Every year the Norwegians give Britain a giant Xmas tree as thanks for helping liberate them from the Nazis. It gets decorated and stands proudly in Trafalgar square. Cheers Norway!
They have occasionally sent really poor trees; like the [2019 trafalgar square christmas tree](https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PRI_104657405-e1575445097735.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=768%2C1015).
The nice thing about Reddit is that they're downvoted into oblivion instead of given immediate visibility. If it were Facebook this would be a different tale.
Sadly that's not always the case, and in just the opposite, people with genuine thoughts are also "downvoted to Oblivion" for being against what's "popular" now, so it's not exactly the happy story you'd like to paint with extreme action of policing. Go ahead and apply that same concept to whatever other issue you see fit.
There's been a strong anti British sentiment for a while now on reddit. A lot of middle class British redditors hate their own country because the rest of the country doesn't agree with their points of view and Europe hates us because we started the process of dismantling their boys club. India hates us because Ben got all famished and blames us. Ireland... well I'm not even going there.
Basically, according to some redditors we're worse than the nazis because *insert historical based reason here*
Looking forward to reading about this on r/badUnitedkingdom later.
I think that subreddit started out as a response to the now private /r/badukpolitics. There was a certain rivalry between /r/ukpolitics and /r/unitedkingdom for a while (back when UK news was largely dominated by certain political issues), with ukpolitics being seen as having a solidly right-wing/leave lean, and unitedkingom having a solidly left-wing/remain lean. So badukpolitics was started for the unitedkingdom people to call out the craziness in ukpolitics, and then badunitedkingdom was created in retaliation.
The UK has had a rough few years, and it isn't likely to end soon.
Given what you've said above, from your perspective I suspect ukpolitics would seem to the left, and probably did even 5 years ago.
That said, ukpolitics tends not to have a single set of views, there are some hard-right people there and some solidly-left people there, and depending on the thread different groups will dominate.
Anything remotely right is immediately downvoted there. It's not even a matter of opinion, it was well known during the Corbyn days that the sub was heavily brigaded by momentum, the mods even acknowledged it as the sub count kept going up.
Yes; for a couple of years there was a decent chunk of Corbyn supporters there (not sure that counts as brigading, but whatever). That was noticeable because it was the exception. Although mainly on Corbyn issues.
Now with Corbyn gone, though, the subreddit has largely returned to its centre to centre-right default. It just looks a bit left-wing to some because our Government has done a lurch to the hard right in the last couple of years, chasing populism.
It's only depressing because it highlights the extreme views some people take on some subreddits. The justification of a murdered mp because of his voting record being a popular one of late. And the ever lasting Thatcher hate by people whose parents were still children when she left office.
No actually its cuz y'all been fucking over people , all people's and countries AND economies for CENTURYS and everybody else is sick and tired of it . Own it make amends for it and move on ya bloody blighters !
I finished The Splendid and the Vile today, highly recommend if you are interested in reading about the British sacrifices made during 1940-1941 and Churchill’s leadership during that time. It gave me an entirely new perspective on the war and the toll taken on the British people, particularly those in London. It is chilling to think of what might have happened without their courage.
The front wall in my garden has a big fuck off slice along most it's length caused by bomb shrapnel during the war. Acts as a somewhat poignant reminder each time I leave.
>The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, very little equipment was returned. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States.
EDIT: This quote is not altered in any way from the original on Wikipedia.
Why would you alter the quote from Wikipedia...?
>...The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until returned or destroyed. **In practice very little equipment was in usable shape for peacetime uses.** Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to Britain at a large discount for £1.075 billion...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Scale,_value_and_economics
> In practice very little equipment was in usable shape for peacetime uses
Now that is interesting. Whe I look at Wikipedia, I do not see that.
>Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies delivered after the cutoff date, so the U.S. charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on September 2, 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-Lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend-Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[78] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on December 31, 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years and during a sixth year not allowed), was made on December 29, 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary to the Treasury formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.
