|
Veins McGee posted:Regarding Battle of Khafji: Thanks, that piece cleared up a lot of questions I had. Except for some memoirs, there isn't a lot of history available about LAR. No problem. It might be worth giving History Division a call or coming in yourself if you can, since it is basically a service for the Corps and the public to use. It's just down in the old SNCO school near the Gray Research Center in Quantico. As for LAR/LAI, if you're interested in the history you must have heard of Eddie Ray, a man for whom I have tons and tons of respect. I conducted a brief, impromptu interview with him, and he is one of the nicest, most humble men I have ever had the pleasure of speaking with. A more formal interview will be coming out in the oral history anthology. The interview is public domain, of course, so you can just look it up by coming in to HD or giving them a ring or e-mail, but the anthology should be out soon enough, summer or autumn, and it is edited for clarity and content so it will be easier to read. Plus, it's free.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:23 |
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:No problem. It might be worth giving History Division a call or coming in yourself if you can, since it is basically a service for the Corps and the public to use. It's just down in the old SNCO school near the Gray Research Center in Quantico. I've never met Col. Ray but my dad knows him or knows of him and doesn't think too highly of him. I didn't press the issue and he didn't elaborate so it could be any number of things. Probably the most interesting part of the chapter were the portions covering the Iraqi's point of view. Edit: How did you get an internship with them anyways?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Edit: How did you get an internship with them anyways? Applied for it. http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/General/Grants_Internships_Grants.htm#Internships
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 12:24
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:Are there any good non-biased books about the Sino-Vietnamese war and or PAVN's incurson in to Cambodia/Kampuchea. I know nothing about either topic but this kind of request (and there have been a lot in the thread) seems kinda silly. I've always had it drilled into me that there's no such thing as an unbiased historian, and the best you can do is to understand what argument he's trying to make and why he's making it. I mean, I'd hope to be wrong, but bias is just a necessary part of writing any sort of historical prose; cut out the "bias" and you just end up with raw numerical data.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:I know nothing about either topic but this kind of request (and there have been a lot in the thread) seems kinda silly. I've always had it drilled into me that there's no such thing as an unbiased historian, and the best you can do is to understand what argument he's trying to make and why he's making it. I mean, I'd hope to be wrong, but bias is just a necessary part of writing any sort of historical prose; cut out the "bias" and you just end up with raw numerical data. I've tried to research the conflict online but most of it ends up with HURR DURR PLA STRONG111!!!!!111!!!! websites run by ultra nationalist han chinese.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:I've tried to research the conflict online but most of it ends up with HURR DURR PLA STRONG111!!!!!111!!!! websites run by ultra nationalist han chinese. I poked around on my university library search engine and I found a few books, basically all of which are small-market academic texts. They're unlikely to be found at a public library, and purchasing one will run you $150+. The exception is this book which if you have a kindle can be got for $30. Alternatively a lot of public libraries are part of Interlibrary Loan (ILL) and you might be able to borrow a copy that way--basically you ask for a book and your librarian finds and borrows it from another library for you (in this case almost certainly a university library). By the way, WorldCat is a great resource for finding library books, you can put in your ZIP code and search for a book and the engine will tell you the nearest library that has it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Watched a cool documentary today about Ireland in WWII
Also, me and some of my history buddies were chatting today and one said he read somewhere that Poland was asked by Germany to ally with them and fight against the French, British, and USSR. I find this hard to believe since the only reason why Hitler invaded Poland was his personal hate of the Slavic people. And of course wanting to control Europe. Also to clear up a common misconception Romania was NOT occupied and/or* invaded by Germany it allied with them. The only reason why German SS troops were there was to help the Iron Gaurd with the Romanian Final Solution. I know alot about WWII so ask away!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
The Downfall posted:Watched a cool documentary today about Ireland in WWII While an attempted invasion of Ireland probably would've be only been marginally more successful than an invasion of Britain itself, it would've made for an interesting staging area for Sealion. If the Germans could've been quick about it they might've been able to catch quite a few British units still in transit from the Channel coast. In The Origins of the Second World War A.J.P Taylor writes that the Germans were open to a limited alliance with Poland tacitly against the USSR in 1938 and the first half of 1939. Even right up to the end of August Hitler was open to a non-aggression pact with Poland in exchange for German control over Danzig's economy and shipping lanes but the Poles told him to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
The Downfall posted:
