Their finest hour?

[Pilsator]

(7) other

Plain of Abraham , it basically kicked france out of North America, at least out of most parts

or Pondicherry, won India for britain,

[rico21]

(7) other

Brexit , it basically kicked ...out...

[altipueri]

Joint equal - two declarations of war against Germany. One for invading Belgium, the other for invading Poland.

To deliberately put the lives of thousands if not millions of your own citizens at risk when there is no immediate threat.


Of course the fights against Philip of Spain, Louis 14th, and Napoleon were also done to prevent the domination of Europe by one power.


In none of the five wars did England seek to dominate Europe herself but only to prevent domination by one other power.



Sixth? Brexit - a probably financially suicidal attempt to prevent the growth of an EU superstate. The EU bureaucrats will never forgive us for questioning their ever greater union.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: rico21

(7) other

Brexit , it basically kicked ...out...

aye, it threatens to basically kick my partner out of the UK and leave our children in a legal limbo - which is why raising contemporary politics is really not a good idea

[rico21]

True, the finest hour of ones is rarely the finest of others

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Joint equal - two declarations of war against Germany. One for invading Belgium, the other for invading Poland.

To deliberately put the lives of thousands if not millions of your own citizens at risk when there is no immediate threat.

Of course the fights against Philip of Spain, Louis 14th, and Napoleon were also done to prevent the domination of Europe by one power.

In none of the five wars did England seek to dominate Europe herself but only to prevent domination by one other power.

warspite1

Well I love my country as much as anyone - and I believe she has a history that is mostly one to be proud of. She has been a force for the good and brought much in terms of civilisation, medicine, exploration, science, literature etc.

However, I would have to disagree with the above.

Don't get me wrong, regardless of the reason, the fact is the Western Allies did save others (with a bit of help from Uncle Joe [;)]) - some of whom had the luxury of not fighting - from Adolf Hitler and others. But let's not kid ourselves. Britain and France did not go to war over the 'Plucky Poles' any more than the British went to war over the 'Brave Belgians' 20-odd years before. The US didn't help the British because of some 'special relationship' (mythical or otherwise) any more than she has, at great expense, kept a protective umbrella over western Europe because she loves us.

Poland was a line in the sand - nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't to save Poland per se that the British and French went to war. That line could have been Czechoslovakia - but she was used as a sacrificial lamb instead. Yes, for the right reasons, but that doesn't make her treatment correct.

Countries - particularly democracies - don't involve their people in wars unless there is self interest involved. No immediate threat? As soon as Hitler marched into Prague the pretence at self-defence and the rights of self-determination, flew out the window. Give Hitler a free hand in the east, allow him to create a vast, resource rich empire there, and let's be honest, he's not going to stop there - and FDR was savvy enough to realise that.

The policy of stopping hegemony was just as true in 1914 and 1939 (albeit a war has never been more justified) as it was in 1588, the 1700's and 1802.

BTW: if anyone thinks the treatment of the Belgians and the Poles was so terrible, have a look at their track record - small countries are no less capable of selfish behaviour when it suits them. Name a country in Eastern beginning with P that took part - albeit to a small extent - in the carve up of Czechoslovakia? After the French stopped building the Maginot Line (having a stop line behind your ally is a tad naughty [;)]) it was a bit off of Belgium to unilaterally decide she was going to be neutral after all.....

[Lobster]

If the Romans had not invaded Britain, if the Greeks had lost to the Persians, if Assryia had utterly destroyed the Arabs, if Homo Erectus had not picked up a stick and beat someone with it....[:D][:D][:D]

[Gilmer]

Agincourt and Poitiers? I dunno. Poitiers the French King and his son were captured.

[rico21]

He who mastered the sea dominated the earth, (UK)
The one who dominates the air dominates the earth, (USA)
The one who dominates space will dominate the earth (?)

[altipueri]

I guess I just like a Whig interpretation of history with Trevelyan and Macaulay being two favourites.

[Hexagon]

ORIGINAL: rico21

True, the finest hour of ones is rarely the finest of others

Yep, very rare times in a war-battle you find both sides arriving on their top moment to decide in a "chess" combat who wins.

To have a finest hour you need your best momentum and worst momentum for enemy... this or somebody that take decisions with [8|]

Maybe the problem for me with Britain is how allways was a nation that play to much the "hit and run" role, you know, they very rare times stand for a "box combat" being an island give them allways the advantage to retreat if is needed with a better option to deal with a homeland attack... but is curious how better the tech lower the chance to take Britain with pants down on his island based in how the complexity to mantein an invasion army in the island increased in time... this is why i think Armada was more fail in Spanish side... a XVI century army can lived in the field and even without win leave Britan in bad situation for decades (scorched earth).

Continental nations are more fixed to terrain than island nations or nations in other continents far for a short jump to their land.

Maybe for me their finest hour was in WWI, first time they stand in a face to face, of course they dont eat the biggest part of the cake (french and russians did it) but to be their first "stand in land" war they mantein the line (are other examples like Crimea but i talk about something more than an expedition with limited forces and objetives).