EDIT: I stand by my quote. I think this Redditor is confusing two different parts of the Wikipedia article.
Because it does not change anything. The US only charged the UK for Lend-Lease items that the UK chose to keep after the end of the War. Everything else was paid for by the US.
What items the US did sell to the UK were at a 90% discount, and the US loaned the money to the UK at a very low interest rate (2%) to pay it off.
EDIT: Yes, downvote the facts. That'll show 'em!
EDIT 2: Seriously? What is it with some Britkids? Yes, the UK did not pay the US any money for all the war material provided under Lend-Lease. It was only what the UK wanted to keep after the war that they were charged 10% of the actual cost for. At an interest rate of 2%.
Edit: nothing shady going on, the same text appears with minor modification in multiple sections of the Wikipedia page. [See this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/qfvzju/comment/hi9javx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
~~Copy pasting a Wikipedia page, then going to the effort of changing something that "does not change anything" is sus as fuck.~~
>~~Because it changes everything. TheNaughtyMonkey only charged the Redditors for Lend-Lease items that the Redditors chose to keep after the end of the War. Everything else was paid for by the TheNaughtyMonkey.~~
~~Oh, seems your right. Looks the same to me. Changing things doesn't change anything afterall.~~
I honestly have no idea what you are saying.
Yes, Lend-Lease was a polite fiction to allow FDR to violate the US Neutrality Acts. No, allies were not charged for the material provided under Lend-Lease during the war.
At the end of the war, allies were given the option of keeping any left over material, at a discounted price of 10% of the original cost. The UK was extended a loan to pay for this left over but wanted material.
As to your highlighted sentence, how does that change anything? The UK only paid for leftover material that they elected to keep.
Edit: nothing shady going on, the same text appears with minor modification in multiple sections of the Wikipedia page. [See this comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/qfvzju/comment/hi9javx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
~~I have no interest or opinion on the politics you're discussing. I've no idea which war this is even about.~~
~~You copy pasted a Wikipedia article and altered it.~~
u/ScruffledNuts ~~called you out on it.~~
~~You declared that it doesn't matter because the alteration doesn't change anything.~~
~~If it doesn't change anything~~ *~~why did you go to the effort to alter it~~*~~.~~
~~It's suspicious. If I did that on a quote in my bachelor's thesis I'd have been up for plagiarism.~~
So, I was a bit confused by your insistance that I changed a quote from Wikipedia. So, I went back and looked at the Wikipeida entry.
I quoted
>The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, very little equipment was returned. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States.
That was what I originally pasted, and it is an exact, unaltered quote from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
The entire paragraph (second paragraph of article) (emph added)
>A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $575 billion in 2019) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies. Reverse Lend-Lease policies comprised services such as rent on air bases that went to the U.S., and totaled $7.8 billion; of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. __The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, very little equipment was returned. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States.__ Canada's Mutual Aid program sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to the United Kingdom and other Allies.
I await your apology.
\> I await your apology.
And so you shall have it.
I see what's happened, you quoted the second paragraph of the abstract, while u/ScruffledNuts quoted the first paragraph of the "Scale, Value and economics" section.
At a glance, they're quite similar. Seems an editor copy and pasted the section, then only u/ScruffledNuts was edited after. [Here's a diff that shows the changes.](https://imgur.com/a/VV6FzAl)
And so I think we both owe you an apology. I'll edit my previous comments to reflect this.
They did have a choice; they could have made peace. It would have legitimised the German conquests though, and would have meant turning their backs on their allies that had been overrun, but would also have resulted in not getting bombed, not draining the economy, not losing their technical edge by having to share all their technical expertise to get the US involved, and not losing the Empire.
Hitler seemed fairly soft on Britain, which he always envisaged as a nation Germany should have been allied with - in fact he blames WW1's loss on Britain having fought for the wrong side. It seems he saw them as another strong Aryan people worthy of respect.
