British Prime Minister David Cameron made an extraordinary gaffe during his recent visit to the United States by saying, quite wrongly, that Britain was the "junior partner" to the United States in 1940 during World War II.
Despite the Tory PM having attended Eton, one of the best schools in the country, his grasp of history is somewhat shaky. Far from being the US's "junior partner" in 1940, the British Empire actually had NO partners in 1940 because that was the time she fought Nazi Germany on her own. The United States didn't enter WWII until December 1941, and only then because Japan and Germany declared war on her.
Mr Cameron, taking part in his first visit to the US since becoming Prime Minister in May, said on Britain's Sky News: 'I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the U.S., but we are the junior partner. We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.'
Downing Street was quick to step in, saying that the PM had actually meant to say the 1940s in general, rather than the year 1940.
However, in an earlier interview with America's ABC, he said: 'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting against Hitler; we are the junior partner now. I think you shouldn't pretend to be something you're not.'
But not only did Britain have no partners at all in 1940, but even when the US entered the war in December 1941 - only after the Japs and Germans declared war on it - Britain was still not the junior partner until 1943 at the earliest. It was, in actual fact, the dominant partner with the US during that time.
In the early years of the war Britain had an army of 2.4million men in the field when the Americans had an army of just 240,000 - one tenth of the fighting force of Britain. It wasn't until very late in the war - 1944 - that the US had more men under arms than Britain. At the vital planning conferences during 1942 and 1943, it was Churchill rather than Roosevelt who set the military strategy. And Britain lost a total of 449,800 war dead compared with 418,500 Americans, despite the fact that at the time the US population was three times that of the British population.
The US wasn't even much of a help to Britain before it entered the war, despite its colossal resources and tradition of liberty.
In 1940, during the Battle of Britain, young Americans who wanted to volunteer for the RAF were warned that they could lose their US citizenship and even be fined if they took part in the fighting.
Under the American Neutrality Act, it was actually illegal for the US to ship any goods to a combatant unless cash was paid on strictly commercial terms.
Therefore, in the summer of 1940, Churchill's government had to pay up front for all the military equipment and aircraft it bought from the US, almost bankrupting Britain by 1941.
Cameron's historic blunder: Fury as PM says we were 'junior partner' to Americans in 1940
By Tim Shipman, Deputy Political Editor
22nd July 2010
Daily Mail
British soldiers in action during World War II. Far from being a "junior partner" to the United States in 1940, Britain had NO partners at all in 1940. Even when the US entered the war in December 1941 after Japan and Germany declared war on it, it was the US which was the junior partner to Britain until at least 1943. In the early years of the war the British Army in the field numbered 2.4 million troops, ten times than of the US.
David Cameron faced a furious backlash yesterday for the astonishing claim that the UK was a 'junior partner' to America in 1940 - a year before the U.S. even entered the war.
The Prime Minister was accused of forgetting the sacrifices made in 1940 by those who fought in the Battle of Britain, the heroes of Dunkirk and the Londoners bombed out of their homes in the Blitz.
Downing Street hastily claimed that Mr Cameron had meant to refer to the 1940s in general. But by then the damage was done.
General Sir Patrick Cordingley, former commander of the Desert Rats, said: 'I am quite sure if Winston Churchill were alive today he would be dismayed.'
Snack time: David Cameron and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stop for a snack
Boost: The Mayor had his with mustard but the Prime Minister stuck to a plain hotdog
Time out: The pair stopped off at the stand outside Penn Station after Mr Cameron arrived from Washington
Mr Cameron, on his first visit to the U.S. as Prime Minister, made his gaffe in an interview with Sky News.
'I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the U.S., but we are the junior partner,' he said.
'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.'
In fact, Britain under the leadership of Churchill - one of Mr Cameron's heroes - stood ALONE in 1940 against Nazi Germany and had far more men under arms than the U.S. until 1944.
While Britain fought on, with some material assistance from the U.S., America did not actually enter the war until December 1941 after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
And Britain lost a total of 449,800 war dead compared with 418,500 Americans.
Even as Downing Street was trying to repair the damage, the PM's error was compounded in a further interview, recorded earlier, with the American network ABC news.
He said: 'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting against Hitler; we are the junior partner now. I think you shouldn't pretend to be something you're not.'
Onto the economy: Mr Cameron with H. Furlong Baldwin and Bruce E. Aust from Nasdaq
Hello New York: The Prime Minister leaving the Nasdaq headquarters after meeting chief executives
Historian Andrew Roberts, author of the recent Second World War history The Storm of War, said: 'The Prime Minister is wrong. He shouldn't wear a hair shirt.
'In the early years of the war Britain had an army of 2.4million men in the field when the Americans had 240,000 - one tenth of the fighting force.
'It was not really until 1944 that the Americans had more men in the field than the UK, the British Empire and Commonwealth.
'In 1940 there was material help from America, but not belligerency against the Nazis. Britain was the dominant partner in terms of the strategy until at least 1943.'
