Home Β» Forum Β» Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

The Most Brutally British Thing I've Ever Read

Marc Nobbs 🚫

I found this on Twitter (X).

A chap named Nate White wrote it in response to the question, "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" and it may be the most viciously British piece of writing I've ever come across. Regardless of your opinions of the subject of this piece, you can't deny the quality of the writing is top drawer.

----

"Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?"

A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump's limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don't say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it's a fact. He doesn't even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn't just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It's all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don't. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He's not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He's more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy' is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

β€’ Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

β€’ You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it's impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: 'My God… what… have… I… created?' If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

-Nate White

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

I found this on Twitter (X)

And you found it on Twitter (X) because the algorithms calculated it was extremely divisive and provocative, and would arouse strong reactions.

AJ

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Pretty much. That's how these apps work.

Nate White is on Quara and has written a lot. https://www.quora.com/profile/Nate-White-44

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

Quara

I don't bother with Quora - it seems to be mostly clickbait - although Google pushes it quite a lot.

AJ

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Most of the internet is click-bait these days.

samt26 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

And you can add, he doesn't like dogs.

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@samt26

If that's true, it's a major failing on the original author to miss it out. Not liking dogs is throughly unBritish.

On a separate note, there's a song on Carly Pearce's new album called 'He don't like my dogs'. It's very good.

mrherewriting 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

Sounds like a guy who hates Trump, but I don't know how this is the most British thing ever written, unless using the words bloody and twat are indicators.

Replies:   Pixy
Pixy 🚫

@mrherewriting

but I don't know how this is the most British thing ever written

Possibly due to the passive-aggressive tone, which is a very English thing to do.

mrherewriting 🚫

@Pixy

I think Marc Nobbs just wanted to post something about Trump.

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@mrherewriting

I think Marc Nobbs just wanted to post something about Trump.

If I'd wanted to post something about Trump, I'd have written something myself - it's not like there isn't plenty to write about.

I just thought it was very well written, in a very 'English' way, and wanted to share it. I'd have shared it even if it had been written about Biden, Carney, Macron or any British politician.

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

very 'English' way

You must watch a lot of Brit Box, or you're a BBC lover, I don't know what makes it so British.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@mrherewriting

I don't know what makes it so British.

Neither do I.

It's full of AI tics, so I expect 'Nate White' hasn't claimed copyright.

AJ

Replies:   Marc Nobbs  Vincent Berg
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@awnlee jawking

It's full of AI tics, so I expect 'Nate White' hasn't claimed copyright.

It was written during Trump's first term, pre-2010, pre-AI chatbots.

Dinsdale 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

It was written during Trump's first term, pre-2010, pre-AI chatbots.

You mean "pre 2020" (or 2021).

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@Dinsdale

You mean "pre 2020" (or 2021

Yeah, typo.

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@Marc Nobbs

It was written during Trump's first term, pre-2010, pre-AI chatbots.

If it was pre-2010, it was not written during Trump's first term, which was 2017-2021, If it was written during Trump's first term, it wasn't pre 2010.

www.whitehousehistory.org/the-presidents-timeline

GEORGE H.W. BUSH | 1989-1993
BILL CLINTON | 1993-2001
GEORGE W. BUSH | 2001-2009
BARACK OBAMA | 2009-2017
DONALD J. TRUMP | 2017-2021 / 2025-
JOE BIDEN | 2021-2025

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫
Updated:

@Dominions Son

If it was pre-2010, it was not written during Trump's first term, which was 2017-2021, If it was written during Trump's first term, it wasn't pre 2010.

Typo and didn't read it back before hitting send. It was written during the first state visit after he pushed past QE2 to get in front of her. That generally went down quite badly over here.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

It was written during Trump's first term, pre-2010, pre-AI chatbots.

The only date available to me on your link is August 2026.

I remain sceptical.