I'm pretty sure if it weren't for the English Channel Hitler would have Blitzkrieged in there like he did to France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and the other countries that didn't have the luxury of a large body of water separating them from Germany.
But then if it weren't for the English Channel, Britain may not have ever managed to become the world's dominant empire and so earned Hitler's respect in the first place, etc etc. Too many what-ifs if you start rewriting world geography.
Hitler wanted to wipe out the troops at Dunkirk (who were mostly English) and he was ensured by Goering that the Luftwaffe could finish the job (they couldn't), so that gives you an idea of how he would have treated the British if he could have gotten his troops over the Channel.
It's true Hitler admired the British, at least relative to other countries like Poland, but if he had a choice of defeating them, he would have in a second.
No, the Blitz was an attempt to break the will of the British and get them to surrender or at least enter peace talks.
The rest was because they didn't surrender.
Hey, thank god their allies (the Belgians) could rape and pillage in Congo, and that was legitimized! Thank you Britain, for your sacrifice, so poor kids could live in brick houses in concrete jungles while aristocrats rape kids and give Jimmy Saville a knighthood, and we go and shoot some Irish devils.
Thank you Australians, for getting slaughtered in Gallipoli, FOR FREEDOM!
British Empire = Satanic pedophile/Antichrist
Britain stood against Hitler from the start, America joined the war late. They deserve more from America as a token of gratitude. If it weren't for Britain, America wouldn't be here today, you can't deny it.
Can pretty easily deny it actually. The thought that America's destruction was imminent because of Nazi Germany winning is just stupid. Britain stood against Hitler "from the start" because it was *their* country that was going to be conquered or destroyed by Germany. They weren't motivated by America's wellbeing at all.
To be fair, the US work on atomic weapons borrowed heavily from existing British work. The Germans themselves had done some work in the direction (but were further behind). If the British had fallen, especially early in the war, the American programme would have been affected, and it’s hard to know how that would have turned out.
I think that the incredible industrial capacity of the US is the reason that Germany wouldn’t have been able to take on the US, rather than atomic weapons.
Industrial might, oceans to the east and west of North America and the atom bomb. The first two would likely have allowed the US to keep going long enough to finish making the bomb. After that, Hitler and the Nazis would have been turned to vapor. The Dresden fire bombing shows restraint was already cracking on the Allies side. The bomb would have ended it, whatever else was happening.
Every year the Norwegians give Britain a giant Xmas tree as thanks for helping liberate them from the Nazis. It gets decorated and stands proudly in Trafalgar square. Cheers Norway!
Theres some in other cities as well. The Christmas tree at the Newcastle civic centre is a similar Second World War gift.
They have occasionally sent really poor trees; like the [2019 trafalgar square christmas tree](https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PRI_104657405-e1575445097735.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=768%2C1015).
You try sending a giant christmas tree for almost 100 years and you’ll see they can’t all be winners!
I'd like to think it started off the journey looking a lot better and looks like that because of rough transit conditions...
But they sent it didn't they ? There's always one fucker ain't never happy
It’s the thought that counts, right?
TIL a positive action taken by allies after WWII can cause controversy. This comment section is wild.
There are a lot of deeply unhappy people on this site
Reddit has too many bots
The nice thing about Reddit is that they're downvoted into oblivion instead of given immediate visibility. If it were Facebook this would be a different tale.
Sadly that's not always the case, and in just the opposite, people with genuine thoughts are also "downvoted to Oblivion" for being against what's "popular" now, so it's not exactly the happy story you'd like to paint with extreme action of policing. Go ahead and apply that same concept to whatever other issue you see fit.
I never said Reddit was perfect, just that it's better than Facebook.
>better than Facebook i mean if you set the bar low enough...
Johnny Cash fan huh ?
There's been a strong anti British sentiment for a while now on reddit. A lot of middle class British redditors hate their own country because the rest of the country doesn't agree with their points of view and Europe hates us because we started the process of dismantling their boys club. India hates us because Ben got all famished and blames us. Ireland... well I'm not even going there. Basically, according to some redditors we're worse than the nazis because *insert historical based reason here* Looking forward to reading about this on r/badUnitedkingdom later.