Labour was quick to leap on Mr Cameron's mistake.
Former defence minister Kevan Jones told the Mail: 'David Cameron is guilty of talking down Britain and disrespecting Second World War veterans who know that Britain was fighting alone against Nazi tyranny while America was still putting its fighting boots on.'
Hectic: David Cameron with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the United Nations headquarters
As hostile reaction swept the internet, Mr Cameron's gaffe was greeted with dismay by retired military men.
SAS hero Andy McNab said: 'It's very important to get this history right because people are still living who fought in 1940. There are still survivors of Dunkirk and fighter pilots from the Battle of Britain. For them it is very, very important to recognise the role they played. This is living history.'
General Cordingley said: ' Having just spent the day with some Normandy veterans, I'm surprised that the Prime Minister has forgotten the sacrifice of those who fought in the Battle of Britain and North Africa before the U.S. entered the war and those who were bombed during the Blitz.'
General Sir Mike Jackson, a former head of the Army, said: 'The Prime Minister's history is not as good as it should be. Without doubt we were the superior partner until America's entry into the war. I'm sure the Prime Minister's jet lag is catching up with him.'
CORRELLI BARNETT: BRITAIN BORE THE BRUNT
Daily Mail
22nd July 2010
David Cameron's remarks were not just a travesty of the truth but also an insult to the memory of all those Britons who fought so heroically in the dark months of 1940, when this country stood alone against the Reich's tyranny.
Contrary to his absurd claim, there was no partnership whatsoever between the U.S. and Britain in that year. Indeed, America was not involved in the war at all, either militarily or in supplying material support.
Despite the U.S.'s colossal resources and tradition of liberty, the republic did little to aid Britain's cause against the Nazis. Under the American Neutrality Act, it was actually illegal for the U.S. to ship any goods to a combatant unless cash was paid on strictly commercial terms.
Therefore, in the summer of 1940, Churchill's government had to pay up front for all the military equipment and aircraft it bought from the U.S., almost bankrupting itself by early 1941.
Nor was the U.S. remotely supportive during the Battle of Britain.
Battle of Britain: Spitfire pilots, who valiantly fought to save Britain from destruction by taking on the Luftwaffe in the skies over Britain, run to their aircraft in 1940 as Britain stood alone against the Nazis.
Remarkably, heroic young Americans who wanted to volunteer for the RAF were warned that they could lose their U.S. citizenship and even be fined if they took part in the fighting, an edict that many of them thankfully ignored.
This reluctance to help Britain reflected the mood of anxious isolationism which gripped America in 1940.
Part of this stemmed from hostility to the old colonial power, part from the belief that conflicts in Europe were nothing to do with the New World.
It was an outlook that could be found right across Congress and the American public.
Even the U.S. ambassador to London, the roguish Joe Kennedy, father of the future President JFK, shared this mentality. In a typically defeatist outburst, Kennedy said in 1940 that 'democracy is finished in England'. (Thank God for the world that the British didn't take the same sort of defeatist attitude in 1940.)
Joe Kennedy caused uproar in wartime Britain by declaring "democracy is finished in England."
Franklin D Roosevelt himself, though personally much more eager to back Britain, was constrained by these attitudes.
Churchill fought a constant battle against this spirit of separatism.
One of the reasons that he took the notorious action in blowing up the French fleet in July 1940, after France had signed an armistice with Germany, was to impress Americans about Britain's determination to carry on the fight.
He also hoped that the defiance of the RAF against the Luftwaffe would change attitudes. But still the U.S. did not bend.
The dogma of isolationism was ended only when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December, 1941, 'a day that will live in infamy', to quote the words of Roosevelt.
It is no exaggeration to say that America might never have entered the war but for that fateful action.
For the first two years after Pearl Harbor, Britain and America could be described as 'equal partners'.
America might have had more military muscle, but Britain had all the experience of fighting.
At the vital planning conferences during 1942 and 1943, it was Churchill rather than Roosevelt who set the military strategy.
In particular, he saved America from the folly of launching an invasion of France in 1943, which could have only ended in disaster because the Allies were insufficiently prepared and Germany remained too strong.
At the vital planning conferences during 1942 and 1943, it was Churchill rather than Roosevelt who set the military strategy.
Far more sensible was Churchill's plan for wiping out the Axis forces in North Africa and Italy.
It was not until D-Day was reached in June 1944 that Britain could be regarded as the junior partner, if only because of the colossal weight of the U.S. forces in Europe.
But D-Day could never have been happened if Britain had not fought so bravely four years earlier, when she alone withstood the might of the all-conquering Nazi war machine.
I don't know which is worse: His ignorance of history or talking Britain down
By Stephen Glover
22nd July 2010
Much has been made of David Cameron's supposedly pitch-perfect tone during his visit to the United States.