AJ

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Here's the first link that pops up when I googled "Nate White on Trump". It's from 2024.

https://medium.com/@LadyEleanorA/nate-white-a-british-writer-penned-the-best-description-of-donald-trump-ive-ever-read-d4209d4903f8

There's a comment at the end that reads:

I downloaded Nate White's best description of the stable genius when it first appeared on April 24, 2020 at:
https://coming42.livejournal.com/479179.html?page=2#comments
Thanks for the reminder. (You should give Mr. White appropriate credit.)
----
Nate wrote this in April 2020. ChatGPT was released in November 2022. This was not written by AI.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫
Updated:

@Marc Nobbs

https://coming42.livejournal.com/479179.html?page=2#comments

'Page temporarily unavailable'.

If that piece wasn't AI-generated, my best explanation for all those AI tics is that it's plagiarised from something written at least a century ago.

NB I haven't make the obvious request that someone, with a computer post-dating WWII, put the passage through an AI-detector because those em-dashes might unfairly skew the result.

AJ

Replies:   julka
julka 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I assure you that the page loads and it is indeed a LiveJournal post from April 24th, 2020. So I think the odds that it's AI-generated are extremely low, and I think the odds that it's plagiarized from something written in 1920 are also extremely low, certainly lower than the odds that you're incorrectly identifying this piece as being ai-generated.

Can you quote a selection of, I dunno, ten to fifteen "AI tics" that are setting you off in the piece? I'm curious what they are.

Vincent Berg 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Again, it's more how the Brits speak, as if you've talked with many Brits, you'd have a better feel for how they generally approach things, beyond the specific British spellings or turns of phrase.

It's partially why Monty Python was so bloody funny, as it was VERY British, and thus played very well here in the states as well.

Marc Nobbs 🚫
Updated:

@mrherewriting

You must watch a lot of Brit Box, or you're a BBC lover,

Britbox doesn't exist over here anymore, it was rolled into ITVX a couple of years ago. Still watch the BBC News out of habit, but not as much as I used to. Listen to the radio more these days.

This sounds like a caller to LBC on a rant, although it would likely to be against out PM on most shows with the exception of James O'Brien. It sounds like something you'd hear in a pub (not that I've been down the pub in about 15 years) or in a student bar, or in the canteen at work.

As someone who's been British for over 50 years, this is a very, very British piece of writing. That's why it resurfaced yesterday after such a long time.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

As someone who's been British for over 50 years, this is a very, very British piece of writing

I don't see it. Where are the understatement, the irony, the self-deprecation, the Churchillian bite or, more recently, the Pythonesque absurdity?

The only thing vaguely British about it is the British name-dropping, but anyone could have written that.

AJ

Marc Nobbs 🚫

@Pixy

Possibly due to the passive-aggressive tone, which is a very English thing to do.

Exactly this. It sound just like the sort of thing you'd hear on Mock the Week or HIGNFY.

The first paragraph is particularly brutal and you can almost hear Ian Hislop saying it word for word.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Pixy

Possibly due to the passive-aggressive tone, which is a very English thing to do.

It doesn't look passive aggressive to me - the condemnation of Trump is very direct.

AJ

Replies:   Bondi Beach
Bondi Beach 🚫

@awnlee jawking

It doesn't look passive aggressive to me - the condemnation of Trump is very direct.

And right on target.

~ Jbb

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫

@Bondi Beach

And right on target.

For a liberal that hates everything that isn't liberal, it is.

For a person who isn't one side or the other, I'm thinking, "Jesus, did Trump fuck this guy's mother and not call her back or pay her off?"

Replies:   Marc Nobbs  Bondi Beach
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@mrherewriting

"...did Trump fuck this guy's mother and not call her back or pay her off?"

Let's be honest, no one would be the least bit surprised if Trump had actually done this. He has form.

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

There isn't a president in my lifetime that doesn't have form.

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@mrherewriting

I mean, we can't exactly criticise over here; we elected Boris Johnson, a man of such low sexual morals that he was fucking his mistress while his wife was having chemotherapy.

Not 'during the same vague time period' - while she was in the actual hospital having the treatment. Horrible man.

Replies:   Dinsdale  mrherewriting
Dinsdale 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

Didn't Newt Gingrich also pull that stunt?

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫

@Dinsdale

I think he admitted to cheating on two of his wives. Bill Clinton did it in the White House, during working hours, hahaha, then lied about it.

