James Holland's A War in the West

[Khevenhuller]

After WW1 the UK was still the leading power politically. After WW2 it most defiantly was not. WW1 had set the stage for that decline to happen but it hadn't quite happened yet.

It should be noted many commenters ain the twenties and thirties thought war between the USA and UK, as the new took over from the old, was highly likely. WW2 prevented that being necessary as it shifted power from the old to the new.

But, coming back to the Poland argument, Britain was only in that position because everyone else was severely weakened, it was not based on Britain being stronger. Britain was just less weak than everyone else in 1920. When those countries rebuilt and started to look beyond internal affairs the British position was exposed and the British policy makers were well aware of that fact.

Publicly, the British are living in something of a fool's paradise in the 20's. Politically there is a dim awareness that 'it cannot last forever', by the thirties it was really obvious. So it was not WW2 that altered Britain's position, just the fact that everyone else got over the WW1 shock and started to look at, in some cases, restructuring the global system that had underpinned British (and French) strength.

K

 

[Khevenhuller]

It was WW1 debt that was refinanced in the 20's but I'm inclined to believe the BBC unless you have an alternate source of similar or greater repute?

Maybe I was not clear enough. Britain still owed money. Most of it to the USA. But it was also owed money, and came out of 1918 a creditor. It wrote down some debt so Britain only owed the same amount that was owed to her. The lump she owed the USA was still there and I think i dimly remember this as a 'story' (I assume a slow news day). Just coming out with people owing you money does not mean you actually have any or they will pay you back. The French were passing the buck to the Germans and reparations and the Germans said they could not pay. Oh, it was all horribly messy. Just reading the twenties cabinet papers or something like that and it is the elephant in the room.

I just hope you spent it wisely over there...

K

 

[hkrommel]

Maybe I was not clear enough. Britain still owed money. Most of it to the USA. But it was also owed money, and came out of 1918 a creditor. It wrote down some debt so Britain only owed the same amount that was owed to her. The lump she owed the USA was still there and I think i dimly remember this as a 'story' (I assume a slow news day). Just coming out with people owing you money does not mean you actually have any or they will pay you back. The French were passing the buck to the Germans and reparations and the Germans said they could not pay. Oh, it was all horribly messy. Just reading the twenties cabinet papers or something like that and it is the elephant in the room.

I just hope you spent it wisely over there...

K

Yeah I reread your post and realized I misunderstood and deleted mine. Sorry about that

As for how we spent it we probably threw it into the massive money sinks of Social Security and Medicare, which desperately needs reform but all the elderly advocacy groups will pillory anyone who suggests reforms (even though they're in danger of becoming insolvent in the next decade or two). For reference our three largest spending categories were (in 2015): Medicare/Medicaid ($938 billion or 25% of the budget), Social Security ($888 billion or 24% of the budget), and defense spending ($602 billion or 16% of the budget). The next two are other safety net programs (10%) and retirement benefits for federal workers and military veterans (8%). But that's really off topic, sorry

 

[spartansociety]

Yeah I reread your post and realized I misunderstood and deleted mine. Sorry about that

As for how we spent it we probably threw it into the massive money sinks of Social Security and Medicare, which desperately needs reform but all the elderly advocacy groups will pillory anyone who suggests reforms (even though they're in danger of becoming insolvent in the next decade or two). For reference our three largest spending categories were (in 2015): Medicare/Medicaid ($938 billion or 25% of the budget), Social Security ($888 billion or 24% of the budget), and defense spending ($602 billion or 16% of the budget). The next two are other safety net programs (10%) and retirement benefits for federal workers and military veterans (8%). But that's really off topic, sorry

My only post on this tangent I promise, but I couldn't resist.
Australian federal spending. https://www.taxsuperandyou.gov.au/s...ser_13218/Where taxpayers' money is spent.jpg
As an outsider I always find it strange when American's blame health and social security spending for the financial issues when spending seems to be broadly comparable to many other nations.

Now the US. https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png

Yes, I realise neither graph takes account of state or local government spending on these, but still.

 

[hkrommel]

My only post on this tangent I promise, but I couldn't resist.
Australian federal spending. https://www.taxsuperandyou.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/user_13218/Where taxpayers' money is spent.jpg
As an outsider I always find it strange when American's blame health and social security spending for the financial issues when spending seems to be broadly comparable to many other nations.

Now the US. https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png

Yes, I realise neither graph takes account of state or local government spending on these, but still.

The problem is between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. Because of the budget rules it's far harder to do anything with non-discretionary spending. In addition, the haphazard way the programs (and the social safety net in general) are structured causes loads of problems. Basically you have to look past the raw totals to how the programs themselves are run, how it's difficult to fix them due to budgeting rules and political inertia, and how poorly structured the programs themselves are. As an example, Social Security set the retirement age at 65 when the average life expectancy was 62. It was never meant to be a source of retirement income for most of the population for 20 or more years, as it is now. As such, it's poorly structured for that task since you need about a 12 to 1 working-age employed people to retired person ratio to fund it adequately, whereas now it's closer to 4 to 1 or 3 to 1.

