Quote:
Originally Posted by aspqrz
And, of course, I note you completely ignore the historical stick-to-it-ivity of the British Empire at war over the last several centuries and her ability to fund and pay off such wars within extremely short periods of time.
|
No, I don't. I was simply pointing out the false logic of stating that GB would have won WWII alone because "it had done so before". First off, that is a
non sequitur. Second, you overstate GB's record. The Seven Year's War nearly bankrupted the British government, leading to an arrogant tax policy which eventually led to the American Revolution and consequent loss of GB's 13 North American colonies. That's non an unqualified win, economically or militarily. GB's ultimate victory in the Napoleonic Wars (which, I might add, took more or less 30 years to complete) was at the head of a pan-European coalition. GB did not defeat Napoleon on its own, yet this part of your argument hinges upon that assertion.
If GB was so potent, why did it lose most of its empire after WWII? GB was in bad shape after winning WWII (with American help). It did NOT fund and pay off its defense spending from WWII (having received billions of dollars in Cash and Carry and Lend Lease aid from the U.S.) in an extremely "short period of time". In fact, it received Marshall Plan monies from the U.S.
after the war. Its economy took decades to recover. If it was strong enough to defeat the Axis on its own, why wasn't strong enough to hold on to its colonies? Why did it struggle with years of post-war economic recession? Perhaps this is a
post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument on my part, but I think it's a valid question, considering how capable, militarily and financially, you argue that the Commonwealth was 1939-1952.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aspqrz
I just get annoyed at people trotting out 'facts' that are now known to not be such in specialist circles and pooh-poohing anyone who disagrees with those disproven assertions.
|
I guess I don't have access to the font of "specialist" knowledge that you apparently do. And I get annoyed at "special pleading" arguments. Somehow, mainstream historians have all gotten it wrong for a half-century and you and a few cutting edge historians in "specialist circles" (most of whom you neglect to name) have the [secret] knowledge that disproves years of careful scholarship? What "facts" that I've trotted out have been "disproven"? Perhaps I overstated the efficacy of the German U-Boat blockade, but what else? Where do your "facts" come from? Don't tell me they're classified or I'll know you're trolling.