Brexit... i dont know who has here his finest our... i think EU win more than lose and British... lets see but no more "commando" incursions in France coast to have cheap beer [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

ORIGINAL: rico21

True, the finest hour of ones is rarely the finest of others

Yep, very rare times in a war-battle you find both sides arriving on their top moment to decide in a "chess" combat who wins.

To have a finest hour you need your best momentum and worst momentum for enemy... this or somebody that take decisions with [8|]

Maybe the problem for me with Britain is how allways was a nation that play to much the "hit and run" role, you know, they very rare times stand for a "box combat" being an island give them allways the advantage to retreat if is needed with a better option to deal with a homeland attack... but is curious how better the tech lower the chance to take Britain with pants down on his island based in how the complexity to mantein an invasion army in the island increased in time... this is why i think Armada was more fail in Spanish side... a XVI century army can lived in the field and even without win leave Britan in bad situation for decades (scorched earth).

Continental nations are more fixed to terrain than island nations or nations in other continents far for a short jump to their land.

Maybe for me their finest hour was in WWI, first time they stand in a face to face, of course they dont eat the biggest part of the cake (french and russians did it) but to be their first "stand in land" war they mantein the line (are other examples like Crimea but i talk about something more than an expedition with limited forces and objetives).

warspite1

Not really sure what you mean by "hit and run" role. Countries play to their strengths, always have, always will - unless they're dumb. I don't know in what circumstances you would have expected the British to stand for a "box combat"? (or even what that really means) when there was no need.

The French and Russians are continental powers and so need large standing armies - either for defence or for attacking others from time to time (depending who was in charge). The UK is an island nation and so needed a large navy. That's just the way it is so there is no apology necessary for not having a standing army the size of France or Russia (!). There was no justification from an economic point of view - and let's face it, the British couldn't afford the navy it needed so why was it going to take money away to give to a land army?

End of the day, taking WWII as an example, the French were responsible for the defence of France. The British were responsible for the defence of Britain. Sure, they sought to assist each other in the face of the German threat, but the fact is (and I get no pleasure from saying this) the French did a lousy job (and the British did a lousy supporting job) in 1940. The French were responsible for the defence of their country, they had the Commander-in-Chief, they ran the show - and they lost. France then signed an armistice rather than fight on from their North African Empire. In defeat the British were blamed by the French for all that went wrong - that's all too predictable - and the British blamed the French - and they both blamed the Belgians [:D] - but it doesn't make that criticism justified, at least not all of it.

But the British spilled blood helping to liberate France in WWII (my uncle was one of those) - just as she spilt blood helping to protect France in WWI so if you still have a problem with Britain and the British because of things that happened in the dim and distant past well.... c'est la vie [:(].

[Yogi the Great]

The Battle of Britain

Another "finest hour" that may get more votes after the movie is out "Dunkirk".

Perhaps odd to think of retreat as a finest hour, on the other hand the old saying Live to fight another Day comes to mind.

England or British Empire if a better description truly has a long, brave and glorious military history.

btw [&:] While there can be too much political correctness in the world, would one of my British forum friends not to overlook Scotland, Wales, Irish or any others tell me what is the best and accepted way to refer to the Britain today. At times in history you have been at war with each other but so have we here in the States and many other countries have as well.

[warspite1]

The UK is correct (unless talking about the individual countries / province specifically) but Britain, while not technically correct, is commonly used. Surprising how many still refer to the UK as England though....

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The UK is correct (unless talking about the individual countries / province specifically) but Britain, while not technically correct, is commonly used. Surprising how many still refer to the UK as England though....

What exactly is England? Is Wales part of England? I know Scotland and NI aren't. How about the Isle of Man?
UK, Britain, and England are used interchangeably over here.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The UK is correct (unless talking about the individual countries / province specifically) but Britain, while not technically correct, is commonly used. Surprising how many still refer to the UK as England though....

What exactly is England? Is Wales part of England? I know Scotland and NI aren't. How about the Isle of Man?
UK, Britain, and England are used interchangeably over here.

warspite1

The United Kingdom is made up of two (formerly three) Kingdoms: England, Scotland (1707) and (Ireland (1801)) and Wales, which is also a country in her own right but is a principality (not a kingdom), having been invaded (by the English) much earlier in her history. Since the split, Northern Ireland is now a province (while the southern portion is a separate country). Northern Ireland and Scotland have their own laws but Welsh law is the same as English. Laws of England & Wales, again reflecting the assimilation of Wales in the 14th(?) century. So if you refer to this country you should refer to the UK (or Britain - although Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland). You should only refer to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland if you are specifically referencing those countries.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The UK is correct (unless talking about the individual countries / province specifically) but Britain, while not technically correct, is commonly used. Surprising how many still refer to the UK as England though....

