Question for English Historians

[Atlanteax]

I was watching "Rebels and Redcoats" on BBC.

The most striking thing was that, while Americans referred to it as "the Revolutionary War" the British referred to it as "the civil war."

.

With the assumption that History is taught differently in separate countries/cultures...

My question is does British History, when reflecting on the past, suggest anything along the lines of "the regretable mistake of King George and/or Parliament" in regard to the American Declaration of Independence (though the conflict truly began prior).

As one could argue, that it was what truly begun the unraveling of the British Empire (India was "lost" after).

.

While on that tangent... how does British History regard the US involvement in WW2?

I'm assuming that it would be something along the lines "the Americans finally showed up in force, after the Battle of Britain was won" while suggesting that if it wasn't for all the British involvement in fighting Germany, that the war would had been lost before the Americans entered the theatre.

[Galleazzo]

British history pretty much glosses over the Revolution. From what I've read they don't even think that the King and Parliament was wrong in what they did so much as how they did it.

you could argue that's when the Empire unravelled. You'd be wrong. Most of the Empire wasn't THERE before 1776. The Brits didn't own a scrap of Africa, they'd just barely started getting into India, they had practically no Asian possessions, heck, they hadn't even explored much past Ontario in Canada. Losing America was what got them STARTED.

[Celexei]

people who know history are sexy! :worship::yes2::blndwhip::embarrassed::hump::slopp y:

[Numbers]

Benedict Arnold has a statue in his honor in England.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Atlanteax

While on that tangent... how does British History regard the US involvement in WW2?

I'm assuming that it would be something along the lines "the Americans finally showed up in force, after the Battle of Britain was won" while suggesting that if it wasn't for all the British involvement in fighting Germany, that the war would had been lost before the Americans entered the theatre.

You could probably say that much was true, given that the British were the main opposition to the Germans, prior to the US joining the war.

In actual fact, there was a big remembrance thing here for D-Day recently, and a major part of it was recognition of the number of American men who died in that war.

I think the general consensus is that the Americans did nothing in the 2nd world war until they were personally affected. Their subsequent input invariably made a big difference.

For either the british or the americans to say that the other could not have done it without them, is to state the obvious somewhat.

[Edited on 24-6-04 by Nieninque]

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
British history pretty much glosses over the Revolution. From what I've read they don't even think that the King and Parliament was wrong in what they did so much as how they did it.

I dont even know what the King and Parliament did :whistle:

[Skirmisher]

Atlanteax,

I just finished reading an excellent book called "An Army at Dawn", by Rick Atkinson, which is the first of a trilogy of non fiction books about the US involvement in WWII.

It deals with the US effort in Africa and gives a facinating insight into the English ideas about the US in the beginning and how those ideas evolved over time. It uses records and transcripts from later interviews of american and french and british veterans.

I loved it and it sounds like a book that you also may enjoy.

[Celexei]

Originally posted by 3704558
Benedict Arnold has a statue in his honor in England.

Funny thing is about that, i BELIEVE he was burried in american soil, but i know for a fact he was burried in an American uniform, and not british.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Atlanteax,

I just finished reading an excellent book called "An Army at Dawn", by Rick Atkinson, which is the first of a trilogy of non fiction books about the US involvement in WWII.

It deals with the US effort in Africa and gives a facinating insight into the English ideas about the US in the beginning and how those ideas evolved over time. It uses records and transcripts from later interviews of american and french and british veterans.

I loved it and it sounds like a book that you also may enjoy.

Cool, I'll look it up.

[Latrinsorm]

I find it odd that the American Revolution is referred to as "the" Civil War by the British, seeing as how I'm pretty sure they've had at least 2 others. But I'm not much of an English historian.

[Nieninque]

Its called the American Civil War I think

The English Civil War is just called the civil war

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Its called the American Civil War I think

The English Civil War is just called the civil war What do they call the 1860's (or, the Real) American Civil War, then? No wonder y'all drive on the wrong side of the road. ;)

[vigilante]

Sometimes studying what was going on across the Atlantic is as important as studying what went on here on our own shores. Toward that end, I heartily recommend this book:

Fabric of freedom, 1763-1800
• By: Esmond Wright
• Publisher: New York : Hill and Wang, ©1978.
• ISBN: 0809043564 0809001349

Yes. He's a British historian. I was a history major with a contemporary American emphasis. I found Wright's arguments to be most compelling. I can guarantee you won't find this being taught in the average high school classroom. Pity.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
What do they call the 1860's (or, the Real) American Civil War, then? No wonder y'all drive on the wrong side of the road. ;)

erm...my knowledge of American history is pretty bad...I just heard of the american civil war...sorry :blush:

[StrayRogue]

Its called the American Civil War. Why is it "glossed over"? Well it isn't. Its just brushed aside by several centuries of more important, more interesting, and better history. Some classes in my old school were on the American side of thing, but the subject of history mainly comprised of English history. And being as we have more history than we can shake a stick at, they tend to go through the more minor details pretty quickly.

