British inferiority complex?

Marc

Active Member
#1
This was mentioned by BBW on another thread. IE that the Brits have this complex due to having lost our 'Empire'. Drivel!If anything, and if we Brits are honest with ourselves, some of us have a kind of superiority complex, which is inherited from our colonial past. The word snobbery must surely have been invented in Britain. Inferiority complex? No way!Now this thread is related to BBW's comments regarding Lady Thatcher and her actions concerning the Malvinas/Falklands War, with the implications being that she promolgated the war for her own vanity and electoral reasons, Britannia Rules the Waves and all that nonsense. Who invaded them in the first place? In 1982 I mean.Answer: some tin pot Military Dictator endeavouring to restore National Pride in Argentina, which had been so cruelly taken away in March 1976, a date which will never be forgotten by any Argentine.Its entirely irrelevant that the islands were largely ignored by the UK government at the time. The fact is that they are UK national sovereignty and were defended and retaken under very difficult circumstances. The implication that Lady Thatcher was somehow 'behind' the whole thing, is quite simply preposterous. Many men and women lost their lives on both sides, and lets not forget the cannon fodder, the conscripts that Galtieri threw at the Brits. Some had barely left school.BBW, have a think of what the USA has done in the past, in the name of defence/drug control/oil.Iraq? Grenada? Is Iran next?How's the weather in Minnesota, by the way?
 
#2
While agreeing with most of what you say, I must point out that while Galtieri was sabre rattling Britain did nothing, and Mrs Thatcher (she was plain Mrs then) actually pulled the garison out of the Islands and also the icebreakers.
You cannot totally blame the Argentine dictatorship for pushing at an open door that seemed to improve their poularity.
Interesting though that whilst the US call on us for support while they charge round the world causing chaos, during the Falklands conflict ( same as Suez ) they stood back and offered no help at all.
 
#3
tangobob......please please take this in good faith::))) no fighting only points of view
1, we would have never won the falklands without Uncle Sam.... they gave us the night-vision for the vulcans, and the air to air refuelling.... provided satelite imagary.... delayed everything thro Haig.... gave us equipment.... confused all the russian trawlers sat off acession island and falklands....why... US was just beginning its problems in Central and South America... one year before Grenada...(ie our best friends invading sovereign terrority... to rescue 50 stoned students without even informing Maggie..... she was pi**** off to say the least... first time in 150 years the sovereign complained/got involved in politics direct) If the Brits had lost the falklands... then South America would have been a todays Iraq for the US.... it could not let us lose the islands to tinpot generals...2, For once the Argies were early.... if only they had attacked in June not April 2nd... then no way would the Royal Navy, been able to sail into the mid winter south atlantic swells.... the RN would have sold Hermes and Invicible to the Aussies and Indians in May 2002!!! 3, however we do say.... on a lighter note.. the Argies did win the Malvinas...why.... they got rid of the lunatic dictators.. won democracy... and being a "disppeared" and thrown out of an aeroplane.... stopped!!...4, seriously.. this June 14th 3 englishmen me included went to the memorial oppo the english clock.... and placed flowers.. like i will do this sunday.... the 11th hour 11th day 11th monday.... and pay respects.... for our lost men and women Nick



why
 

Bill

Active Member
#4
"nickthebrit said:
the Argies did win the Malvinas...
why.... they got rid of the lunatic dictators.. won democracy...
So true and ironic that the dictators started this war in the first place.
 