Poland joined Germany in their invasion and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_.281938.E2.80.931939.29 The German conquest of region sort of glosses over the fact that the new nations of Eastern Europe weren't exactly best buds with each other prior to the war, and had lots of little territorial disputes left over from the Versailles treaty, something that Hitler milked to the hilt. So it was pretty awkward for everyone. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jun 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 18:52
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I poked around on my university library search engine and I found a few books, basically all of which are small-market academic texts. They're unlikely to be found at a public library, and purchasing one will run you $150+. The exception is this book which if you have a kindle can be got for $30. Alternatively a lot of public libraries are part of Interlibrary Loan (ILL) and you might be able to borrow a copy that way--basically you ask for a book and your librarian finds and borrows it from another library for you (in this case almost certainly a university library). By the way, WorldCat is a great resource for finding library books, you can put in your ZIP code and search for a book and the engine will tell you the nearest library that has it. I dont live in the US but I'm thinking of picking up a kindle when version 4 comes out (possibly this summer) thanks for link. This is more a general history question but I'm a very facinated by the Sino-Soviet split (border skirmishes) and Lin Biao's alleged coup attempt. Any good books or documentaries about this and when will CNN release the 26 episode Cold War documentary they made in the 90s
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
MakaVillian posted:While an attempted invasion of Ireland probably would've be only been marginally more successful than an invasion of Britain itself, it would've made for an interesting staging area for Sealion. If the Germans could've been quick about it they might've been able to catch quite a few British units still in transit from the Channel coast. Hitler didn't want to make it an invasion though. He considered the Irish members of the Aryan Race. As he considered the Romanians, Japanese, Italians etc... The Wehrmacht High Command did however want to invade Ireland and occupy it since they thought it was too much of a sock puppet to England. I have one remaining relative that fought for Germany in WWII my Grandfather fought for the Waffen SS in the invasion of Poland and then was transferred to the Police division. The one currently alive (97 years old) my great uncle served in(which he doesn't take much pride in) Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD. He was an officer (Hauptsturmfuhrer) he was in the occupation of Poland and the mass killings in occupied Russia. I speak with him on a near daily basis so if you have any questions let me know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Earlier in the thread someone suggested that tanks are obsolete. I thought this was a provocative statement so I put it to my friend who is in the Canadian Infantry and who got back from Afghanistan several months ago. Here is what he had to say when I asked whether he agreed or disagreed with the statement:Canadian infantry guy posted:Definitely somewhere in the middle. So, tank nerds, what should I respond with that will blow him away or at least make me sound like I actually know what I am talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
The Downfall posted:Watched a cool documentary today about Ireland in WWII Thats not entirely true. While there was a baseline of vague anti-British sentiment among the Irish population at the time (owing chiefly to the War of Independance and British occupation only ending 18 years previously) this was limited mostly to the public enjoying a vague sense of schadenfreude in anyone going to war with 'the Brits'. On a governmental level Ireland was quite pro-Allied. For a few examples: - When Belfast was bombed by the Luftwaffe fire engines from the Republic were sent North to help fight the fires. - Allied airmen who bailed out over Irish territory were repatriated to the U.K. Axis airmen in contrast were interned for the duration of the war. - Weather reports and any intelligence gathered relating to naval movements off the Irish coast were shared with Allied intelligence - Approx 40,000 Irish men served in the British armed forces during the war The only people in Ireland who would have been in favour of joining the Axis were hardline Republican elements who were still refusing to accept the political status quo of a 26 county Ireland. Though the Irish government did send an official message of condolence to Germany upon hearing of Hitlers death in 1945, much to the ire of Churchill in particular and the Allies in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
coolatronic posted:So, tank nerds, what should I respond with that will blow him away or at least make me sound like I actually know what I am talking about. Within the limited terms of what he's talking about he's entirely correct. As weapons systems MBTs are highly optimized to deliver "mobility, fire power and shock action" in conventional warfare. Some have argued that the proliferation of effective anti-tank weapons on the battlefield have made the tank obsolete even in theoretical conventional operations. UAVs equipped with hellfire missiles, attack helicopters, ground-attack aircraft, ATGMs mounted on vehicles and carried by infantry, individual and/or disposable unguided anti-tank rockets for close-range work, etc. There's a lot of stuff on the modern battlefield that can destroy a tank. But I'm not convinced that MBTs are therefore obsolete. Nothing else can really do the job that they do, and they are still survivable in the context of support from other combat arms. They need infantry and light vehicles to screen for them, SPAA and CAP to protect them from aerial threats, and in return the