the English, the English, the English are best.

[davywavy]

We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers
Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot
You'll find he's a stinker as likely as not

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

The Scotsman is mean as we're all well aware
He's boney and blotchy and covered with hair
He eats salty porridge, he works all the day
And hasn't got bishops to show him the way

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

The Irishman now our contempt is beneath
He sleeps in his boots and he lies through his teeth
He blows up policemen or so I have heard
And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third

The English are moral the English are good
And clever and modest and misunderstood

The Welshman's dishonest, he cheats when he can
He's little and dark more like monkey than man
He works underground with a lamp on his hat
And sings far too loud, far too often and flat

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

And crossing the channel one cannot say much
For the French or the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch
The Germans are German, the Russians are red
And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed

The English are noble, the English are nice
And worth any other at double the price

And all the world over each nation's the same
They've simply no notion of playing the game
They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won
And they practice before hand which spoils all the fun

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad
It's just that they're foreign that makes them so mad
The English are all that a nation should be
And the pride of the English are ukmonty and me

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest



Following the debate over on ksirafai, I decided to whip up a quick poll on the greatest of all Human Inventions, the British Empire. Basically, I'm curious to know which year you think the Empire was at it's peak.

[Poll #556800]

Comments

Re: Their Finest Hour

[(Anonymous)]

"But hey... how about some Lend/Lease love for the States? :)"

If the USW treasury hadn't insisted upon an end to imperial preference as part of lend lease, sure.

You may also note the US joined in properly after the 3rd Reich kicked off on Russia. This saving europe from becoming a soviet hegemony. Help very welcome & all that, but I know self interest when I see it. Bankrupting the British Empire, (Churchill walked straight into that one, duh) and stopping europe going red wasn't done entirely out of a spirit of philanthropy.

Whilst on paper the British may owe a great debt also to the Soviets, I wonder if they'd have stopped at Berlin if they hadn't met Uncle Sam coming the other way? My guess is no, comrades.

In fairness...

[applez.livejournal.com]

The US was in no shape to interdict anyone militarily until 1942-43, and then with enormous risk. Sure we had some successful Marines who pissed-off the Japanese in the Pacific, and managed the Doolittle Raid, but taking on the Third Reich? It was an effort just to get enough landing craft for the D-Day landing when it happened.

Britain, for better or worse, enjoyed 2-3 solid years to rebuild it's army, even with the waste of Dunkirk. Nevermind a mostly-ready professional global navy, and a high quality, if smallish air force.

---

As for the Soviets, it's a very serious question as to whether they would have been able to successfully take Berlin if it wasn't for American assistance in trucks, fuel, tyres, boots, coats, and food. Perhaps even more controversially, would the Soviet airforce have been able to field as many modern fighters without American aluminium? Would the Luftwaffe's back been broken over Soviet skies without that help?

Re: In fairness...

[(Anonymous)]

"As for the Soviets, it's a very serious question as to whether they would have been able to successfully take Berlin if it wasn't for American assistance in trucks, fuel, tyres, boots, coats, and food. Perhaps even more controversially, would the Soviet airforce have been able to field as many modern fighters without American aluminium? Would the Luftwaffe's back been broken over Soviet skies without that help?"

Without the Eastern front, Germany would... well, who knows? Never leave an active enemy at your back, which has always made me wonder, why did the Third Reich attack the Soviet Union without crushing Britain, leaving a second front 'to rear' unless it believed Britain would make peace? They attacked the Soviets 2 weeks after Rudolf Hess flew to the nearest airstrip to the house where Winston Churchill was secretly spending the weekend and the conspiracy theorist in me must wonder why they just reclassified the pertaining documents for another 100 years..

Was it Britains finest hour, or did we throw away a mostly benign empire allowing the third world to become a fiefdom of amoral big business through 'independance'?
Was Churhill so dumb as to not read the small print in Lease/Lend where it said 'you can't protect imperial trade through tariffs any more' - or was his pro imperial stance just what the masses wanted to hear?

No, the greatest triumph of the British Empire was taking cricket to the colonies and bringing curry home.