He evidently charmed President Barack Obama, and seems to have dealt adroitly with embarrassing questions about the early release from a Scottish prison of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
But actually he made a serious and near unforgivable error which almost no one has picked up on.
David Cameron lays a wreath at Arlington Cemetery in Washington, but at home his comments about the Second World War have sparked anger
On BBC2's Newsnight, the American-based British historian Simon Schama was wheeled out to declare that 'David Cameron has not put a foot wrong'.
I am afraid he did. In an interview with the major U.S. network ABC watched by millions of Americans, the British Prime Minister stated: 'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting against Hitler. We are the junior partner now.'
There is an established convention that when senior British politicians travel abroad, they do not talk their country down.
I can remember the hullabaloo which followed a speech given in Washington in the mid-1980s by Neil Kinnock, then Labour leader, in which he went out of his way to tell an American audience that Britain was no longer a world power.
Of course, no one doubts that, with an economy about a seventh the size of that of the United States, and defence expenditure which is barely one tenth, the United Kingdom is decidedly a very junior partner.
But a British Prime Minister should not publicly advertise the fact on an official visit. I can't imagine, say, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, abasing his country in this way.
In fact, Mr Cameron's error of judgment was far greater. He did not merely break a convention which all previous British Prime Ministers have observed. He said something that was simply wrong. Britain was not a 'junior partner' of the United States in 1940.
This country declared war against Germany in September 1939. Germany did so against the United States over two years later, in December 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
During that time, Britain had no kind of partnership with America. Seventy years ago this summer, the Battle of Britain was fought - and won - without American help.
After belatedly entering the war, the United States did devote enormous industrial and manpower resources to fighting the Axis powers. Even so, it probably was not until 1943 that she began to make a bigger contribution to the Allied cause than Britain.
This country even then hardly played an inferior role. In the mass bombing of German cities or the Battle of the Atlantic or the invasion of Normandy in June 1944, Britain and her Empire (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc) were not the junior partners as, for example, we unquestionably were during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Stalingrad: David Cameron would have been more accurate if he said Britain and the US were junior partners to Russia which sustained horrific loss of life in the Second World War, typified by the Battle of Stalingrad
If the comparison is to be measured in terms of blood, Britain's contribution was the greater.
Some 449,800 British lives were lost throughout World War II as against 418,500 American lives during the shorter period of the United States' involvement.
At that time, the population of the U.S. was three times that of the United Kingdom.
Hardly the sacrifice of a junior partner. Had Mr Cameron said that, following the German invasion of Russia in June 1941, both Britain and the United States were junior partners to the Soviet Union - which lost an estimated 24 million lives, and fought the bloodiest and most important land battles of the war with Nazi Germany - he would have been closer to the mark.
Nor should we forget that assistance from our supposedly benevolent transatlantic cousins did not come cheap.
Under the Lend-Lease agreement, the United Sates sold $31.4 billion of armaments to this country, which equates to at least $500 billion at modern prices.
The British Government did not finish paying off this debt until 2006. Whereas our economy was broken by the war, he was factually incorrect to state that we were partners of any kind of the united States in 1940.
And he was wrong to suggest that throughout the conflict we played second fiddle to America. I'd say that these amount to pretty serious clangers which have, however, largely escaped the British media.
It is true that in an article in the Wall Street Journal the Prime Minister wrote that Britain was a junior partner 'in the 1940s' rather than in 1940, as he asserted on ABC television.
But this was scarcely less offensive. And we cannot get away from the fact that he said what he said on network TV.
Does it matter? I think it does. I agree with Mr Cameron that nations should be realistic about their power.
And he is absolutely right, too, to say that some in the political establishment in Britain are over-obsessed with 'the special relationship', as though we can only have significance as a nation when recognised as the United States' best friend.
The lesson of the Blair years is that British national self-interest was subordinated to American goals.
Thus far Mr Cameron was correct. But he was at fault in deprecating his country to an American audience.
Something to chew on: Cameron and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg enjoy hotdogs outside Penn Station
And I simply cannot understand how a patriotic Englishman, which I take Mr Cameron to be, can say what he did about Britain's supposed role in 1940.
It betrays, apart from much else, a surprising degree of historical ignorance in someone supposed to have an outstanding brain.
Incidentally, the Prime Minister also said a silly thing during his joint press conference with Mr Obama.
Recalling how the President had given him a bottle of beer last month as part of a bet, he said that it was obviously 'very effective' because it had led him to cheer for Germany in her World Cup match against Argentina, which is 'something that's a big admission for a British person'.
Superficially funny, perhaps, but also profoundly unstatesmanlike.
I don't know why Mr Cameron said what he did about Britain being a junior partner.
Maybe he wants to please our transatlantic allies too much.
Maybe he is less confident about being British than he pretends. Maybe it just indicates a certain glibness of thought.
Leaders should not be boastful or overestimate the limits of their countries' power.
But, equally, they should not run down their countries' historical achievements. I can't conceive of Margaret Thatcher making such a mistake, though I can imagine Tony Blair, who was in thrall to American power, doing so.