I wonder if cheating is higher in politics because of the power these people hold and the arrogance they feel because of it.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@mrherewriting

I wonder if cheating is higher in politics because of the power these people hold and the arrogance they feel because of it.

It is, or used to be, a badge of honour in France. Men of power and influence were expected to have mistresses in addition to a wife. It was virtually a pre-requisite for becoming president (although draconian privacy laws meant that the situation couldn't be flaunted in the press).

AJ

mrherewriting 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

You also elected Keir Starmer, who turned a blind eye to the rape gangs. If that doesn't say something, nothing does.

Bondi Beach 🚫
Updated:

@mrherewriting

And right on target.

For a liberal that hates everything that isn't liberal, it is.

You don't have to be liberal to find most if not all of that description right on target. Especially that the guy hates dogs and likes his meat cooked to shoe leather consistency.

And he's a fucking draft-dodger. (And yes, I'm a Vietnam veteran, even if thanks to the Army's infinite wisdom I spent my year mostly in an air-conditioned office.)

Even conservatives with principles (there are a few around, believe it or not) find that description accurate.

~ JBB

Grey Wolf 🚫

@Bondi Beach

I would tend to argue that actual conservatives probably detest Trump at least as much as liberals. It's hard to imagine anyone who supported Reagan, for instance, also supporting Trump. I know there are a few out there who do, but it's hard to understand. Reagan and Trump are enormously different both on personality and on policy. And the gap between Trump and Goldwater is likely even wider.

Replies:   jimq2
jimq2 🚫

@Grey Wolf

During the primary elections this year, many politicians discovered that a Trump endorsement was a liability rather than an advantage.

mrherewriting 🚫

@Bondi Beach

The funny things is liberals respect draft dodgers, especially the ones without medical problems, all except people they hate, then it's bad.

You can be anyone and be blinded by stupidity, stupidity in the fact that you believe everything because you need to believe everything because it helps you hate someone.

TheDarkKnight 🚫

@Bondi Beach

(And yes, I'm a Vietnam veteran, even if thanks to the Army's infinite wisdom I spent my year mostly in an air-conditioned office.)

Didn't think there were many of us left. I "volunteered" to spend four years in the ASA (Army Security Agency, a branch of the NSA) as a cryptanalyst to avoid carrying an M-16 through rice paddies. The closest I got to Nam was Korea, where I met the woman who became my wife. Damn, this is turning into an autobiography; better quit here.

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫
Updated:

@TheDarkKnight

Here's a good question, are the people who joined with the sole purpose of securing a position to keep them out of actual combat any better than a draft dodger? A real draft dodger, not someone who was deferred.

The obvious answer is yes, because they served, but their method of service removed them from the meatgrinder and guaranteed some other unfortunate soul was going to have to risk their life on the front lines as more and more of the safer positions were filled.

People can rationalize and justify anything, but they aren't always right.

Replies:   Joe_Bondi_Beach
Joe_Bondi_Beach 🚫

@mrherewriting

The obvious answer is yes, because they served, but their method of service removed them from the meatgrinder and guaranteed some other unfortunate soul was going to have to risk their life on the front lines as more and more of the safer positions were filled.

Oh, man, this is a heavy burden. I'm responsible for a lot of grief, no question. I mean, there must have been a handful of guys left heartbroken when I took Margaret to the Junior Prom and they lost out. (Stop your snickering, you guys, it was a very chaste date.)

By your logic that was a sin equal to my Vietnam service. Different falsely alleged consequence, and the same lack of logic.

I'll start my atonement program this morning with a trip to COSTCO to pick up a gross of sackcloth and ashes.

~ JBB

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫

@Joe_Bondi_Beach

The truth is the hardest thing for most people to face.

Replies:   Bondi Beach
Bondi Beach 🚫
Updated:

@mrherewriting

Absolutely true. No question.

I wonder how many lives in Vietnam I saved through my work.

~ JBB

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫
Updated:

@Bondi Beach

So you inflate your importance to make up for the fact that you dodged combat by joining up not out of a sense of altruism or patriotism, but out of the need to preserve your own skin. Out of cowardice.

