Name them.
Well, off the top of my head I guess you could say that the Brits (as well as our other allies) sold out the US at Versailles when they chose to pursue their own revenge driven agenda and drive a defeated Germany into the dust.
No idea what other examples smiling bandit had in mind. With as long a history as the US and the UK has had together I’m sure there are plenty of examples of one country or the other doing whats in their own best interests, even when it runs counter to the wishes of their supposed allies.
-XT
smiling bandit, the only time I can think of where one could argue that the UK “sold out” the US was the support the UK gave to the CSA during the US Civil War. And, even there the gov’t’s official policy was one of neutrality. While Confederate commerce raiders like the CSS Alabama were build in British shipyards, sometimes even with British monies - these were done against the specific policies of the gov’t at the time, and several other raiders were siezed in docks as the gov’t became aware of the extent of what was essentially private support for breaking thier neutrality. Prior to that, you can’t accuse antagonists, if not outright belligerents, of selling the other out.
And, well, while I think that Parliament and the Crown screwed the Colonists - we put paid to that by 1781. It’s a non-issue, at this point.
On preview: xtisme, I can see your point. Though, I think it’s also worth noting that Wilson’s views were quite radical for the time. I don’t know whether there was all that much support back home for his intetions, let alone trying to impose a new kind of peace ona conflict that, in 1918, was still being viewed by many policy makers as simply a technologically updated continuation of the stupid little dynastic wars that Europe had been having since the fall of Napoleon’s Empire.
True…being ‘sold out’ is a matter of perspective however. I’m quite certain the Brits didn’t see it that way…but then, thats probably always the case one way or another.
-XT
I thought the French were on their own there. They didn’t sell the USA out, they just wanted to screw the Germans. With hind sight I’m sure they would have done differently. Well, the French, maybe not. 
What strategic advantage? Britain had no Spitfire, no Hurricane, it’s RADAR defences were in disarray at the time, Germany had the most advanced army on the continent, with five panzer divisions and six motorised divisions, compared to three of each for Britain and France combined, France didn’t want a war, the US certainly didn’t, the USSR has signed a non-aggression treaty, the Luftwaffe had a full complement of first rate aircraft and outnumbered British and French planes (the French air force was particularly antequated at the time) with a ratio of 1:0.83 etc. etc.
It’s fair to state Britain wasn’t really prepared to face Germany when war was eventually declared. It’s also fair to state it was even less ready any earlier than that.
First off, I was definitely talking about the Civil War. And let’s not have any opretension of “Neutrality.” England knew exactly what the CSA was doing and chose to look the other way because it suited them.
Ask the Czechs about strateic advantage. They could have taken on the Germans themselves had Britain not screwed them out of the defensive palcements and fortresses they had. Ask the Poles, when England did nothing to help them while they fell. You say that England didn’t have the forces to do anything about it - why the heck not? They had plenty of warning and sat on their hands. Of course they weren’t ready to face Germany. But that was blatantly their own fault.
We int he US weren’t ready to face Germany because, frankly, the Euros had soiled their own bed again and once again came whining to us for help. Which we did, and gladly. And I don’t begrudge it, but let’s not pretend there was anything other than gross and moreover grotesque incompetence displayed the English government for twenty years.
Okay, even if I accept that neutrality was inherently pro-CSA (I’ll concede that it’s possible, but only for the sake of argument.) just what do you think the UK should have done differently? Declared war on the CSA? Embargo all cargos from the CSA, recognizing that it would likely bankrupt the mills depending on the raw cotton from the CSA to stay in business?
Could the UK have done a better job policing it’s shipyards? Hell, yes! Were there factions within the UK that wanted the CSA to win the war, and materially helped to extend the war? Hell, yes!
Does that mean that the UK stabbed the US in the back? No. No more than the US stabbed the UK in the back, even though factions in the US have been very supportive of the IRA for years. Private actions, even private actions of the citizens of a polity, cannot be made to define the polity’s responsibility.
The argument has been made that Britain did not support the Confederacy. Rather than breaking the Union blockade of Southern ports, they began growing cotton in India and left the Confederacy to her own devices.
That just sounds like outsourcing to me.
This wasn’t a matter of policing shipyards. They knew exactly what was happening and chose to look the other way. Now, those ships couldn’t change the course of the war. But at the same time, they said “not our problem” when people started arming ships intended to kill Americans, with only the thinnest of fig leaves to cover themselves with.
And all to extend tyranny. Because after all, what’s a little despotism between nobles?
No, it was one of the vilest, most petty-handed actions undertaken by a “civilized” nation. Thankfully, there were others with a rather better view of matters. Some lords managed to hold off the pro-CSA tide, and numerous working-class men and women organized a pro-USA movement. But the fact that I forgive and even laud the British their greatnesses does not mean I forget their sins. Nor ought they to be forgotten to pretending we’ve always been the bestest buds.
Presumably these are the same Czech’s who had a large German contingent in their own army. Using Sudentenland Germans to repel … Germans.
Oh I don’t know, maybe it had something to do with the fact that we were near bankrupt and had fresh memories of the last great war.
I find it funny how you wish to absolve America of all responsibility while trying to push a war on the Continent as Britain’s problem. So it wasn’t America’s war, but then why do you think it was Britain’s?
This is a bit overwrought.