I believe many ordinary British people will be dismayed by Mr Cameron's remarks.
Worse still, thousands of servicemen who fought in the war, and people who survived the Blitz and the bombing of British cities, may wonder how he can think that their sacrifice was somehow secondary to that of a country which for more than two years of the war was no kind of partner.
Some may smoothly declare that our novice Prime Minister did not put a foot wrong, and many in the British media congratulate him on a supposedly flawless visit to the United States.
I'm afraid I take a different view - and hope that this will be the last time that, when abroad, David Cameron talks his country down.
READERS' COMMENTS
Maybe the PM was confusing the US with its larger and more popular neighbour Canada, who were in it pretty much from the start.
- Ned Flan-diddly-anders, UK
*******************************************
There's an interesting curiosity with the American position that they didn't feel obligated to assist GB early on at the start of WW2. There are a variety of reasons given, no defense pact, another European quarrel, colonial history and so forth. There were at least 3 countries (C, A, NZ) of virtually the same blood as the US that felt the exact opposit: they had to do everthing they could to help. In addition to British stock, Canada also had large or significant German, Italian, Irish and Japanese origin populations and it still made no difference in the response. Even French-Canadians, lukewarm to the idea of helping GB, eventually joined in the national emergency. In fact, when French-Canadian troops from Quebec and Northern Ontario landed on Juno Beach on D-Day, they spoke to the French locals in the same dialect. The Canadians had returned to the same Normandy shores that their ancestors had left in the 1600's.
- Johnny, Canada
****************************************
I was in the MERCHANT NAVY during the war & I can assure mr cameron ( who wasnt even BORN ) That we & any of the other services did not play second fiddle to anybody seeing as how we were on our own.
Just for the record, the British M.N were the first casualties of the war & were not recognised until FIFTY years after, & IF you are interested mr cameron, M.N Day is on September 3rd. 2010
PS. Were the fiddling mp's stealing our money in those days while I was swallowing oil in the sea,& others were being shot.
- rififi, Broadstone. Dorset.( Its the Brussels SPROUTS who are coming, Not the Yanks)
*******************************************
Twit! The British and the Commonwealth stood up and were counted when America was crying off entering the war. I hope Cameron is not going to be bribed by the Americans again we have seen enough of Tony selling us out, Gordon giving up, this country deserves better.
- Rick, Cuiaba Brazil
*************************************************
We know WW2 as the 1939/1945 war. The Americans know it as the 1941/1945 war. Says it all I think. And I believe that Germany actually declared war on the States in the end! The Americans did not exactly rush to defend democracy, Mr Cameron.
- pogleton, Bury St Edmunds
*********************************************
I can't believe I voted for this bloke. They are getting worse by the day. As for the so called special relationship, who needs it? It appears to be more important to politicians looking to their own future after they have been booted out than anybody else. The USA is no friend of this country and never has been. Self interest and adulation is their only friend.
As for Cameron, took me longer to go off T Blair than Cameron.
Shan't ever be voting for anybody ever again
- Graham, Fareham
**************************************
Without Britain the following scenarios could have happened:
1.Germany wins war in Europe, uses resources freed up and new resources gained to defeat Russia, then turns attention to invading USA. Americans end up speaking German.
2. Germany wins war in Europe but is so weakened that Russia overruns them from the East. Russia uses resources from new conquests to attack USA. Americans end up speaking Russian.
3. In either of the two scenarios above, Germany or Russia may not have wanted to invade USA, but may have left that pleasure to Japan, with German/Russian help. Amercans end up speaking Japanese.
Thanks to us the Yanks are still speaking something which from a distance passes for English. And they charged us for the weapons!
- Chris, Lichfield
**************************************
Perhaps we (the British Empire) would have been better off, if the Japs had never dragged the Yanks into WW2, and had continued to fight the Germans, ALONE, in the West. The UK would have avoided the disasters of the formations of the EU and the UN. Our real allies, the Russians, would have dealt with Continental Europe (the "German Empire").
I was a 7-year old, when my London home was destroyed in the Blitz. I don't recall any USAAF fighters, above! (Only a few US volunteers in the RAF, lots of Poles, Czechs, Free French et al).
- Ron Durham, Auckland, New Zealand
******************************************
Tim "nice but dim" at it again. If you go around trying to please everyone and say what is deemed to be correct, you can't help but slip up because you are never being yourself. Cameron is just not a diplomat and the flaws in his personality are beginning to show. We need a tough hard talking leader who is able to stand up for this country and protect its business interests. We are constantly under attack from Europe and now we seem to be on the receiving end of an ever increasingly neurotic American government. We cannot afford to have weak leadership and although I voted for the Conservatives, I am very worried at what would be the alternative if they fail to succeed in pulling things together in the next year. Heaven forbid we return to more of the last 13 years of madness. Who in this government is strong enough to do the job and challenge for leadership ?