You admitted to singing up to loophole the draft, the safest way to dodge the draft, dodge like so many others did who didn't have that option or willingly took deferments to stay out of combat. You're no better than any of them, you only think you are.

Replies:   Bondi Beach
Bondi Beach 🚫
Updated:

@mrherewriting

You admitted to singing up to loophole the draft, the safest way to dodge the draft, dodge like so many others did who didn't have that option or willingly took deferments to stay out of combat. You're no better than any of them, you only think you are.

Good grief. As you said, "The truth is the hardest thing for people to face." That includes distinguishing between silliness and fact.

BTW, I didn't say anything about whether I volunteered or was drafted, only that I ended up in an air-conditioned office.

I posed a question. I didn't answer it, and I don't know the answer. But you're claiming every soldier in a non-combat role is somehow putting another soldier in danger, and I'm suggesting that those non-combat roles may contribute directly to the war effort and may save the lives of those in combat.

That's not really hard to understand, although I think the whole logic of your assertion is absurd.

I'm running through the sackcloth and ashes faster than I expected since we'll obviously have to add in all those who died while I was an undergraduate with a student deferment. I'll have to do a return trip to Costco.

I still took Margaret to the Junior Prom. That's the truth.

~ JBB

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫
Updated:

@Bondi Beach

BTW, I didn't say anything about whether I volunteered or was drafted, only that I ended up in an air-conditioned office.

I posed a question. I didn't answer it, and I don't know the answer.

You inserted yourself into the answer by using "I'm" in your answer, making it appear as if you were the subject of the question. Now you say that you're not, so why did you do that? It makes no logical sense since now you've connected yourself to my original question and now I have to answer you as if you are the subject of that question.

If you're going to answer a question speculatively, don't use yourself as an example for the answer and then later claim you have nothing to do with the answer.

Replies:   Bondi Beach
Bondi Beach 🚫
Updated:

@mrherewriting

You inserted yourself into the answer by using "I'm" in your answer, making it appear as if you were the subject of the question

I am the subject of the question, it referred to me and my work, but I don't know the answer. Referring to whether the work I did saved lives or not

In my comment about draft dodgers I said I was a Vietnam veteran but I did not say whether I had volunteered or was drafted.

You may be confusing me with dark night who said he had volunteered and went to Korea instead of Vietnam and came back with a wife.

~ JBB

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫

@Bondi Beach

I am the subject of the question, it referred to me and my work, but I don't know the answer.

This is the original question: Here's a good question, are the people who joined with the sole purpose of securing a position to keep them out of actual combat any better than a draft dodger? A real draft dodger, not someone who was deferred.

The obvious answer is yes, because they served, but their method of service removed them from the meatgrinder and guaranteed some other unfortunate soul was going to have to risk their life on the front lines as more and more of the safer positions were filled.

People can rationalize and justify anything, but they aren't always right.


If you are the subject of that question, then you joined the military for the sole purpose of avoiding combat. Those are the people that question is about.

Replies:   Bondi Beach
Bondi Beach 🚫

@mrherewriting

You are absolutely correct that I did answer that question, and I agree with your basic answer, that there is a difference between a draft dodger and one who volunteered or something other than the combat arms.

The rest of your assertion, i.e., that a volunteer for a non-combat position thereby ensures that someone else was going to have to risk his life is absurd logic for the reasons I've outlined.

~ JBB

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫

@Bondi Beach

The rest of your assertion, i.e., that a volunteer for a non-combat position thereby ensures that someone else was going to have to risk his life is absurd logic for the reasons I've outlined.

~ JBB

I've read a lot of non-combat Vietnam personal feel guilt and or shame for not being on the front lines, so, even with your personal bias, given your situation, there's absolutely no need for you to agree with me, that is your right as a free-thinking human being.

fohjoffs 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

> Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

Americans were never 'nicer' than anyone else (whatever the fuck that means). Our first 150 years were spent conquering and exploiting much of a continent. After that, we adopted the same malicious imperialism that Europeans had exercised for the previous 500 years.

