Hostility between British and American military leaders revealed
- Thread starter Namreg
- Start date
JayJohn85
Banned
All noise means nothing. Sure didnt both have "disagreements" during Iraq as well. Though if I was honest I would hope Britain would strengthen its ties with Europe, Yep I am a self confessed EU superstate fan. No offense to my American cousins
But Europe has become complacent and stagnant relying on America for defense. I mean I am of the opinion your arent the worlds sole super power due to technological, economical and miltary might alone but by the laxity and contentment of the rest of the west to rely on America. Then when America does something they dont like its all boo hoo. And then theres that whole ally thing I aint gonna get into the legitimacy of both wars cause when your allies you gotta get your allies back just like the brits have done. Plus the hornets nest has been stirred and your in there now so the shit has hit the fan all the legitimacy and debates all fine and dandy for when you wanna write the history books but praticality is now the issue.
Britain has to realise that American and European interests will not always coincide and that Britain is in "Europe" and I dont mean treaties or organizations I mean quite literally in the geographical sense. America needs a friendly competitor in order to put things into perspective, Power corrupts and its also is a heavy burden. Hell isnt it better it was european than Chinese No offense to the Chinese. I say this due to deficits and all sorts of bull trade stuff I dont entirely understand except that you seemed to end up owing China a shit load of mulla.
But Europe has become complacent and stagnant relying on America for defense. I mean I am of the opinion your arent the worlds sole super power due to technological, economical and miltary might alone but by the laxity and contentment of the rest of the west to rely on America. Then when America does something they dont like its all boo hoo. And then theres that whole ally thing I aint gonna get into the legitimacy of both wars cause when your allies you gotta get your allies back just like the brits have done. Plus the hornets nest has been stirred and your in there now so the shit has hit the fan all the legitimacy and debates all fine and dandy for when you wanna write the history books but praticality is now the issue.Britain has to realise that American and European interests will not always coincide and that Britain is in "Europe" and I dont mean treaties or organizations I mean quite literally in the geographical sense. America needs a friendly competitor in order to put things into perspective, Power corrupts and its also is a heavy burden. Hell isnt it better it was european than Chinese
No offense to the Chinese. I say this due to deficits and all sorts of bull trade stuff I dont entirely understand except that you seemed to end up owing China a shit load of mulla.
No surprise really. How many Brits have been killed US "friendly" fire? Far too gun hoe :yesyes:
Wainkerr99
Closed Account
Hopefully some day soon we will find out why we need to defend ourselves against each other in the first place. Of all the utterly childish, completely unnecessary, totally pathetic things to have to live with every day.
Big deal. Patton and Montgomery didn't get along during WWII, either.
I'm afraid the U.S. is going to need Britain to completely pull out of these occupations before the U.S. wakes up and leaves the middle east....
My advice to the people of Great Britain---when the U.S. phone lights up at 10 Downing Street next time...pull out the cord from the socket. :crying:
My advice to the people of Great Britain---when the U.S. phone lights up at 10 Downing Street next time...pull out the cord from the socket. :crying:
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
But, on the other hand, Churchill and Roosevelt did...
:bowdown:
True though Churchill overestimated his influence.
Nobody got on with Montgomery! He was cautious having learned his trade in the trenches in WW1 and feared large casualties.Patton never understood this.
But the choice of Eisenhower (not a senior officer at the time) to be Supreme Commander was inspired.
I wouldn't bother to pull the cable out which would cut the call off. That would cause too much exercise if you ask me. I'd just give the phone both barrels from the shotgun I had!.
"Bloody Yanks!. I thought they were the good guys?!" - Gaz aka Ghost from Modern Warfare.
This is true. They in fact hated each other.
They had had different experiences , Montgomery had been through WW1 as I mentioned earlier-in fact he was severely wounded.He was cautious and liked to wait until he had a strong local superiority over the enemy before moving. He was aware that his reserves were slender too , both these factors made him unwilling to expose his army to any unnecessary casualties.Patton saw this as evidence of something else.
As for Afghanistan , again the American situation is different from the British. The British Army has vast experience of counter insurgency work and maintaining situations with very small forces.India with 400 million people was successfully policed by just a few thousand troops for 150 years.There will necessarily be a difference of approach between the two.
Lust
Lost at Birth
while i like monty in certain situations i have to point out that he was the architect for Market Garden and strong armed every person he could in getting it a green light. it was a very aggressive, non conservative plan that failed miserably and resulted in many casualties and pow's. he wasnt quite the conservative thinker in this situation.
also, i think more than anything the reason monty and patton didnt get along was because they both had huge egos. it just didnt blend well at all.
as far as the namreg's original post, i'll admit that the behaivor makes me mad. out of all our major allies america has, the brits join us every time and stand toe to toe with us. with the iraq invasion the brits proved once again to be the good friend america needs it to be even though more than a few had reservations as to how wise it was for us to do the pre-emptive strike. they still acted as an ally and a friend, like they always have., so if we treat them bad on the battlefield what does it say about our own ego?
not trying to be a british cheerleader here, just stating that as americans i think we should show a bit more gratitude to our allies across the pond. the argument that we helped them in WW2 can only go so far, I think the brits have more than shown thier appreciation for that. we could learn a thing or two from that.
yep, i'm american, damn proud of my past relatives and thier fights for her, both on american streets and foriegn streets. but i'm also big enough to show some respect for a friend that stands by my side. :glugglug: cheers you wankers!
jasonk282
Banned
Cheers to the Brits, I have served with a good many in Iraq.
Monty was the planner for market Garden that went well
Patton was balls to the wall all the time, guess who Ike called when shit went bad in the Bulge. Yep Patton. Monty might have been a great planner and over analytical, but patton got shit done.
Monty was the planner for market Garden that went well
Patton was balls to the wall all the time, guess who Ike called when shit went bad in the Bulge. Yep Patton. Monty might have been a great planner and over analytical, but patton got shit done.
Mayhem
Banned
Market Garden was a disaster that killed a lot of Brits and Americans who would have been better off staying alive to fight for their (respective) countries in operations far better planned than the disasterous Operation Market Garden which, by the way, was a disaster.
jasonk282
Banned
I KNOW, it was SCARCISM.
Actually it was Montgomery who was given overall command of both British and US forces in this theatre.
It is simple: anytime you have two different military commanders, regardless of nation (Hell, it often happens WITHIN the same nation), there was be a battle of egos.
Similar threads