- AB, Midlands
dailymail.co.uk
Despite the Tory PM having attended Eton, one of the best schools in the country, his grasp of history is somewhat shaky. Far from being the US's "junior partner" in 1940, the British Empire actually had NO partners in 1940 because that was the time she fought Nazi Germany on her own. The United States didn't enter WWII until December 1941, and only then because Japan and Germany declared war on her.
Mr Cameron, taking part in his first visit to the US since becoming Prime Minister in May, said on Britain's Sky News: 'I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the U.S., but we are the junior partner. We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.'
Downing Street was quick to step in, saying that the PM had actually meant to say the 1940s in general, rather than the year 1940.
However, in an earlier interview with America's ABC, he said: 'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting against Hitler; we are the junior partner now. I think you shouldn't pretend to be something you're not.'
But not only did Britain have no partners at all in 1940, but even when the US entered the war in December 1941 - only after the Japs and Germans declared war on it - Britain was still not the junior partner until 1943 at the earliest. It was, in actual fact, the dominant partner with the US during that time.
In the early years of the war Britain had an army of 2.4million men in the field when the Americans had an army of just 240,000 - one tenth of the fighting force of Britain. It wasn't until very late in the war - 1944 - that the US had more men under arms than Britain. At the vital planning conferences during 1942 and 1943, it was Churchill rather than Roosevelt who set the military strategy. And Britain lost a total of 449,800 war dead compared with 418,500 Americans, despite the fact that at the time the US population was three times that of the British population.
The US wasn't even much of a help to Britain before it entered the war, despite its colossal resources and tradition of liberty.
In 1940, during the Battle of Britain, young Americans who wanted to volunteer for the RAF were warned that they could lose their US citizenship and even be fined if they took part in the fighting.
Under the American Neutrality Act, it was actually illegal for the US to ship any goods to a combatant unless cash was paid on strictly commercial terms.
Therefore, in the summer of 1940, Churchill's government had to pay up front for all the military equipment and aircraft it bought from the US, almost bankrupting Britain by 1941.
Cameron's historic blunder: Fury as PM says we were 'junior partner' to Americans in 1940
By Tim Shipman, Deputy Political Editor
22nd July 2010
Daily Mail
British soldiers in action during World War II. Far from being a "junior partner" to the United States in 1940, Britain had NO partners at all in 1940. Even when the US entered the war in December 1941 after Japan and Germany declared war on it, it was the US which was the junior partner to Britain until at least 1943. In the early years of the war the British Army in the field numbered 2.4 million troops, ten times than of the US.
David Cameron faced a furious backlash yesterday for the astonishing claim that the UK was a 'junior partner' to America in 1940 - a year before the U.S. even entered the war.
The Prime Minister was accused of forgetting the sacrifices made in 1940 by those who fought in the Battle of Britain, the heroes of Dunkirk and the Londoners bombed out of their homes in the Blitz.
Downing Street hastily claimed that Mr Cameron had meant to refer to the 1940s in general. But by then the damage was done.
General Sir Patrick Cordingley, former commander of the Desert Rats, said: 'I am quite sure if Winston Churchill were alive today he would be dismayed.'
Snack time: David Cameron and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stop for a snack
Boost: The Mayor had his with mustard but the Prime Minister stuck to a plain hotdog
Time out: The pair stopped off at the stand outside Penn Station after Mr Cameron arrived from Washington
Mr Cameron, on his first visit to the U.S. as Prime Minister, made his gaffe in an interview with Sky News.
'I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the U.S., but we are the junior partner,' he said.
'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.'
In fact, Britain under the leadership of Churchill - one of Mr Cameron's heroes - stood ALONE in 1940 against Nazi Germany and had far more men under arms than the U.S. until 1944.
While Britain fought on, with some material assistance from the U.S., America did not actually enter the war until December 1941 after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
And Britain lost a total of 449,800 war dead compared with 418,500 Americans.
Even as Downing Street was trying to repair the damage, the PM's error was compounded in a further interview, recorded earlier, with the American network ABC news.
He said: 'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting against Hitler; we are the junior partner now. I think you shouldn't pretend to be something you're not.'
Onto the economy: Mr Cameron with H. Furlong Baldwin and Bruce E. Aust from Nasdaq
Hello New York: The Prime Minister leaving the Nasdaq headquarters after meeting chief executives
Historian Andrew Roberts, author of the recent Second World War history The Storm of War, said: 'The Prime Minister is wrong. He shouldn't wear a hair shirt.
'In the early years of the war Britain had an army of 2.4million men in the field when the Americans had 240,000 - one tenth of the fighting force.
'It was not really until 1944 that the Americans had more men in the field than the UK, the British Empire and Commonwealth.
'In 1940 there was material help from America, but not belligerency against the Nazis. Britain was the dominant partner in terms of the strategy until at least 1943.'
Labour was quick to leap on Mr Cameron's mistake.