MBT is hand in glove with the other elements--protecting them from enemy tanks, basically. So I think saying they're obsolete is an exaggeration. It's more that they have declined from being the most dominant arm of ground combat, as they were during the Cold War, to needing much closer integration with the rest of the force to survive. Note that this applies to conventional operations. Nothing really does the job of an MBT except an MBT, but it's not always a job that wants doing. In urban areas, mountains, close terrain, and asymmetric warfare, the advantages of the MBT are largely nullified (which is of course the point of asymmetric warfare to begin with). They're still useful, but typically as no more than fire support which, as came up earlier in thread, can usually be done about as well and more cheaply by other vehicles. For example, the Russians developed the BMP-3, a variant which mounts a low-pressure 100mm gun for HE shells and ATGMs, for this purpose. The Stryker MGS is another case. This said, now that the clash of conventional armies appears to be a thing of the past for most of the world, the usefulness of MBTs has become debatable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
Blut posted:Though the Irish government did send an official message of condolence to Germany upon hearing of Hitlers death in 1945, much to the ire of Churchill in particular and the Allies in general. Churchill then spent an inordinate amount of time in his address on V-E Day being a dick and talking about how Ireland were ungrateful and hadn't contributed at all to the war effort and even 'frolicked with Germany and Japan.' De Valera replied with a masterstroke comparing Britain standing alone against the Germans for a few years to Ireland standing against British spoliation for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Blut posted:- Allied airmen who bailed out over Irish territory were repatriated to the U.K. Axis airmen in contrast were interned for the duration of the war. I beg to differ on this I talked with a Luftwaffe Veteran along time ago at Militaria Expo who was shot down in Irish naval territory he said they sent him right back to Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
The Downfall posted:I beg to differ on this I talked with a Luftwaffe Veteran along time ago at Militaria Expo who was shot down in Irish naval territory he said they sent him right back to Germany. If that was true it was an anomaly, Irish governmental policy was to intern all Axis airmen and there were internment camps full of them that attested to the enforcement of this policy. As painful as it is to link to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II#The_Cranborne_report provides a good summary of Irish pro-Allied actions during World War II.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
Blut posted:Thats not entirely true. While there was a baseline of vague anti-British sentiment among the Irish population at the time (owing chiefly to the War of Independance and British occupation only ending 18 years previously) this was limited mostly to the public enjoying a vague sense of schadenfreude in anyone going to war with 'the Brits'. On a governmental level Ireland was quite pro-Allied. While there was some limited intelligence cooperation between the Irish and British army, De Valera was not immune from playing both sides to his advantage, for example in early 1941 when he claimed that Ireland was being blockaded by both sides. This caused particular irritation to the British but especially the Americans, who replied with a formal note pointing out that Irish imports, almost exclusively carried on British ships or neutral ships convoyed and escorted by the Royal Navy, had actually increased during the period in question. Allied (largely American) impatience with De Valera and Irish neutrality as a whole mounted during the war to the point that the German embassy radio was impounded and the embassy raised at the behest of the Allies at the end of the war. This was despite the growing accomodation between De Valera's governmental policies and Allied interests which included the release of interned aircraft and airmen, limited over-flight rights to Allied ASW aircraft and further intelligence cooperation. In fact this limited pro-Allied movement took place when the tide of the war was manifestly turning against the Nazis. The "pro-allied neutrality" line is customarily used to accrue some moral credit to a neutrality which did hinder the prosecution of the Uboat war in particular and the war against the fascists in general. Hiridion fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jun 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 13:09
|
|
|
coolatronic posted:So, tank nerds, what should I respond with that will blow him away or at least make me sound like I actually know what I am talking about. The Merkava isn't considered a lovely tank, lots of discussion centers around whether or not its the 'best'. Oh and this is a tank which actually does carry, or at least is able to carry some dismounts. Just nitpicking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
