cordite, men, food) the army could have used to win the war (enough for two complete field armies!!!).

The Kaiser's decision to build an ocean going navy directly led to Britain entering the war, and once built it was considered too valuable to sacrifice - the biggest strategic mistake and waste of money in history.

They celebrate Jutland as a victory but never left port again. And the Bolshevik Revolution of 1918 that ended the war and unseated the Kaiser started in the Navy. No wonder Hitler saw them as unreliable and a waste of money, especially since they didn't fit into his big plan - Lebensraum in the East.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. good points there

I would argue that WW1 & 2 were caused when UK diplomacy fell asleep in the 1860s as a strong Prussia mopped up the German princely states into a German Empire, thereby altering the balance of power. UK public opinion cheered on the Germans as they routed Napoleon III's France, mostly due to British obsession with the Bonapartes and an exaggeration of France's rivalry with Britain.

[oldironside]

4. That was a factor...

... and like all great historical questions there is no single answer, but I would say in addition that

(a) you can't ignore the Marxist view (sooner or later aggressively expanding empires will run out of space to expand into and end up fighting each other)

(b) WW1 and WW2 in Europe can be seen as a new 30 years war (with a cease fire in the middle) about how to accommodate a new regional superpower (i.e. a unified Germany) into the existing system,

(c) I still have some sympathy for AJP Taylor's theory about the railway timetables causing the whole bloody mess

But it's in every Englishman's genes to want to fight the French. I'm a peaceful old leftie, but after an hour of Master And Commander I was on my feet, shaking my fist and ranting at the TV. MY girlfriend of the time (who happened to be Russian) found it all very amusing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Notable in that film that, for the 2nd half, they changed the enemy from the Americans to the French

Read "The Far Side of the World", and you find that it's an American ship they're chasing in the Pacific. It was released in Nov 2003; it'd be interesting to know when they made the decision that they couldn't have the British fighting the Americans, but it was fine to fight the French.

[oldironside]

6. It's like I say, genetic.

It's partly that very few Americans would go and watch a film with an American villain or an American loser. That would be throwing away a lot of money. Why has Hollywood never made a film about Kasserine Pass? Box office poison. But a film showing the French as untrustworthy? That was a sure fire winner.

In addition, no true Englishman has any interest in fighting Americans. In all our history we've had two wars against you - one loss, one scoring draw (why is the White House white?). We've had two big ones against the Germans, but they pale into insignificance in comparison to Anglo-French disagreement.

We've had hundreds of wars against the French. Any two nations who can fight something called The Hundred Years War must really hate each other. If there is a God she had good sense to dig the English Channel.

[Dead_Parrot]

7. "Yes, Minister" comes to mind...

Re Trident:

Hacker: I sometimes wonder why we need the weapons. Anyway, the Americans will always protect us from the Russians, won’t they?
Humphrey: Russians? Who’s talking about the Russians? It’s to protect us against the French!
Hacker: The French? But that’s astounding! Why, they’re our allies, aren't they?
Humphrey: They are now. But they’ve been our enemies for most of the past 900 years. If they’ve got the bomb, we must have the bomb!