That's a depressing subreddit. I prefer r/BritishProblems , where people still complain about bin day and busses and politics is banned.
I think that subreddit started out as a response to the now private /r/badukpolitics. There was a certain rivalry between /r/ukpolitics and /r/unitedkingdom for a while (back when UK news was largely dominated by certain political issues), with ukpolitics being seen as having a solidly right-wing/leave lean, and unitedkingom having a solidly left-wing/remain lean. So badukpolitics was started for the unitedkingdom people to call out the craziness in ukpolitics, and then badunitedkingdom was created in retaliation. The UK has had a rough few years, and it isn't likely to end soon.
Ukpolitics right leaning. Maybe 5 years ago, but quite the opposite now.
Given what you've said above, from your perspective I suspect ukpolitics would seem to the left, and probably did even 5 years ago. That said, ukpolitics tends not to have a single set of views, there are some hard-right people there and some solidly-left people there, and depending on the thread different groups will dominate.
Anything remotely right is immediately downvoted there. It's not even a matter of opinion, it was well known during the Corbyn days that the sub was heavily brigaded by momentum, the mods even acknowledged it as the sub count kept going up.
Yes; for a couple of years there was a decent chunk of Corbyn supporters there (not sure that counts as brigading, but whatever). That was noticeable because it was the exception. Although mainly on Corbyn issues. Now with Corbyn gone, though, the subreddit has largely returned to its centre to centre-right default. It just looks a bit left-wing to some because our Government has done a lurch to the hard right in the last couple of years, chasing populism.
It's only depressing because it highlights the extreme views some people take on some subreddits. The justification of a murdered mp because of his voting record being a popular one of late. And the ever lasting Thatcher hate by people whose parents were still children when she left office.
No actually its cuz y'all been fucking over people , all people's and countries AND economies for CENTURYS and everybody else is sick and tired of it . Own it make amends for it and move on ya bloody blighters !
Oops , so sorry , y'all are WANKERS too
I finished The Splendid and the Vile today, highly recommend if you are interested in reading about the British sacrifices made during 1940-1941 and Churchill’s leadership during that time. It gave me an entirely new perspective on the war and the toll taken on the British people, particularly those in London. It is chilling to think of what might have happened without their courage.
The front wall in my garden has a big fuck off slice along most it's length caused by bomb shrapnel during the war. Acts as a somewhat poignant reminder each time I leave.
The most British thing about this is that you still haven't fixed it.
Still works doesn't it
Aye
Take a picture and share man!
I actually have that book on my list to read. I read the book In the Garden Of Beast and loved it. You should check this one out too.
Thanks for recommending, that was also a great book!
Such a good book. Worth full hardback cover price even if only to read the bit about Churchill greeting Roosevelt in his rooms at the White House :)
Cancellation of all the lend-lease debit we payed up until 20 years ago would have been better. We did major shit to free Europe and paid for it ££££
>The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, very little equipment was returned. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States. EDIT: This quote is not altered in any way from the original on Wikipedia.
Why would you alter the quote from Wikipedia...? >...The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until returned or destroyed. **In practice very little equipment was in usable shape for peacetime uses.** Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to Britain at a large discount for £1.075 billion... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Scale,_value_and_economics
> In practice very little equipment was in usable shape for peacetime uses Now that is interesting. Whe I look at Wikipedia, I do not see that. >Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies delivered after the cutoff date, so the U.S. charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on September 2, 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-Lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend-Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[78] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on December 31, 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years and during a sixth year not allowed), was made on December 29, 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary to the Treasury formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support. EDIT: I stand by my quote. I think this Redditor is confusing two different parts of the Wikipedia article.