Former defence minister Kevan Jones told the Mail: 'David Cameron is guilty of talking down Britain and disrespecting Second World War veterans who know that Britain was fighting alone against Nazi tyranny while America was still putting its fighting boots on.'
Hectic: David Cameron with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the United Nations headquarters
As hostile reaction swept the internet, Mr Cameron's gaffe was greeted with dismay by retired military men.
SAS hero Andy McNab said: 'It's very important to get this history right because people are still living who fought in 1940. There are still survivors of Dunkirk and fighter pilots from the Battle of Britain. For them it is very, very important to recognise the role they played. This is living history.'
General Cordingley said: ' Having just spent the day with some Normandy veterans, I'm surprised that the Prime Minister has forgotten the sacrifice of those who fought in the Battle of Britain and North Africa before the U.S. entered the war and those who were bombed during the Blitz.'
General Sir Mike Jackson, a former head of the Army, said: 'The Prime Minister's history is not as good as it should be. Without doubt we were the superior partner until America's entry into the war. I'm sure the Prime Minister's jet lag is catching up with him.'
CORRELLI BARNETT: BRITAIN BORE THE BRUNT
Daily Mail
22nd July 2010
David Cameron's remarks were not just a travesty of the truth but also an insult to the memory of all those Britons who fought so heroically in the dark months of 1940, when this country stood alone against the Reich's tyranny.
Contrary to his absurd claim, there was no partnership whatsoever between the U.S. and Britain in that year. Indeed, America was not involved in the war at all, either militarily or in supplying material support.
Despite the U.S.'s colossal resources and tradition of liberty, the republic did little to aid Britain's cause against the Nazis. Under the American Neutrality Act, it was actually illegal for the U.S. to ship any goods to a combatant unless cash was paid on strictly commercial terms.
Therefore, in the summer of 1940, Churchill's government had to pay up front for all the military equipment and aircraft it bought from the U.S., almost bankrupting itself by early 1941.
Nor was the U.S. remotely supportive during the Battle of Britain.
Battle of Britain: Spitfire pilots, who valiantly fought to save Britain from destruction by taking on the Luftwaffe in the skies over Britain, run to their aircraft in 1940 as Britain stood alone against the Nazis.
Remarkably, heroic young Americans who wanted to volunteer for the RAF were warned that they could lose their U.S. citizenship and even be fined if they took part in the fighting, an edict that many of them thankfully ignored.
This reluctance to help Britain reflected the mood of anxious isolationism which gripped America in 1940.
Part of this stemmed from hostility to the old colonial power, part from the belief that conflicts in Europe were nothing to do with the New World.
It was an outlook that could be found right across Congress and the American public.
Even the U.S. ambassador to London, the roguish Joe Kennedy, father of the future President JFK, shared this mentality. In a typically defeatist outburst, Kennedy said in 1940 that 'democracy is finished in England'. (Thank God for the world that the British didn't take the same sort of defeatist attitude in 1940.)
Joe Kennedy caused uproar in wartime Britain by declaring "democracy is finished in England."
Franklin D Roosevelt himself, though personally much more eager to back Britain, was constrained by these attitudes.
Churchill fought a constant battle against this spirit of separatism.
One of the reasons that he took the notorious action in blowing up the French fleet in July 1940, after France had signed an armistice with Germany, was to impress Americans about Britain's determination to carry on the fight.
He also hoped that the defiance of the RAF against the Luftwaffe would change attitudes. But still the U.S. did not bend.
The dogma of isolationism was ended only when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December, 1941, 'a day that will live in infamy', to quote the words of Roosevelt.
It is no exaggeration to say that America might never have entered the war but for that fateful action.
For the first two years after Pearl Harbor, Britain and America could be described as 'equal partners'.
America might have had more military muscle, but Britain had all the experience of fighting.
At the vital planning conferences during 1942 and 1943, it was Churchill rather than Roosevelt who set the military strategy.
In particular, he saved America from the folly of launching an invasion of France in 1943, which could have only ended in disaster because the Allies were insufficiently prepared and Germany remained too strong.
At the vital planning conferences during 1942 and 1943, it was Churchill rather than Roosevelt who set the military strategy.
Far more sensible was Churchill's plan for wiping out the Axis forces in North Africa and Italy.
It was not until D-Day was reached in June 1944 that Britain could be regarded as the junior partner, if only because of the colossal weight of the U.S. forces in Europe.
But D-Day could never have been happened if Britain had not fought so bravely four years earlier, when she alone withstood the might of the all-conquering Nazi war machine.
I don't know which is worse: His ignorance of history or talking Britain down
By Stephen Glover
22nd July 2010
Much has been made of David Cameron's supposedly pitch-perfect tone during his visit to the United States.
He evidently charmed President Barack Obama, and seems to have dealt adroitly with embarrassing questions about the early release from a Scottish prison of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
But actually he made a serious and near unforgivable error which almost no one has picked up on.
