UK living standards outstrip US

[El Tejon]

Iain, we backed the losing side.  So we left after everything got seized.

[Paddy]

heh.  My gggg grandpappy backed the wrong side in the American Rev War.  They kicked him out and he went to Canada where King George gave him land.  Took us 120 years to get back here.

[Perd Hapley]

What civil war is the one he should be ashamed of? 

Most vaguely sensible countries only have the one civil war, if that. 

You're saying Britain has had several?   

[doczinn]

The title is flat wrong. Their income may exceed ours, but if you look at actual purchasing power, their standard of living doesn't even come close.

[MrRezister]

You're saying Britain has had several?   

Ouch!
Actually, a long-ago uncle o' mine helped start G.B.'s second civil war by booting and beheading Charles I.  Unfortunately, the public quickly realized they preferred a King to a Lord Protector, but I still look for opportunities to dethrone kings whenever possible.

[K Frame]

Yes, Britain has had several internal conflicts that qualify as civil wars...

At the top of the heap are the War of Roses and the English Civil War...

[Iain]

Yep several, although the big one generally gets run together into one conflict rather than three, people like to argue over whether to call it the English Civil War or the British Civil War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_civil_wars New to me that the period is also referred to as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

By my definition there are probably very few countries that qualify as vaguely sensible, and we've had quite a few centuries to forget our senses here and there. I've seen 1642-51 claimed as being responsible for a greater percentage of deaths of the total population of England/Britain than the 20th century world wars.

[CAnnoneer]

I won't be sending any weapons. The last time the US lent them a bunch of guns, even ones civilians donated, they dumped them in the Atlantic.

Funny you should mention that. Apparently, our own gov decided to destroy warplanes and tanks which survived the lend-lease. The Russkies maintained them and returned them in excellent condition at a port in the Far East (Vladivostock?). A US ship loaded a portion up, got out a few miles into the ocean, used a giant hydraulic press to crush them into small blocks, dumped the blocks into the sea, then chugged back to port to load up the next batch. When he heard about it, Stalin ordered that all surviving Shermans (Emkas) be disarmed and then used turretless as tractors. On paper, they were registered as war casualties, so that they are not returned for dumping into the ocean.

Fascinating story. If interested, read the source: "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" by Dmitriy Loza (memoirs). It is available from Amazon.

[HankB]

I won't be sending any weapons. The last time the US lent them a bunch of guns, even ones civilians donated, they dumped them in the Atlantic.

Funny you should mention that. Apparently, our own gov decided to destroy warplanes and tanks which survived the lend-lease. The Russkies maintained them and returned them in excellent condition at a port in the Far East (Vladivostock?). A US ship loaded a portion up, got out a few miles into the ocean, used a giant hydraulic press to crush them into small blocks, dumped the blocks into the sea, then chugged back to port to load up the next batch. When he heard about it, Stalin ordered that all surviving Shermans (Emkas) be disarmed and then used turretless as tractors.  . . .

Didn't realize the Russkies used any US tanks . . . learn something new every day.

After WWII, we had lots of warplanes that were surplus . . . I read about a bunch of brand-new, P-38 G's or H's that were available (sans guns or military IFF) for $1250; individual Americans bought a few, and Chiang Kai Shek and his crew wanted to buy the whole bunch; Harry Truman, worried that they might be used against Mao, had them chopped up and scrapped instead.

[K Frame]

"Didn't realize the Russkies used any US tanks . . . learn something new every day."

LOTS.

I used to have a bunch of radio equipment that came from Sherman tanks. All of the dials and switches were labeled in Russian.


The British also supplied a lot of tracked vehicles to the Soviets.

Here's a good page on the subject...

http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm

[Perd Hapley]

And yet people still whine about the US helping the Mujihadeen against the Soviets, Iraq against Iran, etc. 

[Manedwolf]

We also gave the Soviets P-39 fighters (engine behind cockpit, shaft to prop in front, car door on side), which was to everyone's benefit. The AAF hated them, the Russkies loved them. They were good for ground attacks against tanks, but tended to fall out of the air if used at altitude due to an underpowered engine as a result of a last-minute change to the design.

There was even an AAF drinking song bit:

Don't give me a P-39
With an engine stuck up its behind
It will tumble and roll
And dig a big hole
Oh don't give me a P-39

But the Russian slang for it among their pilots apparently translated to "Can Opener", regarding its effectiveness against German armor. 

[French G.]

That's because with no motor up front there was plenty of room for a biiig freakin' cannon! Love the song though.