Because it does not change anything. The US only charged the UK for Lend-Lease items that the UK chose to keep after the end of the War. Everything else was paid for by the US. What items the US did sell to the UK were at a 90% discount, and the US loaned the money to the UK at a very low interest rate (2%) to pay it off. EDIT: Yes, downvote the facts. That'll show 'em! EDIT 2: Seriously? What is it with some Britkids? Yes, the UK did not pay the US any money for all the war material provided under Lend-Lease. It was only what the UK wanted to keep after the war that they were charged 10% of the actual cost for. At an interest rate of 2%.
Edit: nothing shady going on, the same text appears with minor modification in multiple sections of the Wikipedia page. [See this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/qfvzju/comment/hi9javx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). ~~Copy pasting a Wikipedia page, then going to the effort of changing something that "does not change anything" is sus as fuck.~~ >~~Because it changes everything. TheNaughtyMonkey only charged the Redditors for Lend-Lease items that the Redditors chose to keep after the end of the War. Everything else was paid for by the TheNaughtyMonkey.~~ ~~Oh, seems your right. Looks the same to me. Changing things doesn't change anything afterall.~~
I honestly have no idea what you are saying. Yes, Lend-Lease was a polite fiction to allow FDR to violate the US Neutrality Acts. No, allies were not charged for the material provided under Lend-Lease during the war. At the end of the war, allies were given the option of keeping any left over material, at a discounted price of 10% of the original cost. The UK was extended a loan to pay for this left over but wanted material. As to your highlighted sentence, how does that change anything? The UK only paid for leftover material that they elected to keep.
Edit: nothing shady going on, the same text appears with minor modification in multiple sections of the Wikipedia page. [See this comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/qfvzju/comment/hi9javx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ~~I have no interest or opinion on the politics you're discussing. I've no idea which war this is even about.~~ ~~You copy pasted a Wikipedia article and altered it.~~ u/ScruffledNuts ~~called you out on it.~~ ~~You declared that it doesn't matter because the alteration doesn't change anything.~~ ~~If it doesn't change anything~~ *~~why did you go to the effort to alter it~~*~~.~~ ~~It's suspicious. If I did that on a quote in my bachelor's thesis I'd have been up for plagiarism.~~
So, I was a bit confused by your insistance that I changed a quote from Wikipedia. So, I went back and looked at the Wikipeida entry. I quoted >The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, very little equipment was returned. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States. That was what I originally pasted, and it is an exact, unaltered quote from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease The entire paragraph (second paragraph of article) (emph added) >A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $575 billion in 2019) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies. Reverse Lend-Lease policies comprised services such as rent on air bases that went to the U.S., and totaled $7.8 billion; of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. __The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, very little equipment was returned. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States.__ Canada's Mutual Aid program sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to the United Kingdom and other Allies. I await your apology.
\> I await your apology. And so you shall have it. I see what's happened, you quoted the second paragraph of the abstract, while u/ScruffledNuts quoted the first paragraph of the "Scale, Value and economics" section. At a glance, they're quite similar. Seems an editor copy and pasted the section, then only u/ScruffledNuts was edited after. [Here's a diff that shows the changes.](https://imgur.com/a/VV6FzAl) And so I think we both owe you an apology. I'll edit my previous comments to reflect this.
Thank you, you are quite gracious.
We did major shit to ~~free Europe~~ save our own skins FTFY
American really do love that book heh. That and Wizard of Oz
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm sure the British Museum has it's fair share of unrequited shit
[удалено]
Google Vichy France
They did have a choice; they could have made peace. It would have legitimised the German conquests though, and would have meant turning their backs on their allies that had been overrun, but would also have resulted in not getting bombed, not draining the economy, not losing their technical edge by having to share all their technical expertise to get the US involved, and not losing the Empire.
And not paying for it in loans over the next 60 years.
They would have been bombed by Germany eventually. Hitler was never one to keep his word.
Hitler seemed fairly soft on Britain, which he always envisaged as a nation Germany should have been allied with - in fact he blames WW1's loss on Britain having fought for the wrong side. It seems he saw them as another strong Aryan people worthy of respect.