I am a proud American asshole. I am not nice; tried it once, almost got me killed. Being nice is contrary to the human condition where the nice guy is less apt to survive or be respected. Millennials are coming to understand these terms of survival. Gen Z seems to be rather clueless, thinking that we can just all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

> You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

Foolish assumption. It takes a particulary self-aware person to see their envisioned leader as he really is. Social evaluation of others requires an acute and well-developed sentience; a property found in few sapiens.

> ...his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed

The writer is making the same errors as supporters of the current POTUS make, an unflinching, sycophantic embrace of Obama. Mr Obama was, as are all successful western politicians, a sociopath. The man, unlike the current POTUS, is well-educated and well-spoken and charming; nonetheless, Obama's actions as POTUS were that of a war-mongering sociopath.

mrherewriting 🚫
Updated:

@fohjoffs

I'm a proud American who behaves nicely by choice, but that doesn't mean people can guilt me into favors or uncomfortable situations or blind the situational awareness I attempt to maintain. Nor does it mean that I won't be un-nice between one moment and the next if the situation calls for it.

I never thought Obama was charming. I saw a measured, almost robotic rhythm to his replies as if he was deducing which answer was safest.

He was/is a politician and like most politicians, they've practiced speaking but I don't think I've ever seen a charming President in my lifetime.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@fohjoffs

It takes a particulary self-aware person to see their envisioned leader as he really is.

I think that also applies to seeing their envisioned country as it really is.

At least Trump cared enough to point out that the UK is losing its freedom of speech, is losing its culture, and is throwing away the benefits of Brexit by buying restrictive rules from the EU.

AJ

flightorfight 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

I'm pretty sure we Americans stopped giving a damn about what British people thought about us 250 years ago. They would be speaking German today if not for my father and his generation saving them during WW2.

Replies:   Dinsdale  Marc Nobbs  Pixy I
Dinsdale 🚫

@flightorfight

Interesting theory, you're forgetting the Soviets. They were forced into WW2 almost 6 months before Pearl Harbor.

Marc Nobbs 🚫

@flightorfight

They would be speaking German today if not for my father and his generation saving them during WW2.

Oh, dear. There's always one. Such a lazy response.

Pixy I 🚫

@flightorfight

They would be speaking German today if not for my father and his generation saving them during WW2.

Based on what?

It's an interesting opinion, and one - thankfully- we will never know the actual answer to.

As a 'Brit' my first opinion to your statement is simply "Fuck off". But it's an interesting thought experiment.

Did we need the food shipments from America? Undoubtedly. Would we have survived without them? Possibly, but it would have been unpleasant. Germany's favourite tactic was the Blitzkrieg, which has one, ever so slight flaw. Water. And what is the UK surrounded by?

They would have needed boats. Lots of boats. And boats -especially heavily laden ones- are very easy to sink.

Crossing the Channel would have been very unpleasant for the Germans. And costly.

Britain was preparing for the worst, and one thing about us Brits, is that we are very, very, argumentative. Germany would have needed to have fought for Britain one street at a time. The German death toll would have been horrendous. For example, look to the current Ukraine war. Or indeed the Vietnam war (Yeah? How well did that go for you Americans?) or indeed Afghanistan. Statistically, those invaded have home advantage.

But you forget FOF, the reason as to why the USA joined. Germany had no intention of stopping. At France or in Blighty. We were simply another domino on the obstructive path to them being the master race. Once the UK was subsumed by the German Borg, and they had taken control of our technology and manufacturing industry, the good old US of A would have been next, and by that point, Ze Germans would have had 'Ze Bomb'.

That would not have gone down well for you Americans now, would it?

So yeah, you 'saved us' in the same way we saved you from living in a nuclear wasteland. The American troops- Black and white- knew this, knew that if Ze Germans were not stopped, then the battle would be on American soil next, with all the unpleasantness that would entail.

So yes, all those American troops gave their lives to stop us speaking German, because they knew they were also stopping their children and grandchildren from also speaking German. Well, the white blue eyed ones anyway. The rest of you would would have been ethnically cleansed in the most time and cost efficient manner possible.

Your statement, other than being rather foolish, was also extremely disrespectful to all the US citizens (For many of those who lost their lives were civilian sailors on the convoys) who gave their lives so that A: You didn't only speak German and B: That you have the freedom to be a bit of an arse on the internet.

