Law0 min ago
Blimey is he now saying we would have been better off if we had lost WW2?
29 Answers
http
Perhaps Mr Cameron and his like, should first compare our politicians to those of the Germans, instead of blaming our industrialists?
Perhaps Mr Cameron and his like, should first compare our politicians to those of the Germans, instead of blaming our industrialists?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We did lose it didn't we?
In 1939 UK was a global power - by 1945 we were broke and our hold on South East Asia and Australasia were seriously weakened
Germany set about dominating Europe economically
and the Axis allies in Japan did pretty well too
Seriously, I'm not convinced emulating behaviours exhibited by Germans in 2013 has much to do with things that happened 70 years ago
After all, German productivity had its problems in WW2
They couldn't produce aircraft as quickly as us
During the Battle of Britain we replaced all losses within 24 hrs, the Luftwaffe didn't get a single replacement during the battle
They produced the best tank of WW2 totally unbeatable - but only managed to build about 20 of them!
In 1939 UK was a global power - by 1945 we were broke and our hold on South East Asia and Australasia were seriously weakened
Germany set about dominating Europe economically
and the Axis allies in Japan did pretty well too
Seriously, I'm not convinced emulating behaviours exhibited by Germans in 2013 has much to do with things that happened 70 years ago
After all, German productivity had its problems in WW2
They couldn't produce aircraft as quickly as us
During the Battle of Britain we replaced all losses within 24 hrs, the Luftwaffe didn't get a single replacement during the battle
They produced the best tank of WW2 totally unbeatable - but only managed to build about 20 of them!
I read a book about WW2 recently and it occured to me that the two of the "losers", Germany and Japan, seemed to have come out best.
Along with the USA, who lent us loads of money to finance the war, and we spent decades paying it bank.
After the war WE (the allies) went into Germany to help rebuild it, and the USA went into Japan to help rebuild that.
Yet at the time the UK were broke.
For example after the war the Germany (and French) railway systems had been blown to bits, so they were rebuilt using electrification.
Yet we, the UK, were broke so could not afford to electrify our railway system to had to continue using coal powered steam trains until the 1950s and 1960s.
It seem WE (the UK) fought all over the world to defeat the Germans and Japaneese (remember we fought in Burma, India and many other Asian countries as well as North Africa and so on).
This cost us a lot of moeny, and the lives of a lot of our young men and women, yet AFTER the war nobody helped us get our country back on its feet.
We "won" yet it took us decades to get over it.
Along with the USA, who lent us loads of money to finance the war, and we spent decades paying it bank.
After the war WE (the allies) went into Germany to help rebuild it, and the USA went into Japan to help rebuild that.
Yet at the time the UK were broke.
For example after the war the Germany (and French) railway systems had been blown to bits, so they were rebuilt using electrification.
Yet we, the UK, were broke so could not afford to electrify our railway system to had to continue using coal powered steam trains until the 1950s and 1960s.
It seem WE (the UK) fought all over the world to defeat the Germans and Japaneese (remember we fought in Burma, India and many other Asian countries as well as North Africa and so on).
This cost us a lot of moeny, and the lives of a lot of our young men and women, yet AFTER the war nobody helped us get our country back on its feet.
We "won" yet it took us decades to get over it.
vhg
don't you suspect that the American lend-leasing schemes and their delayed active entrance to the war was rather effective for their own elevation to Super Power status supplanting the British Empire?
Before WW2 a huge percentage of US assets (businesses, minerals, real estate) were owned by British interests.
By 1945 most had been sold off.
don't you suspect that the American lend-leasing schemes and their delayed active entrance to the war was rather effective for their own elevation to Super Power status supplanting the British Empire?
Before WW2 a huge percentage of US assets (businesses, minerals, real estate) were owned by British interests.
By 1945 most had been sold off.
>>>Before WW2 a huge percentage of US assets (businesses, minerals, real estate) were owned by British interests.
I just read a book about WW! and it says the same.
Part of the reluctance of the USA to enter the first world war was that we were having to sell off stuff to continue to pay for the war. The longer they stayed out the more we had to sell off.
I did not realise it also went on during WW" as well.
I just read a book about WW! and it says the same.
Part of the reluctance of the USA to enter the first world war was that we were having to sell off stuff to continue to pay for the war. The longer they stayed out the more we had to sell off.
I did not realise it also went on during WW" as well.
er, no, he's saying nothing of the sort. Did anyone actually read the link?
He's talking about education. Tteaching mechanical skills for those who enter industry; teaching science, technology and maths better.
None of this has to do with how impoverished Britain was after the war, it's to do with educational priorities - what the British prefer to spend their money on, and what they think education is for.
He's talking about education. Tteaching mechanical skills for those who enter industry; teaching science, technology and maths better.
None of this has to do with how impoverished Britain was after the war, it's to do with educational priorities - what the British prefer to spend their money on, and what they think education is for.
I fully agree with Jake on this one. Also I'd bet Germany doesn't give £bns in foreign aId....well why should they there is a budget from the EU for overseas aid and why contribute twice like Britain.
I agree with you AOG about our politicians....they have the levers to get our industry back to full health. Instead of putting £32bn+ into HS2 they could use it to get our industries going.
I agree with you AOG about our politicians....they have the levers to get our industry back to full health. Instead of putting £32bn+ into HS2 they could use it to get our industries going.
Germany does give foreign aid - but only half of what it promises
http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20120625-43361.html#.UMJCvXe0NlM
Maybe Britain should learn how to break promises too.
http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20120625-43361.html#.UMJCvXe0NlM
Maybe Britain should learn how to break promises too.
He is not saying that. Strange conclusion to reach from the story linked to.
There can be no doubt that Germany is an economic powerhouse, most notably when compared with other european countries. There will be historical reasons for this, but more importantly, there are significant differences in terms of training, business principles, business finance etc.
The real patriot would be willing to stop fighting the last war and be willing to learn from the best practices anywhere....
There can be no doubt that Germany is an economic powerhouse, most notably when compared with other european countries. There will be historical reasons for this, but more importantly, there are significant differences in terms of training, business principles, business finance etc.
The real patriot would be willing to stop fighting the last war and be willing to learn from the best practices anywhere....
not sure he has said that, and if you look at what Germany had to to do to be unified, the austerity measures that were put in place, you can't but admire them for that. However Mr Cameron doesn't always come across as being on our side, not that he supports countries like Germany, more that he doesn't bang the gong nearly enough for Britain. If you want good workers you have to have the type of businesses they can work in. If our school system which some think is hunky dory, and personally i don't, didn't shove out pupils ill prepared for the big wide world, with it's extremely competitive labour market, then it's hardly likely we can compete on a level playing field.
Perhaps they should put in the same energy, that the Labour government put into sending all our youngsters into universality and instead start educating them in 'blue collar' skills for say two plus years after they leave school.
Then they could then make it advantageous for firms to take on apprentices, by paying half their wages for a period of time, and then channel all government contracts towards these firms.
These measures would find employment for all school leavers, and in time produce a skilled work force, also boost British industrial strength, so as to export to the rest of the world.
Then they could then make it advantageous for firms to take on apprentices, by paying half their wages for a period of time, and then channel all government contracts towards these firms.
These measures would find employment for all school leavers, and in time produce a skilled work force, also boost British industrial strength, so as to export to the rest of the world.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank35 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News39 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.