What exactly is England? Is Wales part of England? I know Scotland and NI aren't. How about the Isle of Man?
UK, Britain, and England are used interchangeably over here.

warspite1

The United Kingdom is made up of two (formerly three) Kingdoms: England, Scotland (1707) and (Ireland (1801)) and Wales, which is also a country in her own right but is a principality (not a kingdom), having been invaded (by the English) much earlier in her history. Since the split, Northern Ireland is now a province (while the southern portion is a separate country). Northern Ireland and Scotland have their own laws but Welsh law is the same as English. Laws of England & Wales, again reflecting the assimilation of Wales in the 14th(?) century. So if you refer to this country you should refer to the UK (or Britain - although Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland). You should only refer to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland if you are specifically referencing those countries.

So Charles will be King of Britain, England, and Scotland, but only Prince of Wales? I thought he already had that title.
What of Man and the Channel Islands?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

..
btw [&:] While there can be too much political correctness in the world, would one of my British forum friends not to overlook Scotland, Wales, Irish or any others tell me what is the best and accepted way to refer to the Britain today. At times in history you have been at war with each other but so have we here in the States and many other countries have as well.

Well to dig out my old civil service style guide. Great Britain technically refers to England, Scotland and Wales. The UK is then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In practice GB and UK are interchangeable. As Warspite says, England and Wales share a legal system, but Scotland retained its own (and its own church). Scots Law has far more akin to European law than the common law basis of English law.

The Isle of Man has its own constitution and legislature and legal system. It adopts aspects of UK wide law (eg around pensions and national insurance) and works within the UK in international bodies. The Channel Islands are even more complex in their relations to the UK but are best seen as essentially separate entities that opt in for some things and again are represented by the UK in international affairs.

[ezzler]

The Channel islands are essentially a British protectorate. They use the UK postal service. Are defended by UK forces. But have their own taxes and their own currency which is not legal tender in the UK. Though UK currency is in the channel islands. Isle of man is similar. Neither the IOM or CI are in the European Union. Though the UK is at present.
Buying a house in Scotland is a completely different process than in the UK and different laws apply. England and Wales share the same education system. The Scots have their own. And Northern Ireland has education/segregation laws that would be illegal on the mainland.

Higher education tuition fees differ significantly in the UK. English students can pay up to £9,000 a term. In Northern Ireland the cap is a maximum of £3,800. Wales is also £9,000 but a grant of up to £5,190 can be applied for, not available in England. In Scotland there are no tuition fees so higher education is free. Except, bizarrely to English students who must pay.

The UK does not even have one ruling government. The election winning government does have all the power. It controls the cash, It sets the taxes. It declares the wars. But the devolved institutions have limited power too. And limited responsibilities for managing them. At present Scotland has a ruling party that is almost wholly opposed to its own ruling government in London.

At the UEFA championships England, Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales compete separately. In the UK football in Scotland is totally separate to Football in England. Wales is part of England's football leagues. Welsh teams Cardiff and Swansea play in the Premier League. Scots teams Glasgow and Celtic were refused access and remain in the Scottish league.N.I football is nothing to do with England or Scotland.

The UKs athletes compete in the Olympics as the UK, under Team GB.
{the term Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland. But N.I. are in Team GB..hope you following all this,}
There is no England cricket team, It is the England and Wales team. Scotland and N.I. have their own teams. In Rugby each national team competes separately.

And there is tons and tons more.

back in the empire days the Commonwealth did as the UK desired. In WW2 the UK was grateful the Commonwealth came to our aid. India had no choice.

Today, I've never met anyone who thinks any of the former dominions should still be a part of the UK and following UK rules and paying UK taxes.

Its why we don't fit in the EU. {though to complicate this further, Scotland did vote to remain.} We as a nation of four plus all the odd bits we still have scattered about the globe, don't view any of this shambolic way to run to a nation as a problem.

Most people in the UK don't even know there are differences. And if they do, they don't care. The EU one rule for all and for every tiny thing, no exceptions, is just bureaucratic nonsense to us.

We much prefer to just make it up as we go along.
Have done for centuries.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch



What exactly is England? Is Wales part of England? I know Scotland and NI aren't. How about the Isle of Man?
UK, Britain, and England are used interchangeably over here.

warspite1

The United Kingdom is made up of two (formerly three) Kingdoms: England, Scotland (1707) and (Ireland (1801)) and Wales, which is also a country in her own right but is a principality (not a kingdom), having been invaded (by the English) much earlier in her history. Since the split, Northern Ireland is now a province (while the southern portion is a separate country). Northern Ireland and Scotland have their own laws but Welsh law is the same as English. Laws of England & Wales, again reflecting the assimilation of Wales in the 14th(?) century. So if you refer to this country you should refer to the UK (or Britain - although Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland). You should only refer to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland if you are specifically referencing those countries.

So Charles will be King of Britain, England, and Scotland, but only Prince of Wales? I thought he already had that title.
What of Man and the Channel Islands?

warspite1

No - the Prince of Wales is a title bestowed upon the heir apparent. So Charles is currently the Prince of Wales, but he will one day be King of the whole of the UK and the crown dependencies such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Charles will also (unless things change) be head of state of many former dominions and colonies, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and many of the Caribbean islands.