I suspect that many of us are beginning to realise that we can no longer rely on America as an ally, certainly now that Biden is in charge.
On a number of occasions we have faced threats and America has decided not to become involved, despite the so called NATO alliance. In fact, I believe that the establishment of NATO was, in fact, a move by America in order to use Europe as a buffer against their perceived expansion and invasion by Russia. I am not convinced of that either. I believe that Russia was, and still is, mainly concerned about the safety of their own homeland, especially after their threat from Nazi Germany. Theyād like to have ābuffer statesā: White Russia, Ukraine, for example, but I donāt think they really want to take over the whole of Europe.
As Iāve said before, we should play the same game. For once in our lives we should tell them, no, we are not going to join you in your military adventures: south-east Asia and the South China Sea, for example. It is no business of ours anyway. Let them sort it out themselves.
Itās true that NATO members canāt rely on the USA any more which began with Trump and reached it lowest point under him before trust in the US has slightly improved since Bidenās election. Itās also true that NATO members have to spend more money on armament since the state of certain national armed forces is deplorable.
Iād agree that NATO was a necessary precautionary action in view of a potential Soviet threat and the danger of further eastward expansion. That risk, however, would have been much higher, had the allies not opened a second front in 1944.
Itās beyond me why Germany is sending a frigate to south-east Asia just to show presence there which is a futile and ridiculous exercise given the sad state of the German Navy and armed forces.
The special relationship depends on who the leaders are in the USA and the UK.
@swimfeeders is absolutely spot on in his comments on his original post. Now we have an even bigger problem, that the UN and NATO can no longer be relied on or trusted because of what Biden has done. This opens up a whole new world now because Russia and China are now no longer deterred by NATO because the biggest super power, the USA has turned its back on it.
The reality is, we have never been able to rely upon the US. Unless it suited their needs too? And why should it be any different? Why should either country do what the other wants unless it suits that countries needs as well?
During WW2, the US did not get involved until 1941 & only after the arrest of the German Duquesne spy ring. Which is still the biggest espionage clear up in American history & it happened days after pearl harbour. So America could no longer keep WW2 at arms length, thus it got involved.
Youāre forgetting that throughout the Second World War the USA was the best friend Britain ever had. From 1941 until the end of the war the USA gave Britain (and many other countries) food, oil, warships and warplanes expecting nothing in return. Even at the end of the war this generosity continued with the US supplying Britain with much needed equipment on very good terms.
Britain over the years has forgotten when they did rely on the US and the US was more than generous.
That is incorrect. Everything from 1941 until the end of the war was absolutely given completely free. The debt you refer to was for material supplied after the war ended which you got at mates rates. Britain was broke hence the time it took to pay off.
It is not a rewriting of history. The Americans sold us goods, but they did not become involved against Germany until after the 33 members of the German spy ring were arrested. The dates are. America declared war on Germany on 11th December 1941. By December 13, every member of the spy ring had been either found guilty or had pleaded guilty. So the declaration of war coincided with the trial of the spies & was also 4 days after pearl harbour.
The arrangement of goods supplied to the Allies was known as Lend-Lease & it began in September 1941. Roosevelt said in 1939 that the US would remain neutral, although he would not ask that all US citizens remain neutral in thought.
The Neutrality Act allowed belligerents to purchase war material from the US. But only on a ācash and carryā basis. And the Johnson Act of 1934 prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made during World War 1. And the UK had not repaid itās debts.
So my claims above are anything but a rewriting of history. You on the other hand seem less than well informed.
So you are saying the US broke the 1939 Neutrality Act & thus international law? Thankfully, the facts known about Lend Lease, shows you are wrong. The US did not give them to us for free. They followed international law & remained neutral until 1941.
Again youāre rewriting history with a load of irrelevant waffle. An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States provided the Lend Lease arrangements, goods supplied under this act cost neither Britain or the Allies anything.
From Wikipedia:
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 Ā£1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States. Canadaās Mutual Aid program sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to the United Kingdom and other Allies.[3][4]
Incidently. Lend Lease involved far more than just the UK, it also involved the US supporting Russia & China. And it was called lend lease. As they gave goods for no money in exchange. But instead took free lease on land.
Canada operated a similar scheme, but called theirs mutual aid.
The USA didnāt see any need to get involved in what at the time first looked like a European conflict. Its policy of isolationism and the Neutrality Act have been mentioned. This attitude changed gradually as of 1940 (Battle of Britain, Dunkirk defeat) and, above all, after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, these three events being the main reasons both for expanding Lend&Lease and for officially entering the war in 1941. Only when the risk was increasing that the Russians might not only defeat Nazi-Germany but free and conquer even large parts of Western Europe all on their own, the US were sending troops for the second front to be opened with its Western Allies.
It seems to me that several countries want a piece of the action when it comes to Britain.
America still has properties and sites on our land.
The EU still seems to call the shots regarding part of our country and also our fishing areas.
China continues to āinvestā in our country, which makes parts of it their property.
Russia would probably like to as well, though at present isnāt doing so.
Well, if nothing else, we certainly seem to be rather popular!
@BruceYes you are right Bruce, you have just rewritten history !!
America GAVE nothing away at all, it all had a price !!
UK only finished its debt to US a at the time bout fifteen years ago! we had to extend food rationing far beyond any other European nation !!
The only nations that got a free ride were the enemy! Germany paid off their war reparations to UK by
handing over all their old machinery,( worn out by their war effort) !!
Meanwhile America rebuilt Germany from the ground up, and supplied them with brand new
machinery etc !!
How else do you think the German Miracle happened ??
Donkeyman!
Yes of course Assman, heaven forbid that anything should stand in the way of the myth that Britain stood alone against Nazi tyranny. Why let facts intervene?
Swimmy, the flawed notion in your post is that you presume that the vast, vast majority of Americans are in some way approved of this drawdown and evacuation. Frankly, everyone I have talked to, along with the media, is outraged .
An eight-year-old knows that the plan to withdraw from Afghanistan should have looked something like:
Fully engage the Afghan leadership and our allies in the drawdown plans and donāt announce a withdrawal date (what kind of incompetent imbecile chooses 9/11 as an exit date?)
Destroy and/or remove weaponry and assets.
Evacuate non-necessary Americans and vulnerable Afghans
Close the embassy
Evacuate key non-military personnel
Remove military personnel in stages
Swimmy, most of us are saying WTH. Itās the end of Biden.
This is what happens when you elect an incompetent. Commander in Chief who spends his days thinking about masks, the bathrooms people should use, and solar panels.
Thank you. Itās encouraging to hear you say that, and I agree that it will hopefully be the end of Biden although from what Iāve heard his Vice President could be a whole lot worse.
Do you have any views on why the majority of American people voted for him in the first place?
.