David Cameron lays a wreath at Arlington Cemetery in Washington, but at home his comments about the Second World War have sparked anger
On BBC2's Newsnight, the American-based British historian Simon Schama was wheeled out to declare that 'David Cameron has not put a foot wrong'.
I am afraid he did. In an interview with the major U.S. network ABC watched by millions of Americans, the British Prime Minister stated: 'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting against Hitler. We are the junior partner now.'
There is an established convention that when senior British politicians travel abroad, they do not talk their country down.
I can remember the hullabaloo which followed a speech given in Washington in the mid-1980s by Neil Kinnock, then Labour leader, in which he went out of his way to tell an American audience that Britain was no longer a world power.
Of course, no one doubts that, with an economy about a seventh the size of that of the United States, and defence expenditure which is barely one tenth, the United Kingdom is decidedly a very junior partner.
But a British Prime Minister should not publicly advertise the fact on an official visit. I can't imagine, say, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, abasing his country in this way.
In fact, Mr Cameron's error of judgment was far greater. He did not merely break a convention which all previous British Prime Ministers have observed. He said something that was simply wrong. Britain was not a 'junior partner' of the United States in 1940.
This country declared war against Germany in September 1939. Germany did so against the United States over two years later, in December 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
During that time, Britain had no kind of partnership with America. Seventy years ago this summer, the Battle of Britain was fought - and won - without American help.
After belatedly entering the war, the United States did devote enormous industrial and manpower resources to fighting the Axis powers. Even so, it probably was not until 1943 that she began to make a bigger contribution to the Allied cause than Britain.
This country even then hardly played an inferior role. In the mass bombing of German cities or the Battle of the Atlantic or the invasion of Normandy in June 1944, Britain and her Empire (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc) were not the junior partners as, for example, we unquestionably were during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Stalingrad: David Cameron would have been more accurate if he said Britain and the US were junior partners to Russia which sustained horrific loss of life in the Second World War, typified by the Battle of Stalingrad
If the comparison is to be measured in terms of blood, Britain's contribution was the greater.
Some 449,800 British lives were lost throughout World War II as against 418,500 American lives during the shorter period of the United States' involvement.
At that time, the population of the U.S. was three times that of the United Kingdom.
Hardly the sacrifice of a junior partner. Had Mr Cameron said that, following the German invasion of Russia in June 1941, both Britain and the United States were junior partners to the Soviet Union - which lost an estimated 24 million lives, and fought the bloodiest and most important land battles of the war with Nazi Germany - he would have been closer to the mark.
Nor should we forget that assistance from our supposedly benevolent transatlantic cousins did not come cheap.
Under the Lend-Lease agreement, the United Sates sold $31.4 billion of armaments to this country, which equates to at least $500 billion at modern prices.
The British Government did not finish paying off this debt until 2006. Whereas our economy was broken by the war, he was factually incorrect to state that we were partners of any kind of the united States in 1940.
And he was wrong to suggest that throughout the conflict we played second fiddle to America. I'd say that these amount to pretty serious clangers which have, however, largely escaped the British media.
It is true that in an article in the Wall Street Journal the Prime Minister wrote that Britain was a junior partner 'in the 1940s' rather than in 1940, as he asserted on ABC television.
But this was scarcely less offensive. And we cannot get away from the fact that he said what he said on network TV.
Does it matter? I think it does. I agree with Mr Cameron that nations should be realistic about their power.
And he is absolutely right, too, to say that some in the political establishment in Britain are over-obsessed with 'the special relationship', as though we can only have significance as a nation when recognised as the United States' best friend.
The lesson of the Blair years is that British national self-interest was subordinated to American goals.
Thus far Mr Cameron was correct. But he was at fault in deprecating his country to an American audience.
Something to chew on: Cameron and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg enjoy hotdogs outside Penn Station
And I simply cannot understand how a patriotic Englishman, which I take Mr Cameron to be, can say what he did about Britain's supposed role in 1940.
It betrays, apart from much else, a surprising degree of historical ignorance in someone supposed to have an outstanding brain.
Incidentally, the Prime Minister also said a silly thing during his joint press conference with Mr Obama.
Recalling how the President had given him a bottle of beer last month as part of a bet, he said that it was obviously 'very effective' because it had led him to cheer for Germany in her World Cup match against Argentina, which is 'something that's a big admission for a British person'.
Superficially funny, perhaps, but also profoundly unstatesmanlike.
I don't know why Mr Cameron said what he did about Britain being a junior partner.
Maybe he wants to please our transatlantic allies too much.
Maybe he is less confident about being British than he pretends. Maybe it just indicates a certain glibness of thought.
Leaders should not be boastful or overestimate the limits of their countries' power.
But, equally, they should not run down their countries' historical achievements. I can't conceive of Margaret Thatcher making such a mistake, though I can imagine Tony Blair, who was in thrall to American power, doing so.