Marc Nobbs 🚫

@Pixy I

You spent far longer on this than I was prepared to do... But this is a tremendous response. πŸ‘πŸ‘

palamedes 🚫

@Pixy I

Did we need the food shipments from America? Undoubtedly. Would we have survived without them? Possibly, but it would have been unpleasant. Germany's favourite tactic was the Blitzkrieg, which has one, ever so slight flaw. Water. And what is the UK surrounded by?

They would have needed boats. Lots of boats. And boats -especially heavily laden ones- are very easy to sink.

Crossing the Channel would have been very unpleasant for the Germans. And costly.

This is a very flawed arguement. The UK survived due to Germany not veiwing the Brittish as a large threat. If Germany would have held their push on the Eastern front against Russia then a little known battle held on June 6, 1944 proved that an attack force can make it across the English Channel. Now that Germany has decided that the UK should no longer exist they would easily double if not more the air attacks how long then would the Battle for Brittain last with this increase. With no place to retreat to it becomes a constant battle of defence with losses of men and machinery like you mentioned the UK is surrounded by water where could you retreat to ? The German attack on Russia was devastating but they survived by retreating, regrouping, and then attacking. When Germany choose to attack Russia and not the UK that allowed for thier defeat because with out the UK then America would not have had the ability to have a military presence and with out that how much HELP would the Americans been then.

Historian Geoffrey Roberts noted that more than 80 percent of all combat during the Second World War took place on the Eastern Front. Agaain I say if Germany would have held the Eastern Front Borders then I'm sorry but there would be no UK left for America to help.

Replies:   Pixy I
Pixy I 🚫

@palamedes

A little-known battle held on June 6, 1944 proved that an attack force can make it across the English Channel

You answered your own question. Germany didn't think the Allied forces were a threat, didn't think they would have the balls to attack across the Channel. A costly mistake.

However, you can't use one example as the rule.

You also pointed out (rightly) that the UK had nowhere to retreat to. I'm sure you have heard the phrase "A cornered animal is a dangerous animal". If given the choice, both animal and Human will flee rather than fight. If they can't flee, then 'Fuck-it' mode engages. The nations of Europe retreated from Germany, because they could- there was nothing physically stopping them. Very few individuals actually want to die, so retreat will always be the 'sensible' option. After all, you can retreat to fight another day. Apparently.

It was the plan to fight the Germans every step of their way through the UK. Would the UK populace of the time have done so? Would they have sacrificed themselves en masse to kill as many Germans as possible? Would Germany actually have survived the loss of so many of its young men, or would it subsequently suffer a population collapse? Its victory over Britain Pyrrhic in nature. Lots of questions we will never know the actual answers to.

Germany didn't know that the Allied forces were coming, but had the situation been the other way around, that would not have been the case. Think Taiwan vs China over the Formosa Strait.

Had Germany fought the UK (Without American assistance), then it would have been a slow attritional war, much like the Eastern front against Russia. Would Russia have taken that reprieve to improve both the training and the equipment of its forces? Had Germany focused its might on Britain instead of Russia, would we all now be speaking Russian?

In hindsight, I think Germany had a difficult choice in whether to go East or West, but I suspect there was no choice. Either decision was going to result in the same inevitable German outcome, though I suspect that a Russian win would have resulted in the complete obliteration of what had once been called Germany.

To paraphrase a certain 1983 film;

'War is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.'

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Pixy I

Had Germany fought the UK (Without American assistance), then it would have been a slow attritional war, much like the Eastern front against Russia.

Unlikely. Once they had achieved landfall, Germany would have used the blitzkrieg tactics that worked so well in Western Europe, with none of the drawbacks of long supply lines they encountered in Eastern Europe.

AJ

Replies:   Pixy I
Pixy I 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Maybe.

UK ground conditions are not really suited for the fast tank warfare Germany had built its doctrine around. Too many rivers, too many tree's and far too many hills. Also, the UK is (even in the 1940's) too urban for effective tank warfare.