There is "British" history all across the globe, but usually it isn't studied to a great extent in schools until degree level, where you can specify your interest. You can't blame the economics of the schooling system for wanting to teach the more internal aspects of a countries history.

As for the American's involvement in WW2. It was quite impartial. It began by talking about how you sold weapons to both us and the Axis, then the details of Pearl Harbour and then your more intense involvement into the war. D-Day featured heavily. But then so did the Russian side of things (where WW2 was won), so at no point was it "down to the Americans".

From a more national standpoint it pisses us off when you say "we won WW2", because thats bollocks. You contributed to the victory yes. Its thats sort of ignorant arrogance that doesn't endear you to many Europeans.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
you sold weapons to both us and the AxisBollocks right back atcha.

[Xcalibur]

WWII ended when? What ended it?

Who made that happened?

If the us wouldn't be that aggressive in Europe, then a LOT damn more countries would had kissed the communism's butt.

[StrayRogue]

The bomb ended the Japs involvement. Had the Nazi's won at Stalingradt though...

As for the US selling weapon to both sides as well as Stalingradt, any learned scholar on the subject will confirm these two little nuggets of information.

[Xcalibur]

WWII ended when Japan received the bomb and surrendered.

The us terminated the war, and was the only country beside USSR to be STRONGER after the war.

1+1=2

:spin:

[StrayRogue]

I said it before and I'll say it again: You're an idiot X. Now go back to trying to cheat on your gf and leave the intelligent people alone.

[Xcalibur]

Ehh?

I think you need to stop your hate on the US and accept the facts.

Speculating isn't the issue here either, don't care if the Nazi would had won down there, the US terminated the war and won it as they were STRONGER and not WEAKER (and lost all (or almost all of them) colonies, main population, et cetera)).

[Ravenstorm]

It is certainly the case that the failed Russian campaign contributed heavily to the loss of Germany. The US did not 'win' WW II for the world without all the other Allied powers (and cold Russian winters). And had not Germany and Italy been defeated, Japan might not have surrendered even with the bomb being dropped. Especially as Germany was working on its own as well.

I'd like to see a link about how the US supplied weapons to the Axis.

Raven

At the beginning of the war, the US was indeed supplying arms to both sides of the conflicts. However, they stopped at some point when something happened that I don't remember which i don't feel like looking up. Same thing happened in WWI

[Latrinsorm]

From what I remember, the U.S. said "We'll give weapons to anyone who shows up here and wants them." And gee whiz, I wonder who had the dominant navy at the time.

Hint: Not Austria.

[Ravenstorm]

Learn something new every day. They don't teach that in high school American studies.

Raven

[Galleazzo]

We were selling steel to Japan almost to the end. In fact most of the reason why Japan pulled teh trigger was that we announced we were stopping oil and steel shipments to Japan and they were scared shitless because of it.

On the other side of things, give me a break. England would've starved in the dark without all those ships we poured into Western Approaches to keep them fed, and without the oil WE sent and died sending Fighter Command wouldn't have had enough to keep the German bombers from turning England into a frigging crater.

Now thinking of what would've happened in WWII if Hitler hadn't gone goofy and invaded Russia makes my head hurt, but the US kept British asses alive before Pearl Harbor ever happened, and without that the capital of the British Empire would've been Ottawa.

[Chadj]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
WWII ended when? What ended it?

Who made that happened?

If the us wouldn't be that aggressive in Europe, then a LOT damn more countries would had kissed the communism's butt.

Umm, communism's butt? The Nazi's were Facist, I believe. Which is on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum (Communism being extreme left wing, Facism being extreme right wing)

[the above is fact, to my knowledge (in other words, to the knowledge of my history teacher, and my civic's teacher). The below, is my opinion]

And the US was not aggressive untill they themselves were affected. Europe would have been lost before the Americans even got there if it werent for the british, and Britain would have eventually caved in if it weren't for the US. One couldn't have done it without the other.

[Edited on 6-25-2004 by Chadj]

[Chadj]

And don't forget the tons of German soldiers that the Russians eliminated... at no small cost to themselves, either. (not sure if this was stated or not already.. I havn't read anything past X's post yet)

[Xcalibur]

Eh.. I was speaking 1944+ when RUSSIA was on a roll to color all Europe red.

Galleazzo: If (IF) Hitler wouldn't invaded USSR, the red army would had strick eventually.

[Sean]

This is all speculation the fact is they did invade, they were defeated, and history has been written. To fill it with what if's and maybe's your just asking for a headache because you can't actually back any of your claims.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Chadj

And the US was not aggressive untill they themselves were affected. Europe would have been lost before the Americans even got there if it werent for the british, and Britain would have eventually caved in if it weren't for the US. One couldn't have done it without the other.

[Edited on 6-25-2004 by Chadj] I happen to agree with Chad's speculation regarding America's involvement, or lack there of until a certain point. In most of the history courses I've taken that theory seems to be a determining factor in the outcome of the war.