Paul Wright sent me this email:
SPREADING THE WORD
Don’t people ever get tired of making jokes at the expense of the French? Me neither….
My husband and I were in a store in central Florida this weekend when a couple of Brits were mouthing off about wishing they were home marching against Blair and especially that cowboy Bush whom they really despised. They went on and on and finally my husband couldn’t take any more and said that if it weren’t for us American cowboys, they would be speaking German now.
Whoa! They went ballistic and actually said quite sarcastically, “Yeah, we needed you!” I replied in a very ladylike voice, yes you did, twice.
These persons were old enough to remember WWII. Don’t people in England know why they aren’t speaking German? If not, why not?
Word Origins Can be Fun!
James of OTB links to an amusing VodkaPundit post (which, in turn comes from a VP reader). And, in case you think that it is a joke, I looked it up:ETYMOLOGY:Middle English surrenderen, from Old French surrendre : sur-, sur-…
I stated before about how using the tired tactic of making World War II comparisons is flawed, and has been implemented by liberals and statists in order to justify state-sponsored intervention, massive spending, and government expansion. (Bill Clinton and his friend Phony Blair did this during the 1990′s.)
I have blogged on the issue of the French before… In early July, the Conservative Observer was kind enough to feature my pertinent entry (in two consecutive entries of his).
Those of us who are conservatives should recognize the nature of Tony Blair, and the nature of the neoliberal/neoconservative political philosophy, and how dangerous it is.
Take a look at the comments discussion at this entry of Josh Claybourn (regarding “Tony the Tyrant.”) Because of the response to that entry, he did a follow-up entry.
Like Clinton and the globalists, Blair supports the New World Order. As Margaret Thatcher said, he is committed to Britain’s extinction.
Peter Hitchens, the conservative one of the Hitchens brothers (Christopher is the socialist, like Blair) wrote a book a while back on the topic of the E.U. See this article from the Washington Times about it. The book is called The Abolition of Britain. And here’s a World Net Daily interview with Mr. Hitchens (Peter, not crazy Christopher) about this topic.
Regarding the Iraq war, it should not be surprising that the liberal Hitchens brother was a strong supporter of it, while the conservative brother opposed it.
Check out this article by the great Peter Hitchens:
Not in our name
Peter Hitchens says that this is a left-wing conflict and that Conservatives should not support it
This is not a conservative war, and Phony Tony is currently one of the worst national leaders in the world.
Perfidious Albion, folks… Perfidious Albion.
Aakash, meds need to be taken every day of the week, not just weekdays.
What part of they would rather see us dead don’t you understand?
If it makes anyone feel better
(mostly ERP)…my fiance is from Lithuania, and she knows exactly what the US has done for the world. Of course…that’s one of the reasons she wants to become a citizen.
Bringing up the American intervention in World War II is a tiresome cliche. However, so is the crap about America being a bunch of unsophisticated cowboys and bloodthirsty imperialists.
My only concern is that by countering one stupid old cliche with another, we alienate Brits who wouldn’t otherwise be hostile to us.
While the tiresome WW2 cliche has its place (primarily outside serious debates), I don’t even think it works very well with regard to the UK. Their performance in 1940 was as important as anything that we did, possibly even moreso. That is not to denigrate the U.S. in any way.
Europe is unable to defend itself against even the weakest aggressor. A continent in decay.
They need a strong protector, have needed that protector for a hundred years now.
Eventually the protector will let the little blighters fend for themselves.
While I would agree that bringing up World War II unbidden is as likely to cost support as gain it, I must say that there IS a decidedly anti-historical element w/in Great Britain that could do w/ some schooling.
I remember talking to one British lady years ago who went on and on about how Great Britain actually had not required American intervention in World War II at all, and construed the entire business as part of us snatching up markets and power in the midst of that war. Her knowledge of actual history was utterly lacking (she didn’t have much knowledge of the Soviet contribution, either).
‘Course, that was only matched by the German couple who believed that the German military was so peaceful that they were trained to shoot guns out of hands of criminals, unlike our own police force….
America really didn’t save Britian in World War II. Operation Barbarossa and the tenacity of the RAF in 1940 ensured that Germany would never have the forces or will to invade England.
If the Germans hadn’t started bombing London and other civilian targets and instead kept concentrating on destroying the RAF, then Operation Sealin might hava had a chance. However, the German Navy was weak, and even with no help from the RAF, the Royal Navy would have been a huge obstacle to Germany attempting to invade by sea.
The real saviors of the British were the Russians who bore the horror of 20 million dead as the German tidal wave exhausted itself at Stalingrad and the gates of Moscow.
Anyway, I think the we saved you butts in World War II is a silly reaction to Euro foolishness. After all there are plenty of ways to refute Europoean stupidity that don’t require a historical slap.
I’m sorry, but the United States certainly kept Britain in the war. (I suppose it depends on how you define “saved Britain.)
While the prospect of outright invasion, as you note, was sorely diminished by Barbarossa, the reality is that the German U-boat arm was quite capable of starving the UK into submission, cutting off the flow of fuel, and ensuring that Britain’s resistance would be limited to ever-diminishing bombing raids.
Even in 1943, after over a year of full-blown US entry into the war, the rate of U-boat sinkings was enough to make Churchill say that this was the only period he ever really thought that Great Britain might lose the war.
Without the massive influx of American shipping (especially the Liberty and Victory ships and tankers), as well as the burgeoning resources of the US Navy itself (especially escort carriers to help form hunter-killer groups), it is an open question how well Britain would have survived. (Note, too, that while British scientists helped come up w/ such innovations as millimetric radars to counter the U-Boats, it was in American factories that they were churned out in large enough numbers to make the difference.)
For that matter, it is also worth noting that it was American industrial power that helped keep the USSR in the war. For all that the Russians did the dying (and they did), American food and vehicles helped keep the USSR in the war, as well. Russian troops marched in Western boots, ate Western/American food, and were supported by American trucks, allowing them to devote the vast bulk of their industrial resources to producing actual weapons, which often ran on Western-supplied oil.
The condensed version is good, but I like the full version:
“We shall go on to the end… we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air – we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”
The one French word is-
Stephen Green posts a letter he received here that, I think, speaks for itself- I can’t find the link to…
| VIEW MOBILE SITE
Copyright © 2005-2015 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000035