“Despotism between nobles”? You appear to demonstrate a rather tenuous grasp of British pilitics in the mid-nineteenth century (along with assigning a level of society to the CSA that only works by metaphor).
“Selling out” a friendship? From the Brit perspective, it was more like watching a couple divorce. Do you side with the husband you’ve known since school days or with the wife with whom you’ve served on all those church committees?
“one of the vilest, most petty-handed actions undertaken by a “civilized” nation”? Please.
Casting the issue as one of stark contrasts with clear rights and wrongs makes no sense. Beyond that, your initial claim was “Enlgand has sold us out on several memorable occaisions.” You have provided exacly one ambivalent example that lasted for fewer than three years (in a war that only lasted four). I am not sure why you have such an emotional reaction to this bit of history, but you are certainly not persuading me with either your rhetoric or your odd presentation of the facts.
I do not buy into the “we’ve always been such great friends” idea: the two countries have bumped heads repeatedly as each strove for wealth or power in the same spheres. However, the notiion that Great Britain had betrayed the friendship of the U.S. between 1861 and 1864 is just silly–and even if it were true, that single period would not rise to the level of “several memorable occasions.”
Actually I meant best friends in modern times, before anyone jumps in,the last odd hundred years.
Thats why Brits are fighting and dying along side Americans in Afghan and Iraq.
Thats why Blair risked losing an election to support an American M.E.policy that wasnt considered of overwhelming relevance to the general population of the U.K.
Why we gave real, as opposed to token support ,as so many other nations did instead of in both gulf wars even going as far as stripping the British Army of the Rhine so we could send in more troops and armour.
Why when the President gave an undertaking that the U.S. would make no more overflights
of the soviet union after the Gary Powers incident The R.A.F. took over that role at his request and over the years an amazing number of aircrew were killed over Russia and because of secrecy their families were told they died in training accidents.
Why we supported the U.S.militarily in Korea.
Why our intelligence services work together.
Why the disaster back up for the N.Y. stock exchange is in London.
We know the debt of friendship we owe to the Yanks and we try to return it ,quite often in blood just as the Yanks have done for us in the past.
I realise that this gets right up some Irish peoples noses even after they have relocated to the U.S.
As for the U.S. civil war at that time we werent particulary good buddies nor had we any real reason to be.
I think our making slavery illegal didnt help the south in the long run but that again wasnt a deliberate act against anyone in particular either.
We 're close now but we’ve never claimed to be saints in the past to everyone in the international community regardless of their relations with us,just like every other nation in the world in times long past.
Adding to what Tomndebb said, I’m fairly certain that after an initial malaise by British officials, they actually put a fair amount of effort into stopping the arming and outfitting of commerce raider in their ports. Granted this example isn’t the greatest, as it comes from late in the war when the writing was on the wall and England had distanced itself from the CSA, but buying, outfitting, and launching the Shenandoah needed to be done in complete secrecy to avoid being seized by England.
You might even move it up to a bit fewer than 70 years, beginning with Churchill and Roosevelt. I would agree that there has been a very real (if imperfect cough Suez, Grenada cough) friendship for some time. Mostly I was reacting to the odd claim of “England has sold us out on several memorable occasions” in the context of “betraying friends.”
Im not defending the generals but there were some innovations ,
Short duration artillery barrages using predicted fire as opposed to ranged fire.
Massive increase of M.G. issue .
Dehorsing most of the cavalry.
The invention of the Tank.
Arming aircraft,using aircraft as artillery spotters and bombers.
The introduction of the steel helmet.
Invention of (OR RE invention)of grenades and trench mortars.
But I agree overall the generalship was unimpressive.
As to the class system ,most of the J.O.s in the infantry were very young ex Public School boys (In Britain upper class fee paying schools) and they suffered very heavy casualties.
In Britain at that time no class was under represented in the actual fighting avoidance brought social ostracism.
I would guess that it was the late nineteenth/early twentieth century Holland submarines that are being referenced. They were (sort of) the basis for conventional submarines, with combined internal combustion and electric power.
Wrt rifles I suppose it could be argued that the “American system” of manufacture (interchangable parts, etc) certainly revolutionized rearmament in the nineteenth century, making adaptation to new technologies far more rapid and arms races far more precarious.
Still, with respect to the OP, responsibility for the war and its bloodletting fall squarely on the Europeans doorstep. Both the US civil war and the Russo-Japanese war should have clued them in about the effects of the new toys, both domestic and import, in combat (and industrial scale warfare in general). Unless it’s easier to dismiss those conflicts as amateurish fumblings compared to how professionals would conduct such things.
The most dangerous rank to be in by quite a degree, IIRC, was second lieutenant.
There was a class aspect to WW1, but it wasn’t as simple as the proletariat died while the toffs were safe. As can be seen, the toffs died in large numbers too. There was certainly a degree of wanton sacrifice of Empire soldiers over British soldiers, and I seem to remember Scots soldiers over English ones. But a major social change was the reduction in influence of the old aristocracy, and an increase in power post war for the middle classes and industrialists, especially those who had profiteered from the war.
They did, and fought very well, but that was 2-3 weeks before their government asked for an armistice. Also worth noting that 1 out of every 3 soldiers brought out of Dunkirk was French so it wasn’t just a case of the French fighting to save the English.