#5
"Marc" said:
This was mentioned by BBW on another thread. IE that the Brits have this complex due to having lost our 'Empire'.
Drivel!
If anything, and if we Brits are honest with ourselves, some of us have a kind of superiority complex, which is inherited from our colonial past. The word snobbery must surely have been invented in Britain. Inferiority complex? No way!
Now this thread is related to BBW's comments regarding Lady Thatcher and her actions concerning the Malvinas/Falklands War, with the implications being that she promolgated the war for her own vanity and electoral reasons, Britannia Rules the Waves and all that nonsense. Who invaded them in the first place? In 1982 I mean.
Answer: some tin pot Military Dictator endeavouring to restore National Pride in Argentina, which had been so cruelly taken away in March 1976, a date which will never be forgotten by any Argentine.
Its entirely irrelevant that the islands were largely ignored by the UK government at the time. The fact is that they are UK national sovereignty and were defended and retaken under very difficult circumstances. The implication that Lady Thatcher was somehow 'behind' the whole thing, is quite simply preposterous. Many men and women lost their lives on both sides, and lets not forget the cannon fodder, the conscripts that Galtieri threw at the Brits. Some had barely left school.
BBW, have a think of what the USA has done in the past, in the name of defence/drug control/oil.Iraq? Grenada? Is Iran next?
How's the weather in Minnesota, by the way?
Remarkably mild weather here so far. We've had many mild winters and this one promises to be another. Something to do with climate change most probably.
I'm not excusing US actions. Nor am I saying Thatcher initiated the war single-handedly. Nor that vanity was involved. But the war did save her political hide and came at a most opportune moment for her. The Tories would have lost the '83 election but for the war.
Feelings of superiority and inferiority often go together and are not incompatible. It's no longer the case that the sun never sets on the Union Jack. Wounded pride has been a factor in British foreign policy going back to ... let's see ... the Suez Crisis(?), which put paid to British imperial ambitions. Britain has been playing second fiddle to the USA for over a half a century now (euphemistically known as the "Special Relationship" in the UK). The USA plays this for what it's worth as Britain's unswerving support for US foreign policy provides it the fig leaf of legitimacy needed for US imperial actions, and allows the US to refer to the "International Community (i.e. Britain) supporting US actions. And of course, it has Britain's pecker in its pocket with regard to its permanent seat in the UN security council. In exchange for this the US doesn't give much of anything in return. Not even concessions with regard to imports of British steel (however they did save Britain's bacon in the Falklands War). But it does delude Brits into thinking that they still occupy a special place in the world, and have some influence with the 800-pound gorilla who presently rules the world. To be fair, loss of status and privilege can be traumatising to any nation. In a nutshell, Britain would probably be pursuing a more independent foreign policy were it not because of a national complex about showing the rest of the world it still counts -- if not as a great power, then as a sidekick to the present imperial hegemon.
 
#7
Politics aside...there IS a special relationship between Britain and the U.S. We have a common language, common values and although there have been differences over the years, there is a mutual respect between the two countries. I have never heard a disparaging word about the British in the U.S. (I am American) and for the most part, while I have British friends and have traveled there on numerous occasions, vice versa. I have heard little snide comments about Americans but generally speaking, I think there is mutual respect and admiration on both sides.
The U.S. government uses everyone to their advantage. Thats just a fact, but hey, doesn't Israel or Argentina for that matter?
 
#8
"rmartinbuenosaires" said:
Politics aside...there IS a special relationship between Britain and the U.S. We have a common language, common values and although there have been differences over the years, there is a mutual respect between the two countries. I have never heard a disparaging word about the British in the U.S.
The UK attracts a lot of US foreign direct investment and because of language, Americans tend to be more comfortable with Brits than with the French and Germans (and incidentally, the French give new dimension to the word "snobbery.). But it's easy to exaggerate the "special relationship," and it's tend to be done on the British side. I remember that at one time the historian Paul Kennedy was asked about the "special relationship," and he replied that the US has a special relationship with Japan, with Germany, with Italy, and Britain figures somewhere lower down the list. I also remember when Clinton was inaugurated and someone asked about the "special relationship" with the UK and Clinton responded, "Ah yes, the special relationship," and everyone broke into laughter.
I don't have time to explain at the monent, but I suspect British capital needs the US military umbrella in order to flourish in the rest of the world. And as I said above, Britain attracts more foreign direct investment from the US than any other European country.
At election time every serious party leader has to demonstrate he has credibility in D.C. I remember Kinnock making the trek to see Reagan in 1987 (where he got snubbed when Reagan tried to cut the meeting down to 20 minutes).
 

jedard

Active Member
#9
Im sorry but you are wrong. My information shows that the USA offered its assistance and G.B. and it was politely rejected.
As for the idiot Military Dictator who sent thousands of young men to that war, unprepared and with guns that had rust all over them and very few bullets to go with them.
It has been suggested that had Argentina used Diplomatic Channels at that time, England may have given them soverentiy over the Malvinas. But thats all history now, sad to say. It may now happen after all with this next leader.
As for England defending its rights. I applaud them, they have done so for Hundreds of years and they should never hestitate to do so when threatened by such as was the Malvinas. I do not support war, or any kind of aggression, but where Diplomacy fails then the only answer seems to be war.
As for the USA, everyone hates them with a passion, but everyone calls on them in time of need, be it natural disasters or genocide.
I wonder what the Argentines think of the Spanish who practically erradicated the original natives here. They even forbid them to speak there own languages.
Why do we continue to cast blame on this nation or that nation. Let us look at our own doorstep first before we cast the first stone
 

jedard

Active Member
#10
Sorry my friend, but they do not use Canada and never will. The USA attacked Canada and we punished them for this during the War of 1812. The diplomatic relationships today between the two countries is at an all time low.
When they asked us to go to Iraq, we said no.Now they are cheesed at us because we won't interfere with the our Loonie taking off like a rocket.
I lived in the USA for many years and I have no animosites towards them for any reasons. The Americans are in charge of their own destiny. Thats why they have a democracy. America, like Argentina is a great country.