TL;DR the problem is that how they're structured/run is poor but they have so much political inertia from special interests that it's near impossible to fix these problems.

 

[davidc929]

Maybe I was not clear enough. Britain still owed money. Most of it to the USA. But it was also owed money, and came out of 1918 a creditor. It wrote down some debt so Britain only owed the same amount that was owed to her. The lump she owed the USA was still there and I think i dimly remember this as a 'story' (I assume a slow news day). Just coming out with people owing you money does not mean you actually have any or they will pay you back. The French were passing the buck to the Germans and reparations and the Germans said they could not pay. Oh, it was all horribly messy. Just reading the twenties cabinet papers or something like that and it is the elephant in the room.

I just hope you spent it wisely over there...

K

Wages of Destruction is a good book on that. Very simply after WW1 America gave Germany massive loans so they could pay their reparations. These reparations had to be paid so the allies could pay their war loans back to the USA. It was a giant wheel and if one part broke it all did.

 

[Sanny]

I'd also like to know, what historical inaccuracies to expect.

It's been a while since I've read it but the part about Aberdeen being on the West Coast of Scotland amused me.

Holland also tried to make the argument that British standard issue uniform was superior to everyone else's just because it had Pockets and Pouches is just wrong. It was made from a thick cotton material, and could make soldiers very hot during the Summer months and in the desert (initially some reinforcements brought from the Empire had standard issue uniforms that wasn't suitable for desert warfare). On the otherhand, the German Army issued Summer uniforms, and for the Afrika Korps, they had special desert uniform. The Americans on the other hand had some really good uniform improvements 1943-onwards with the combat jacket and among other things.

I'm also not a fan of Holland's argument that the Germans lost because they were "spectacularly inefficient", it's just inaccurate and not the full truth/story. Many factors contributed to their defeat.

 

[Animum24]

It's been a while since I've read it but the part about Aberdeen being on the West Coast of Scotland amused me.

Holland also tried to make the argument that British standard issue uniform was superior to everyone else's just because it had Pockets and Pouches is just wrong. It was made from a thick cotton material, and could make soldiers very hot during the Summer months and in the desert (initially some reinforcements brought from the Empire had standard issue uniforms that wasn't suitable for desert warfare). On the otherhand, the German Army issued Summer uniforms, and for the Afrika Korps, they had special desert uniform. The Americans on the other hand had some really good uniform improvements 1943-onwards with the combat jacket and among other things.

I'm also not a fan of Holland's argument that the Germans lost because they were "spectacularly inefficient", it's just inaccurate and not the full truth/story. Many factors contributed to their defeat.

Ah ok I understand your points.
I think though, that if you supply every point with enough factual evidence, you can almost never say that something is right or wrong. I don't know enough about uniforms, but I always had the impression that the Germans look really slick on the photographs
And german inefficiency can really be argued as their industry was not streamlined at all and things were just over-engineered and stuff. Still a thing today, but in peace time it's actually a real plus.

 

[davidc929]

It's been a while since I've read it but the part about Aberdeen being on the West Coast of Scotland amused me.

Holland also tried to make the argument that British standard issue uniform was superior to everyone else's just because it had Pockets and Pouches is just wrong. It was made from a thick cotton material, and could make soldiers very hot during the Summer months and in the desert (initially some reinforcements brought from the Empire had standard issue uniforms that wasn't suitable for desert warfare). On the otherhand, the German Army issued Summer uniforms, and for the Afrika Korps, they had special desert uniform. The Americans on the other hand had some really good uniform improvements 1943-onwards with the combat jacket and among other things.

I'm also not a fan of Holland's argument that the Germans lost because they were "spectacularly inefficient", it's just inaccurate and not the full truth/story. Many factors contributed to their defeat.

I don't remember him claiming the British uniform was superior. I remember that he discussed the plus and minuses of all the major uniforms. With regards to the British off the top of my head he said it was a big improvement on what came before and that one of the biggest advantages was that it was much cheaper and easier to make than many of the other countries uniforms.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Withregards to the British off the top of my head he said it was a big improvement on what came before and that one of the biggest advantages was that it was much cheaper and easier to make than many of the other countries uniforms.

Spike Milligan said the British uniform came in two sizes; too big and too small . . .

 

[davidc929]

Spike Milligan said the British uniform came in two sizes; too big and too small . . .

Yeah I think that has been a common feature of military uniforms throughout the years.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Yeah I think that has been a common feature of military uniforms throughout the years.

I have a nice British uniform repro and an original greatcoat from WW2. Trust me, this is wool, not cotton, and really really warm! Fine for Norway, summer in France would be another matter! I think the Home Guard had cheaper uniforms made from denim.

K