[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Raellus

OK, Aspqrz, now you're getting nasty. I am well aware of historiography. You don't have to explain to me how historical interpretations change. You may have more teaching experience than I do (kudos to you sir) but you needn't talk down to me.

I am sorry that you believe that I was talking down to you, as I was most definitely not. I was merely giving an example that is well known, and one I have had first hand experience of teaching, as an example ... nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Since we're now cataloguing what our opposite is choosing to ignore, or "not grasping", let's list a few major points that you are ignoring or not grasping.

• GB did not win the 7 Years War alone.
  
• GB was on the winning side in the 7 Years War but lost her most prosperous N. American colonies in the balance, in large part do to mismanagement prompted by the massive debt taken on during said conflict. I'm referring now to the American Revolution. I understand that serious Anglophiles would probably like to pretend that it didn't happen, but it did.

• The UK lost the North American colonies, some of them anyway, well after the end of the 7YW ... as a consequence, quite probably, but so what? I never said that there were none ... nor did I say that there would not be consequences of the Commonwealth and Russia fighting alone against Germany ... in fact, I alluded to the likelihood that the world would be a very different place.
  
  The fact is, the UK won the 7YW and came out of it better than their principal allies who were, at best, able to manage regaining/holding the status quo ante.
  
  As for them having allies, yes. So? Again, I never said that the UK could have won alone, and clearly indicated that it would fight alongside the Russians. As allies. Or co-belligerents. Or whatever.
  
  Also note that the UK supported governments in exile in WW2 in the same way as it fomented rebellion/alternative governments in the 7YW and the Napoleonic Wars ... something she has had a long historical track record of doing.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Raellus

  GB did not win the Napoleonic Wars on her own either.
  

  Oh, and she did not win WWI OR WWII alone either. You see a pattern here. So do I: Britain doesn't have a track record of defeated Continental Powers on its own or easily or cheaply.

  Indeed I see a pattern. But it is a strawman argument, I pointed out that the UK (assisting/assisted by) Russia could have won the war without US assistance and, at no point, claimed that it would be easy.
  
  
  

  Originally Posted by Raellus

  GB's economy was strained to the breaking point during WWII (6 years). She received millions of dollars (billions, adjusted) in material and monetary aid from the U.S. during and immediately after the war. GB's economy was depressed after WWII ended, for quite some time. This does not speak of economic strength or staying power. See my next point.

  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../8b/UK_GDP.png
  
  Despite the fact that WW1 and WW2 were fought almost back to back, the National Debt never reached the heights that it did during the Napoleonic Wars ... and was paid down to pre-war levels in 40 years after the postwar peak rather than the century it took to do the same after the Napoleonic postwar peak.
  
  Much stronger, in fact, than earlier.
  
  As for the economic assistance, yes, again, so what? The Brits suffered more relative pain during the Napoleonic period and took longer to pay the debt down ... and could have done so again.
  
  Note: This is not saying that it would be easy. Not at all. Merely that, based on their historical track record, it was possible.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Raellus

  GB lost most of its overseas empire in the three decades following WWII. As far as I understand it, this was, in large part, due to its military weakness and inability to sustain its imperial holdings financially.

Something that was known and being prepared for well before WW2.

In fact, it was known and understood well before WW1. Indeed, it was known and understood, but trumped by immediate jingoistic politics, as far back as the 1830s and pretty much definitively by the late 19th century.

It may, or may not, on a case by case basis, have been accellerated by WW1 and WW2, but it was a process underway even before them.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Three of these four points, here repeated for the third time, put paid to your central argument that the British Commonwealth could have won the war against the Axis Powers without American assistance, even in a long, drawn out conflict. I'm not ignoring or failing to grasp that bolded point. I just disagree with it, and I have made arguments against it.

Well, you've arguably put paid to an argument - unfortunately none of them are arguments I made, or they are based on assumptions that clearly were not part of the arguments I made.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Also, why did Japan have to attack U.S. possessions in the Asia and Pacific (i.e. the Philippines) in order to complete its conquest of French, Dutch, and British possessions in the region? You treat this as an inevitability but I don't see it as such. Would you care to explain your reasoning?

Easy Peasy.

1) The US was seen by the Japanese as a threat regardless of what was going on in Europe (you could argue that this was a complete misreading of the US and her intentions, though many historians would hem and haw about such an interpretation ... but that is what we know the Japanese believed).

2) Japan didn't have the merchant fleet, especially tankers, to do anything but the most direct route from the Home islands to the British and Dutch possessions ... which meant they had to sail close to the PI, which the US were seen to be militarising, and which militarisation was seen to be directed at Japan by the Japanese (again, you could argue they were wrong in that belief, with the same hemming and hawing by historians as mentioned previously but, again, we know this is what the Japanese believed).

3) Ergo, there was an imminent military threat against their plans on the part of what they believed to be a hostile power ... so, given the military domination of Japanese politics and the world view, correct or incorrect, that the military had, to protect their supply lines for the invasions and, then, more importantly, prevent interference with their shipping bringing the spoils home, they believed that the only option they had was to attack the US, take out the Pacific Fleet, take the PI etc. etc.

Was this based on crazy reasoning and false assumptions? At least partly. But, within their craziness, they were reasoning consistently ... ergo, unless you assume a US run by political and economic forces that are completely different to what actually existed then and there and also assume a sane, rational and logical (not to mention conciliatory) Japanese leadership, then a Japanese attack = the perceived necessity of attacking the US.

Easy peasy, as I said.

Phil