British PM proves an expensive education doesn't always mean you learn anything

[Andy Wright]

You can say many things about Gordon Brown but at least he knew his history. Besides the 1940 issue, I would also argue the 'junior partner' tag as well.

Veteran's Bill Lacey and Bob Foster's fury over PM's US war gaffe - mirror.co.uk

One's a hero of Dunkirk, the other a courageous Battle of Britain pilot. And David Cameron has managed to insult them both.

His historical blunder saying that Britain was just a "junior partner" to the US in 1940 during World War Two has enraged war veterans.

Now ex-soldier Bill Lacey and former RAF top gun Bob Foster, both 90, want an apology for the gaffe...like one of "stupid boy" Private Pike's in Dad's Army.

"Considering he went to Eton, he doesn't seem to have learned much about history," said Bill, a rifleman with the Gloucestershire Regiment.

Cameron made his blunder on the second day of his first visit to Washington as PM. Speaking about Britain's "special" relationship with America, he said: "The fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US, but we are the junior partner. We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis." In fact, the Americans didn't join the war until 1941, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Bill said: "We never even saw an American soldier until 1943, and we used to taunt them their flag was red, white and blue with a yellow stripe running through it."

Bill fought hand-to-hand with the enemy at Dunkirk in 1940, only to be left behind on the beaches. He survived for four months in occupied France before making his own way back to Britain. "I saw many comrades die," he added. "It's insulting their memory if Mr Cameron calls them 'junior partners'." Wing Commander Bob Foster, then a 20-year-old rookie pilot, flew 50-60 sorties in the Battle of Britain.

"I feel angry not just for myself and my RAF comrades, but for everyone in this country who did their bit," Bob said. "All those in the military and on the Home Front played a vital part, with great determination and courage.

"What would have happened if Britain had not stood alone? Today America would still be the senior partner but in a very different world."

Bob said funds are being raised to build an education centre at the Battle of Britain memorial in Kent. "Perhaps Mr Cameron would like to be our first visitor," he added. "He might learn a thing or two."

Donations to the Battle of Britain Memorial Trust fund for an education centre can be made at Battle of Britain Memorial, or PO Box 337, West Malling, Kent ME6 9AA.

Read more: Veteran's Bill Lacey and Bob Foster's fury over PM's US war gaffe - mirror.co.uk

[Amrit]

As I said to Andy offline, and idiot is an idiot, no matter how expensive his education.

[Errol Martyn]

Ah yes, but an idiot of the highest possible quality!

Errol

[Amrit]

It's that old nature/nurture quandry! Was he born with the silver spoon of idiocy, or was he taught it? But either way, Errol is quite right...in these hard times it is nice to see that idiocracy is still working.

[Adrian Roberts]

The 1940 bit was a stupid mistake as I'm sure he realised immediately. But other than that, he was right. The most we could have done without the Americans (and the Russians) was to prevent a German invasion which we did in 1940. But we wouldn't have lasted much longer without lend-lease and the American supplies via the Atlantic, even before they joined the war. There is no way that we could have pulled off an invasion of Europe without the Americans - can you imagine D-Day with without the US Forces? And in the Pacific we were even more the junior partner. Ok, India/Burma was largely our show, but we couldn't have got far if the Japanese had not been distracted by the US Forces in the Pacific.

Of course, none of this detracts from the courage and skill of our fighting men such as Bill Lacey and Bob Foster.

[Amrit]

The 1940 bit was a stupid mistake as I'm sure he realised immediately. But other than that, he was right. The most we could have done without the Americans (and the Russians) was to prevent a German invasion which we did in 1940.

But I still think to claim to be a junior partner is going too far, even up to 1945. Maybe "junior" is overall military size, but in accomplishments and contributions, it has to be looked at in a case by case examination. The RAF played an equal, if not greater part in Europe than the USAAF, the RN's and RCN's contribution was superior in places like the Med and some parts of the Atlantic. Yes, on the ground, straight after D-Day there were more American troops.

But we wouldn't have lasted much longer without lend-lease and the American supplies via the Atlantic, even before they joined the war.

And yes, Land-Lease was vital to Britain, but it was still a straight transaction. Britain got material, the Americans got island bases. But they still hold the bases whilst Britain had to either buy, return or dump all the material they received. It was a lease-lease agreement.

There is no way that we could have pulled off an invasion of Europe without the Americans - can you imagine D-Day with without the US Forces?

Just to play devil's advocate....just how vital was it for the US and Britain to invade mainland Europe? Could the Germans have really defeated the Russians in the longterm? Would Stalin actually have negotiated a seperate peace?

Or was the invasion decided upon for political rather than purely military reasons?

And in the Pacific we were even more the junior partner. Ok, India/Burma was largely our show, but we couldn't have got far if the Japanese had not been distracted by the US Forces in the Pacific.

Again, playing the devil's advocate....just how far could the Japanese gotten, even if they had won at Midway? Or was that the full extent of both their Pacific intentions, and abilities? So their attention would have turned to India....but here again, their real abilities were limited. So defeating the Japanese was just one option....the other was containment within the boundaries of Burma, China and the Pacific.

[Judith]

Ref Amrit playing devil's advocate.......I am sure my WW2 history is by no means accurate but is it not true that the need to invade mainland Europe and then push East was not just to defeat Hitler, but the fear Churchill had that the Soviets were bent on pushing west as far as possible - hence the Iron Curtain speech. Judith

[Oggie2620]

I hope this government wont keep dumbing down the history lessons if even the Prime Minister cant get a simple thing like that right!!!
Dee