Re: In fairness...

[applez.livejournal.com]

No, the greatest triumph of the British Empire was taking cricket to the colonies and bringing curry home.

Ooo...now that's something I think everyone can get behind. :-)

Re: In fairness...

[(Anonymous)]

Apart from now of course they keep beating us.

Re: In fairness...

[applez.livejournal.com]

Par for the course ... whoops, wrong game! ;-)

---

Incidentally, am gravely missing the excellent curries one could have in walking distance from most anywhere in the UK - this is a serious shortcoming for the Bay Area.

Re: In fairness...

[(Anonymous)]

If you find one let me know, I'm over for a few days in a fortnight or so.

Re: In fairness...

[applez.livejournal.com]

There are plenty of curry places, none of them terribly good (compared with the UK's offering). Tell me what part of the Bay Area you'll be in, and I can generate some suggestions.

Re: In fairness...

[(Anonymous)]

It says 'Imperial Avenue' on the address (coincidentally enought!)

Re: In fairness...

[applez.livejournal.com]

You're not exactly in the epicentre of Indian food for San Francisco, I'm afraid. The closest that I've eaten at was Star India on Geary.

Otherwise, I would highly recommend The Matterhorn for fondue very near your location on Van Ness.

Resources: http://www.thingsindian.com/restrtoz.htm#SanFrancisco

Would otherwise recommend trying your luck on Valencia or Haight or in SOMA, especially on Folsom near downtown...there are at least 3 Indian restaurants I know of along that way, and one of them isn't bad.

Most hotels will direct you to Gaylord: it is tasteless and overpriced, so don't listen to them if they recommend it.

Generally speaking, far better curry in the East Bay, including just about any of the all-you-can-eat places on Shattuck in Berkeley, accessible via BART...which you'd have to catch the Van Ness bus down to Market to get aboard.

Re: In fairness...

[(Anonymous)]

tar

Another resource

[applez.livejournal.com]

A collegue at work has compiled a list of mostly-good cafes and restaurants here:

http://www.infinex.com/~scottgra/JAS/bacafes.html

He's not tried them all, but I've tried a goodly number of them and can give you thumbs up/down on any you may identify from it.

Re: In fairness...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Hitler knew England did not have the military power to stage a successful invasion of Europe but knew Stalin did, and feared an attack to his rear if he committed himself to an invasion of England. Thus, safe in the knowldge that Churchill couldn't come into his rear, he decided to deliver a knockout blow to the Russians and secure his Eastern Border.
And the rest is history.

Re: In fairness...

[(Anonymous)]

North Africa?

Re: In fairness...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, if he'd considered that a threat of invasion into Europe why would he have considered coming across the channel before it was settled?

Afrikacorps

[applez.livejournal.com]

From the German perspective, I imagine the North African campaign served several critical functions in one:

- Bolstered the Italian military, helping increase its prestige, as well as consolidating its 30s successes in Somaliland and Ethiopia to counter British interests in the region.

- Helped delineate the failure of the French in 1940, and quell Free French sentiment in the colonies...bolstering Vichy authority.

- Entangle British forces in Egypt, weakening the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean (potentially; perhaps enough to help with sabotauge efforts against Gibralter). Whatever Rommel's ambitions, I don't think Hitler saw the North African campaign as anything more than a strategic forward defence of Europe, especially his friend Mussolini and their combined ambitions in South Eastern Europe before moving on to Russia.

Interestingly, after the disaster of Singapore and the rapid withdrawl from Burma, it probably didn't look like it would cost much in initial investment to keep the British occupied in North Africa - reinforced by the successful conquest of Tobruk and its supply depots.

(Honestly, up until 1942, Britain was doing a fine job of supplying the Axis in nearly every theatre of war).

Re: Afrikacorps

[(Anonymous)]

It seems the logical conclusion of your arguments is that the war was lost, not won. One can't really call 'sitting round waiting for a monotesticular maniac to drop the ball' a strategy.

Re: Afrikacorps

[applez.livejournal.com]

What do you have against Lance? ;-)