I believe many ordinary British people will be dismayed by Mr Cameron's remarks.
Worse still, thousands of servicemen who fought in the war, and people who survived the Blitz and the bombing of British cities, may wonder how he can think that their sacrifice was somehow secondary to that of a country which for more than two years of the war was no kind of partner.
Some may smoothly declare that our novice Prime Minister did not put a foot wrong, and many in the British media congratulate him on a supposedly flawless visit to the United States.
I'm afraid I take a different view - and hope that this will be the last time that, when abroad, David Cameron talks his country down.
READERS' COMMENTS
Maybe the PM was confusing the US with its larger and more popular neighbour Canada, who were in it pretty much from the start.
- Ned Flan-diddly-anders, UK
*******************************************
There's an interesting curiosity with the American position that they didn't feel obligated to assist GB early on at the start of WW2. There are a variety of reasons given, no defense pact, another European quarrel, colonial history and so forth. There were at least 3 countries (C, A, NZ) of virtually the same blood as the US that felt the exact opposit: they had to do everthing they could to help. In addition to British stock, Canada also had large or significant German, Italian, Irish and Japanese origin populations and it still made no difference in the response. Even French-Canadians, lukewarm to the idea of helping GB, eventually joined in the national emergency. In fact, when French-Canadian troops from Quebec and Northern Ontario landed on Juno Beach on D-Day, they spoke to the French locals in the same dialect. The Canadians had returned to the same Normandy shores that their ancestors had left in the 1600's.
- Johnny, Canada
****************************************
I was in the MERCHANT NAVY during the war & I can assure mr cameron ( who wasnt even BORN ) That we & any of the other services did not play second fiddle to anybody seeing as how we were on our own.
Just for the record, the British M.N were the first casualties of the war & were not recognised until FIFTY years after, & IF you are interested mr cameron, M.N Day is on September 3rd. 2010
PS. Were the fiddling mp's stealing our money in those days while I was swallowing oil in the sea,& others were being shot.
- rififi, Broadstone. Dorset.( Its the Brussels SPROUTS who are coming, Not the Yanks)
*******************************************
Twit! The British and the Commonwealth stood up and were counted when America was crying off entering the war. I hope Cameron is not going to be bribed by the Americans again we have seen enough of Tony selling us out, Gordon giving up, this country deserves better.
- Rick, Cuiaba Brazil
*************************************************
We know WW2 as the 1939/1945 war. The Americans know it as the 1941/1945 war. Says it all I think. And I believe that Germany actually declared war on the States in the end! The Americans did not exactly rush to defend democracy, Mr Cameron.
- pogleton, Bury St Edmunds
*********************************************
I can't believe I voted for this bloke. They are getting worse by the day. As for the so called special relationship, who needs it? It appears to be more important to politicians looking to their own future after they have been booted out than anybody else. The USA is no friend of this country and never has been. Self interest and adulation is their only friend.
As for Cameron, took me longer to go off T Blair than Cameron.
Shan't ever be voting for anybody ever again
- Graham, Fareham
**************************************
Without Britain the following scenarios could have happened:
1.Germany wins war in Europe, uses resources freed up and new resources gained to defeat Russia, then turns attention to invading USA. Americans end up speaking German.
2. Germany wins war in Europe but is so weakened that Russia overruns them from the East. Russia uses resources from new conquests to attack USA. Americans end up speaking Russian.
3. In either of the two scenarios above, Germany or Russia may not have wanted to invade USA, but may have left that pleasure to Japan, with German/Russian help. Amercans end up speaking Japanese.
Thanks to us the Yanks are still speaking something which from a distance passes for English. And they charged us for the weapons!
- Chris, Lichfield
**************************************
Perhaps we (the British Empire) would have been better off, if the Japs had never dragged the Yanks into WW2, and had continued to fight the Germans, ALONE, in the West. The UK would have avoided the disasters of the formations of the EU and the UN. Our real allies, the Russians, would have dealt with Continental Europe (the "German Empire").
I was a 7-year old, when my London home was destroyed in the Blitz. I don't recall any USAAF fighters, above! (Only a few US volunteers in the RAF, lots of Poles, Czechs, Free French et al).
- Ron Durham, Auckland, New Zealand
******************************************
Tim "nice but dim" at it again. If you go around trying to please everyone and say what is deemed to be correct, you can't help but slip up because you are never being yourself. Cameron is just not a diplomat and the flaws in his personality are beginning to show. We need a tough hard talking leader who is able to stand up for this country and protect its business interests. We are constantly under attack from Europe and now we seem to be on the receiving end of an ever increasingly neurotic American government. We cannot afford to have weak leadership and although I voted for the Conservatives, I am very worried at what would be the alternative if they fail to succeed in pulling things together in the next year. Heaven forbid we return to more of the last 13 years of madness. Who in this government is strong enough to do the job and challenge for leadership ?
- AB, Midlands
dailymail.co.uk
Last edited: