This from the BBC website: World War II devastated half the globe, killing an estimated 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians. Instant histories of the war - not least Winston Churchill's own - depicted it as Britain isolated and alone against the might of Germany. This was true only for a period in 1941-1942, when little fighting was done. By the time of the Yalta Conference in February 1945, it was Roosevelt and Stalin who divided the world. Compared with the global total, British losses were comparatively modest. Some 375,000 service personnel were killed, just over half the number lost in World War I, and 60,000 civilians had died in air raids. Some 2% of the total war deaths were British, against 65% that were Soviet. The USSR and America won the war with Britain as something of an also-ran. A Short History of England by Simon Jenkins is published by Profile books. I'm sure no-one would argue that Britain won World War II alone, but I'm at a loss to understand why Mr Jenkins seems to dismiss Britain's contribution solely on the number of casualties sustained. Any observations?
I take it the quote is from this page Grimmy? BBC News - Viewpoint: Agincourt, WWII and other great British 'myths' A review of the book A Short History of England by Simon Jenkins – review | Books | The Guardian Anyone actually read it yet? Link includes video of the author taking about it. His view on linking events in history as a narrative certainly ties in with some comments on another thread. Kindle version available. A Short History of England: Amazon.co.uk: Simon Jenkins: Books
This was true only for a period in 1941-1942, when little fighting was done. Cough, cough! Operation Barbarossa, PTO, Western Desert. Sure, everyone was dying of boredom Where did you get this brilliant piece? --- added --- I see! But I take it this is journalese, nothing to do with what the author did write.
--- added --- I see! But I take it this is journalese, nothing to do with what the author did write. Quite possibly Za, why I asked if anyone has read it. It is entitled "A Short History of England", so I take it from what the author says in his brief video that he intends it to be about that nation's perspective alone; what it isn't intended as is a history of WW2?
Well, Diane, I just heard what the author had to say in his short Amazon video, and I'm tempted for Someday. At present I'm reading a 700 pages tome on Henry II so I'm not totally immune to the subject However, in what concerns English history not even Churchill's monumental History of the English Speaking Peoples has come a gnat's whisker to beating this.
I don't know anynody who thinks Britain 'won' WW2. Apart, that is, from Al Murray's Pub Landlord character.
However, in what concerns English history not even Churchill's monumental History of the English Speaking Peoples has come a gnat's whisker to beating this. Couldn't agree more. I sometimes look at the shelves full of history books and know in my heart of hearts that I could dispose of 'em all and keep just that one. No more is really necessary. Some 2% of the total war deaths were British, against 65% that were Soviet. Statistics are funny things really, maybe the former group was just much better at war... (And for the attention of any of the easily offended or wild-eyed former-soviets who might be reading, that was a joke, of sorts...) I'll get my coat.
I don't know anynody who thinks Britain 'won' WW2. We didn't loose - and in a war like WWII, as much for people's hearts and minds and their futures and that of the world as plain "military" victory....that's as important as winning
I don't know anynody who thinks Britain 'won' WW2. Apart, that is, from Al Murray's Pub Landlord character. I do and in a sense we did the same way a goal keeper can with a football match. And yes I did actually used to be a Landlord.
Odd way of looking at events - a scorecard! When serving with and alongside American units they were very generous in praise of how the British forces punched way above their weight. The embarrassment when some prat well oiled on American hospitality would start the - well we won it before you arrived, cringe making nonsense of course. Some will pick out American cock ups and disasters, forgetting that for three years we were expert at cock up and disaster. Politically and militarily
Isn't the official score in one of the Milligan books? Something like Silly-Bugger-Goebbels to Adolf: "Ve did not vin ze var Mein Fuhrer, but we came second!"
WWI British generals are criticised because we suffered heavy casualties in winning. WWII British leaders are criticised because we suffered lower casualties than some of our Allies, so apparently didn't make enough of a contribution to claim victory.
This from the BBC website: I'm sure no-one would argue that Britain won World War II alone, but I'm at a loss to understand why Mr Jenkins seems to dismiss Britain's contribution solely on the number of casualties sustained. Any observations? So, using the same argument, the US losses were something like 415,000.....that's an even smaller percentage of their war time population than Britain's. Does that mean the US lost the war also?..... Hmm maybe the Germans won after all .....time to revise all the history books.
Seems to me that while Britain didn't win that war all by themselves - they did more to win by holding to a reasonably sensible strategy of winning than others - BUT in all reality Russia was the big winner as lives didn't - and still don't matter to them -inasmuch as they were assisted in spreading their philosophies across much of Europe in the 40 year of Cold war which followed the fighting - and of which we still suffer owing to that penetration by falling under the unreasonable demands almost daily of the German/France controlled EU - but then - what do I know ...? Cheers
Statistics are funny things really, maybe the former group was just much better at war... Hey! Worry not, I saw the grey characters, and even seeing them I didn't need to WWI British generals are criticised because we suffered heavy casualties in winning. WWII British leaders are criticised because we suffered lower casualties than some of our Allies, so apparently didn't make enough of a contribution to claim victory. Gibbo, I don't think there is a call to go into that kind of urinating contest. As far as I am concerned, add as many flags as you want: they all served.
By the way, what day is today? It's St. Crispin's!!!! If we are mark'd to die, we are enow To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour. :ukflag[1]:
By the way, what day is today? It's St. Crispin's!!!! :ukflag[1]: Indeed. [YOUTUBE]A-yZNMWFqvM[/YOUTUBE]
One has to come up with a controversial statement like that, it gets people talking and helps sell his new book. I want to meet a person who says Britain won WWII, just to see what their real point of view is
One has to come up with a controversial statement like that, it gets people talking and helps sell his new book. I want to meet a person who says Britain won WWII, just to see what their real point of view is If in a close Test cricket sires a number elven rabbit bats out of his skin and on two occasions get his team a draw and the team then wins the last test in great way but only win the sires by one test match. Did not the number eleven is some way win the test sires? Did Wellington or the Prussians win Waterloo?