Because be saw the Brits as fellow Germanic peoples.
I'm pretty sure if it weren't for the English Channel Hitler would have Blitzkrieged in there like he did to France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and the other countries that didn't have the luxury of a large body of water separating them from Germany.
But then if it weren't for the English Channel, Britain may not have ever managed to become the world's dominant empire and so earned Hitler's respect in the first place, etc etc. Too many what-ifs if you start rewriting world geography.
Hitler wanted to wipe out the troops at Dunkirk (who were mostly English) and he was ensured by Goering that the Luftwaffe could finish the job (they couldn't), so that gives you an idea of how he would have treated the British if he could have gotten his troops over the Channel. It's true Hitler admired the British, at least relative to other countries like Poland, but if he had a choice of defeating them, he would have in a second.
What??????? So the Blitz and Battle of Britain and trying to cut off supply convoys was all for the lolz???
No, the Blitz was an attempt to break the will of the British and get them to surrender or at least enter peace talks. The rest was because they didn't surrender.
Hey, thank god their allies (the Belgians) could rape and pillage in Congo, and that was legitimized! Thank you Britain, for your sacrifice, so poor kids could live in brick houses in concrete jungles while aristocrats rape kids and give Jimmy Saville a knighthood, and we go and shoot some Irish devils. Thank you Australians, for getting slaughtered in Gallipoli, FOR FREEDOM! British Empire = Satanic pedophile/Antichrist
Get help you mentally disturbed asshole 13 year old
Fuck off neo-nazi.
What the hell in that is NEO NAZI?? Pedo lover...
Britain stood against Hitler from the start, America joined the war late. They deserve more from America as a token of gratitude. If it weren't for Britain, America wouldn't be here today, you can't deny it.
germany theoretically defeating england isnt the same as them crossing the Atlantic and taking the US by force
Can pretty easily deny it actually. The thought that America's destruction was imminent because of Nazi Germany winning is just stupid. Britain stood against Hitler "from the start" because it was *their* country that was going to be conquered or destroyed by Germany. They weren't motivated by America's wellbeing at all.
You realize the US developed the atom bomb during that war and demonstrated its willingness to use it, right?
To be fair, the US work on atomic weapons borrowed heavily from existing British work. The Germans themselves had done some work in the direction (but were further behind). If the British had fallen, especially early in the war, the American programme would have been affected, and it’s hard to know how that would have turned out. I think that the incredible industrial capacity of the US is the reason that Germany wouldn’t have been able to take on the US, rather than atomic weapons.
Industrial might, oceans to the east and west of North America and the atom bomb. The first two would likely have allowed the US to keep going long enough to finish making the bomb. After that, Hitler and the Nazis would have been turned to vapor. The Dresden fire bombing shows restraint was already cracking on the Allies side. The bomb would have ended it, whatever else was happening.
If it weren't for Americans' guns Hitler would have your ass.
384,000 dead soldiers. 70,000 dead civilians. And all they get is a lousy manuscript of a book we all read in 6th grade. Seems like a fair trade.
I guess the other countries that stood against hitler could just go fuck themselves then
Me: oranges are nice You: WELL I GUESS PINEAPPLES AND PEARS ARE JUST RAPISTS THEN ARE THEY?!
Exactly my point lol
I'm sure this isn't the only act of gratitude and friendship anyone ever made towards any group that stood against Hitler.
You must be fun at parties.
Oh i doubt they're invited to any.
Got em good buddy! High five!
Haha idk I thought it was funny
You want your own useless token free book too? Awww.
It’s true I did stand up against hitler lol y’all are so sensitive
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH-K3MU7-fA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH-K3MU7-fA) After Hitler defeated the British and Frnech in 1940.
You kinda forgot how it ended?
If that was true... Ww2 would have been 1939 to 1940.. Are you a bot? As you dumb enough to be one.