As for supply lines, not so sure. The Channel would always have been an Achilles heel and partisan sabotage would most likely have rendered local manufacturing extremely difficult, if not impossible, requiring either continual Channel shipping or air freight. Both of which would have been easily disrupted.

A problem that would only get worse the further North they travelled.

Russia found this out the hard way in Afghanistan, forcing them to ditch land-based tanks in favour of a more air-oriented tank in Hind sight...

Operating tanks in the UK would require an extensive infantry screen, which most likely would have meant a substantial sniper contingent in response by partisan forces. Stalingrad, but on the scale of a Country, rather than a city.

Air superiority would have been paramount to success, but one has to hypothetically wonder what those defenders would have come up with given the correct 'motivation'. After all, when you consider what the UK (And Allies) came up with at extremely short notice with limited resources, like RDF and the magnetron, and given the relative population size of the UK and its manufacturing base in relation to everyone else in 1939 (UK being about 48 million compared to 131 million in the USA, and 80 million in Germany) the UK was certainly technologically punching above its weight.

Given the scarcity of resources, a full attack on the UK would no doubt have focussed defensive attention on the main weak spot, the Channel. I wonder what all those brilliant minds would have come up with in relation to one-person submarines and underwater warfare in general. The Channel could well have been a 'no-go' area even to this day, in an alternate timeline.

Of course, the elephant in the room isn't the taking of ground; it's the keeping of it. One of the things history teaches, is that no matter how much you can grab, it's all pointless unless you can hold onto it. The Romans once controlled most of the known World, as did the British. Look at them both now. England is struggling to keep Scotland onside, let alone retain control of more distant 'colonies' like the Falklands or Gibraltar. And Rome is now reduced to the very boot it once held on the neck of the rest of the world.

Had Germany controlled the UK, there is a very strong possibility it would have lost it again once Hitler died and there was a regime change in Germany. The only way Germany could have held ground for any length of time, would have been to massacre every defeated country's population and replace it with Germans. A tactic they had already started.

I'm actually expecting Russia to disintegrate once Putin dies (naturally or otherwise) and many parts of Russia to become independent states. Ironically, in Ukraine, I think Putin has achieved the one thing he set out to avoid.

mrherewriting 🚫

@Pixy I

Sounds like someone is still bitter about that Revolutionary War that happened way back when.

Replies:   Pixy I  Marc Nobbs
Pixy I 🚫

@mrherewriting

Sounds like someone is still bitter about that Revolutionary War that happened way back when.

Correct.

Culloden pisses me off to this day. But if you mean America, then actually, I don't give a flying fuck about America. But then, Americans always believe everything is about them. Which would make them narcissistic by default, now that I think about it.

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫

@Pixy I

t if you mean America, then actually, I don't give a flying fuck about America. But then, Americans always believe everything is about them. Which would make them narcissistic by default, now that I think about it.

You sure sound convincing.

Replies:   Pixy I
Pixy I 🚫

@mrherewriting

You sure sound convincing.

🀷

Like I said, narcissistic.

I'm not convinced you can reliably ascertain a person's true opinion via typed words alone. All you are doing, is overlaying your own bias and insecurities over the vacuum.

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫

@Pixy I

Like I said, narcissistic.

I'm not convinced you can reliably ascertain a person's true opinion via typed words alone. All you are doing, is overlaying your own bias and insecurities over the vacuum.

There are more possibilities to a what a person is capable of than your opinion. Don't be a narcissist and believe that your opinion is the only opinion that is true.

Replies:   Pixy I
Pixy I 🚫

@mrherewriting

Don't be a narcissist and believe that your opinion is the only opinion that is true.

Please explain why you consider me to be a narcissist, as I believe you have no comprehension as to what it actually means. Also, since you are at it, please show your workings as to why you think that my "opinion is the only opinion that is true".

I look forward to your response, as I do like a good laugh.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Pixy I

Please explain why you consider me to be a narcissist

Do you grow daffodils in your garden? You're a narcissist (as am I).

AJ

Replies:   Pixy I
Pixy I 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Do you grow daffodils in your garden?

My garden is where things go to die.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Pixy I

My garden is where things go to die.