Koesj posted:The Merkava isn't considered a lovely tank, lots of discussion centers around whether or not its the 'best'. Oh and this is a tank which actually does carry, or at least is able to carry some dismounts. In fact - it performed admirably in 2006. The tank crews and tactics were the problem. The Merkava's forward engine and rear facing exit saved the lives of a lot of tankers who would have been killed had they been riding other tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Churchill then spent an inordinate amount of time in his address on V-E Day being a dick and talking about how Ireland were ungrateful and hadn't contributed at all to the war effort and even 'frolicked with Germany and Japan.' There was also DeValera's economic war against Britain launched in the 30's on the grounds that since most of Ireland's exports went to Britain they could withhold them until the British renegotiated over the 6 counties. It was not a great success. I remember my grandmother telling me about some American generals crashing just outside the town not long before D-Day, they were smuggled up to the North and sent to Belfast. I think the anti-British sentiment was somewhat more widespread but DeValera himself had done a lot to soften that in the general population purely through being a big enough dick about Britain (that is pursuing policies that negatively impacted people's lives for the sake of spiting the British). I'd say that the government had a higher level of Republican sentiment than the population at large. Especially after the US joined the Allied side I don't think there was any realistic likelihood of Ireland throwing its lot in with the Axis, even if DeValera wanted to continue being a dick about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
What are some goods books related to past and present military engineering?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
Anyone got some accessible books on the falklands war to reccomend? ones with Kindle editions would be great
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
Jiriam posted:Anyone got some accessible books on the falklands war to reccomend? ones with Kindle editions would be great Sandy Woodward and Sharkey Ward both wrote pretty good memoirs (I'd recommend reading both, but Woodward before Ward), although neither is available on the Kindle sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Kind of interested in this since I don't know much about tanks - is M1 Abrams considered to be the best tank currently in service right now? Dunno about tanks, but a WWII Stuka would still pancake it with the 250kg bomb in its standard layout. Indeed a 50kg bomb would probably do the trick. For what it's worth, early in WWII the Germans with their early Panzer IIs and IIIs facing Soviet KV-1 heavy tanks were put in a very similar situation. In one particular battle just 2 KV-1s killed 43 German tanks and lived to tell the tale, despite sustaining 135 hits in return.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 13:40
|
|
|
Panzer IIs could barely pierce T-34s with their lovely autocannons. They were pretty much relegated to anti partisan duties or converted into tank destroyers, engineering tanks or munitions carriers. Even Panzer IVs were ineffective against KVs until they got the long 7.5cm guns. The tactics when dealing with a KV involved shooting at the barrel of the gun, hoping to take it out, or taking out the tracks and waiting for 8.8cm gun support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
I just finished reading all of this thread. All of it. Jesus christ for a topic about "Military History" you all loving sperge about WWII. You've got thousands of years and hundreds of places and you all talk about WWII in europe. Tell me about famous African battles or wars, preferably ones that don't involve colonial powers. Surely there must be interesting history that doesn't involve europe, europeans, or european wars. Volmarias fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Aug 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I just finished reading all of this thread. Let me tell you a bit about the relative efficacy of obscure types of weaponry used during the Nazi occupation of France. French people were in Africa!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 03:50
|
|
Volmarias posted:I just finished reading all of this thread. WWII is an interesting topic to many and is easily research. Pretty much every nation involved kept excellent records, it was one of the first wars to be caught on film, numerous journals/diaries exist and the war itself is hugely significant. WWII polished the lessons learned in WWI and proved to be the genesis of modern thought and theory on warfare. Not only that, but war really set up the subsequent 40 years. Whereas, it's kind of hard to know anything about African history prior to large-scale colonization since most African languages didn't involve a written component. They largely relied on oral history which has very obvious limitations and is of little use without other pieces of evidence to corroborate(Think about trying to write Greek history based on the Oddysey). We simply do not know enough about African history(as distinct from anthropology) to be able to say much. Besides that, the Venn Diagram of historians who are interested in military history and historians who are interested in African history would have very little overlap. It's hard to sperg about the relative efficacy of spears and hide shields.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I just finished reading all of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
Well, speaking of non-European, non-WWII battles... I've been playing a godawful amount of Empire: Total War lately, and have found the Indian factions to really hold their own against the colonialist crusader aggressors - unlike their poor north-American namesakes, who get curb-stomped unless they outnumber the enemy like 10-1. Now, I know video games are hardly a true reflection of reality, but does anyone know how well the Indians fared against European powers in open battle? They had cannons and firearms after all, not to mention huge amounts of manpower. E: Graviton v2 posted:...the 2nd reich... Dude, Third Reich. Holy German-Roman Empire, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany. Mr. Sunshine fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Aug 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Well, speaking of non-European, non-WWII battles... I've been playing a godawful amount of Empire: Total War lately, and have found the Indian factions to really hold their own against the colonialist crusader aggressors - unlike their poor north-American namesakes, who get curb-stomped unless they outnumber the enemy like 10-1. Often not well. The serious but brief answer is that they only fought to gobble up politically weak Indian nations and with the use of predominantly sepoy armies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:WWII is an interesting topic to many and is easily research. Pretty much every nation involved kept excellent records, it was one of the first wars to be caught on film, numerous journals/diaries exist and the war itself is hugely significant. WWII polished the lessons learned in WWI and proved to be the genesis of modern thought and theory on warfare. Not only that, but war really set up the subsequent 40 years. Yeah, but the thread is "Ask me about Military History" not "Ask me about WWII". There were some pretty fun and interesting discussions at the start of the thread that weren't WWII, and even a nice tangent in the middle about the hundred years war, etc. Then back to panzers in full force, and then basically becoming a full-on TFR "Ask me about the relative efficiency of shell sizes, also which is better M16 or AK47" thread. I'm not trying to threadshit here, but I think it's safe to say that WWII has been done to death. Surely there have been notable military campaigns in Africa after the colonial period; someone posted a nice bit about Chad vs Libya which was a fun read. There are wars ongoing in Africa now, and there have been wars in Africa in the last 60 odd years. If you can't do Africa, I'll take North America (excepting ACW which is pretty interesting but we already covered it quite a bit, maybe Mexican wars or even war between USA and Mexico), South America (Bolivar? I know nothing about Central/South American wars) India/East Asia, heck anything that's not WWII or otherwise done to death here. I just don't want to hear yet another argument about "TIGER VS KV VS SHERMAN VS TIGER: WHO IS THE BESTEST ALSO I AM ROCK HARD RIGHT NOW" Volmarias fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Aug 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
Too bad nobody gives a gently caress about what you want to read. Is it really that hard to skip over the WWII stuff? I mean, I don't care about Panzers and T-34s either, so I just skip over that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
The Downfall posted:The one currently alive (97 years old) my great uncle served in(which he doesn't take much pride in) Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD. He was an officer (Hauptsturmfuhrer) he was in the occupation of Poland and the mass killings in occupied Russia. I speak with him on a near daily basis so if you have any questions let me know. Wait, this Einsatzgruppen? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen Jesus Christ. I guess my questions would be why isn't he in jail, and how can he live with himself? Never mind 'don't take much pride in'!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
Happydogska posted:Too bad nobody gives a gently caress about what you want to read. Is it really that hard to skip over the WWII stuff? I mean, I don't care about Panzers and T-34s either, so I just skip over that. Because then the thread is like 80 posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 16:49
|
|
|
Happydogska posted:Too bad nobody gives a gently caress about what you want to read. Is it really that hard to skip over the WWII stuff? I mean, I don't care about Panzers and T-34s either, so I just skip over that. I think this thread could use much more posts about now antiquated forms of fighting, like cavalry. I heard that castrated horses were preferred in combat, because you wouldn't want your steed to suddenly start charging toward the nearest mare in heat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Dude, Third Reich. Holy German-Roman Empire, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany.  )Learn something new every day, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Graviton v2 posted:Dude it was the biggest rumble ever with practically every nation/empire involved plus the use of nukes. Its pretty drat interesting! Plus it finished off the British Empire, the 2nd reich if you like, and left the world with the USA and the Soviet Union running things. You have an odd definition of 'finished off'. The war furthered the job the First World War had started of bankrupting the Empire, but it stuck around for quite a while afterwards. If you want the real death knell I'd say that was the Suez Crisis in 1957, when Britain and France basically encouraged Israel under the table to invade Egypt (which had just nationalised the British/French-owned Suez Canal), and then stepped in as 'peacekeepers' to secure said canal. Russia threatened to start World War Three in support of Egypt; the US told France and Britain to knock it off and financially blackmailed Britain by threatening to sell off its holdings of Sterling. Britain and France backed down, the canal stayed Egyptian, Britain learned that it pretty much had to suck US dick diplomatically speaking ever since. Even so, the British Empire didn't disappear in a puff of smoke; it has gradually shed its territory throughout the second half of the twentieth century. I was an adult when Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1999 for instance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:You have an odd definition of 'finished off'. The war furthered the job the First World War had started of bankrupting the Empire, but it stuck around for quite a while afterwards. If you want the real death knell I'd say that was the Suez Crisis in 1957, when Britain and France basically encouraged Israel under the table to invade Egypt (which had just nationalised the British/French-owned Suez Canal), and then stepped in as 'peacekeepers' to secure said canal. The UK was in no state to hold on to any of the valuable/volatile parts of the Empire in a long-term fashion by the end of WW2. Same goes for France. Suez just hammered in the point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 20:11
|
|