"So, Mr Pixy, do you expect me to grow tall and strong and supply you with lots of beautiful flowers?"

"No, Mr Plant, I expect you to die. Mwahaha."

AJ

Replies:   Pixy I
Pixy I 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Pretty much....

mrherewriting 🚫
Updated:

@Pixy I

I look forward to your response, as I do like a good laugh.

That fact that you can't understand it and you need it spelled out to you as if you were a child gives me a good laugh.

Replies:   Pixy I
Pixy I 🚫

@mrherewriting

That fact that you can't understand it and you need it spelled out to you as if you were a child gives me a good laugh.

I find it amusing that you repeat almost everything I say, avoid answering questions directed at yourself, and try to turn my own words back upon me in.... Actually, I honestly don't know what you are trying to do.

It's like you think that you are trolling, but you don't actually know how to do it, like you have a deep-seated anger inside you that you don't know how to release. I mean, how can anyone be blinded by stupidity, stupidity in the fact that you believe everything because you need to believe everything because it helps you hate someone?

But then, I suppose people can rationalise and justify anything, but they aren't always right.

🀷

Replies:   mrherewriting
mrherewriting 🚫
Updated:

@Pixy I

I find it amusing that you repeat almost everything I say, avoid answering questions directed at yourself, and try to turn my own words back upon me in.... Actually, I honestly don't know what you are trying to do.

If my words are "your words" what does that say about the importance of your words? The meaning of them? You've just said your words are worthless.

But look how mad you're getting when faced with your own nonsense.

But then, if my words suddenly aren't your words because you don't know how to respond in anything but anger and frustration, then this is nothing but a defensive tactic on your part, used by someone hoping and praying that it will leave me speechless and end this conversation, but you don't have that kind of cleverness it takes to cause that to happen.

Marc Nobbs 🚫

@mrherewriting

Sounds like someone is still bitter about that Revolutionary War that happened way back when.

The American Revolution has almost no impact on the UK general populace today. Most people here couldn't even tell you what year it happened. All those 250-year celebrations this year? Most people in Britain didn't know it was an anniversary until we saw it on the news.

This might be shocking, but the 'revolutionary war' is about as significant to most British people as the Hundred Years' War. No one thinks about it. It's not taught in our schools. It has no impact on our modern life.

At all.

Even at the time, Britain was more concerned with the possibility of revolution spreading to the West Indies or India than with losing the 13 colonies. Was that a mistake in hindsight? Maybe. But at the time? πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ

Also, the only reason Britain 'lost' that war was because the French and the Spanish got involved. You don't hear them using that as a flex against the Americans, do you? Ever heard a Frenchman say, "You'd still be drinking tea and eating crumpets if it wasn't for us!"

Want to know why not? Because using the actions of people that happened before you were born is a pretty poor 'flex' for today.

This is yet another lazy response from someone who believes thinking is something other people do.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

The American Revolution has almost no impact on the UK general populace today. Most people here couldn't even tell you what year it happened.

PBS has a television channel on the UK's free terrestrial Freeview service. It frequently has programs on 'the Civil War' - there's one tonight on the massacre of black union soldiers. Presumably they must think there's a market for British interest in the American Civil War.

AJ

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@awnlee jawking

PBS has a television channel on the UK's free terrestrial Freeview service.

I didn't even know this existed. I'd love to see what their viewing figures are. Bet it's not up there with Coronation Street. (Actually, I don't know how many people watch Corrie these days either.)

Replies:   Marc Nobbs
Marc Nobbs 🚫

@Marc Nobbs

I'd love to see what their viewing figures are.

I've looked it up. About 2,000,000 tune in at some point during any given month. Individual shows get somewhere between 10,000 - 30,000 viewers.

For context, there are in the order of 200,000 US Citizens living in the UK.

mrherewriting 🚫
Updated:

@Marc Nobbs

This is yet another lazy response from someone who believes thinking is something other people do.

It was a flippant response to let people the poster know that "no one cares" and it riled you up.

That's funny.

And, the Brits still lost, no matter the reason, just like they lost their entire empire and just like they're losing the UK today, unless Reform wins, God willing, right?

Back to Top

 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


Log In