UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Imperializt Russia]

Which "CDC study" are you two looking at? The first in Gallo's thread, from 2010, suggests 1 in 5 female victims of rape attempted and completed, 1 in 41 male victims of rape attempted and completed and 1 in 21 male victims of being forced to penetrate (ie, male rape) in its "key findings".

[Ostroeuropa]

Which "CDC study" are you two looking at? The first in Gallo's thread, from 2010, suggests 1 in 5 female victims of rape attempted and completed, 1 in 41 male victims of rape attempted and completed and 1 in 21 male victims of being forced to penetrate (ie, male rape) in its "key findings".

Check the yearly rates, not lifetime rates.
The issue of males being more likely to suppress the event over time, alongside other issues, makes this more important.
It's also more relevant to current policy and attitudes.

Each year, around half of all rape victims are male, and this has been the case for at least a decade, perhaps even longer dependent on whether older men are prepared to admit it to themselves, or have suppressed it.

Gallos thread moves from the trivial to demonstrate (once you eliminate misandrist bias in definitions) "Men are raped at the same rate as women, and women rape at the same rate as men" toward the more controversial "the number of men who are rape victims is the same as the number of women." and still manages to craft a plausible defense of the second statement.

Missing from his evaluation is higher rates of male suicide, and the study showing male rape victims are 20% more likely to experience PTSD, alongside lack of adequate facilities and social care and compassion for male rape victims.
Many male rape victims may be missing from the calculation.

For the issue of pedophilia and child sex abuse, I refer you again to the Atlantic article and it noting 90% of juvenile males who are abused report a female sexual abuser.

In any case, we're probably straying a little too far from the initial point of child pornography and the porn ban for children, and how gender relates to it.

Gallo also covers your point in his thread.

However, if you paste the "forgetting" section into that, you get (20%/64)*100 = 31.25% of girls, and (5%/16)*100 = 31.25% of boys.

[Ostroeuropa]

Cultural misandry becomes explicit policy, courts have been told to refrain from sending women to prison, and this done on the following grounds:

The new guidance for judges and magistrates says real equality means favouring women and minorities to make up for the disadvantage they suffer.

So in other words, outright asserting the feminist worldview as fact, the kind that denies misandry and male disadvantage, and using that as an excuse to formalize institutional privilege for women in the justice system that already exists. In the process, providing a convenient excuse and lie for Progressives and Feminists to use in future to explain the gap rather than admit it was present before these guidelines and could not possibly be caused by their warped vision of justice being applied, but must have been due to some form prejudice which they are now seeking to cover for and excuse in order to continue denying misandry is real and their worldview isn't an inadequate and bigoted set of delusions, either misandry (Which in my view is likely) or if you're one of those types who likes to do things like call male rape victims misogynists for not coming forward, misogyny.

Most especially revealing is that this pre-existing prejudice is entirely indistinguishable from progressive and feminist views on Affirmative action for women being applied.
They are one and the same thing, one is merely asserted using egalitarian rhetoric and feminist rationalizations for that prejudice, the only difference is the presentation, and this example demonstrates it, and as a consequence, the nature of feminism and progressivism as a hate ideology. We can see here that when a pre-existing prejudice disadvantages males, the impulse is to rationalize it and entrench it further, and this is also a pattern for the feminist movement. Compare/contrast to a pre-existing prejudice disadvantaging females.

‘True equal treatment may not always mean treating everyone in the same way,’ the new version says. Fair treatment, judges are told, means that ‘steps can be taken, where appropriate, to redress any inequality arising from difference or disadvantage.’

The Bench Book adds: ‘Women remain disadvantaged in many public and private areas of their lives.

This is another fine example of how allowing Feminists into an institution corrupts it and turns it into a vehicle for bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination.

We also once again see the erasure of mens side of an issue and the erasure of male victims to assert things as a female specific problem by the feminist movement, by now a tiresome trend that this hate movement has pulled in domestic violence, rape, and practically everything else they talk about.

We've already seen the negative effects Feminist lobbying has had on due process, but we're beginning to see the rest of the justice system fall under their sway now as well. The erasure of male victimization, rationalizing away misandry or seeking to excuse it, framing circumstances that should lead to lower sentences as applying to women as a class and not men, rather than individuals those things apply to, these are all things rooted in feminist ideology and worldview being applied, the consequences of believing their mere assertions that these people are egalitarian and their worldview is the same as equality.

The guidance says women criminals often have troubled lives. ‘Women’s offending can be linked to underlying mental health needs, drug and alcohol problems, coercive relationships, financial difficulties and debt,’ it says.

As a reasoning to avoid custodial sentences goes, why does this not also apply to men as a class? And more importantly, what is the rationalization for the court viewing these things as effecting all women, rather than individuals? The rationale is the feminist worldview and frame of comprehending reality, that necessarily privileges women. By asserting individuals with these problems be treated leniently, feminists cannot advance a female victimhood narrative and push for female supremacy. So instead they erase men these things apply to, and seek to cast these things as effecting women as a class, thereby shifting from advocacy for human rights, to female supremacy, in order to satisfy their compulsive need to keep finding evidence in support of their notion that women as a class are disadvantaged and their dogmatic view of reality is based in fact and not prejudice, in the process causing devastating consequences in each area of public life that is allowed to fall under their influence. They must be purged from our institutions.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judg ... -kczkp6pzg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... grant.html

For further evidence the feminist movement is not an equality movement, is hostile to men as a demographic, and has no intentions of confronting misandry and female privilege, watch the feminist reaction to these developments and the lack of campaigning, outrage, protesting, etc.

From the feminist thread, an independent evaluation of womens privilege in the justice system as it relates to child rape by teachers.
viewtopic.php?p=33559153#p33559153

You talked about the "scale" earlier.
How about the education and justice system for a scale?

Crucial stats from the post:

28% of all cases involved students aged 12-14. The majority are still done by women.

+

over 4 years 122 women were sentenced to an average of 4.8 years. 90 men were sentenced to an average of 8.9 years.

26 women and 11 men had multiple victims.

for victims aged 12-14 the teachers were 30 women and 19 men.

Number of victims only seemed to tie into women's sentencing. 13 women had a sentence of over 15 years and 5 of them had multiple victims.

For men only 3 of the 17 sentenced to over 15 years had multiple victims.

Other interesting stats:

26 women received nothing but probation, only 1 man received only probation.

55 women received sentences under 2 years, while only 21 men did.

These are the contexts in which UK feminists are pressuring for leniency for women, and presenting that leniency as necessary to redress womens disadvantages.

[Questers]

Independent Britain would not have let a country like Spain bully it over Gibraltar.

Puppet Britain may have no other choice than to give it up. The process of self-destruction in nations is the same as it is in people.

[Souseiseki]

Independent Britain would not have let a country like Spain bully it over Gibraltar.

Puppet Britain may have no other choice than to give it up. The process of self-destruction in nations is the same as it is in people.

this is one of the primary reasons brexit happened, the delusion that "independent britain" is magic and always gets its way. this is also why brexit is going to be so painful, as you will get a hard reminder that there are countries and blocs that are a lot more powerful and influential than you and give not the slightest shit about how super independent and great england thinks it is.

the problems with gibraltar are a result of international treaties. you cannot go around breaking them willy nilly without consequence. you cannot resort to military action since its the 21st century and you have shit all military and the idea of winning a trade war with the EU is laughable. let's pretend the old order falls away and the great independent british leaders swoop into power. what are you going to do, exactly?

[Ostroeuropa]

Independent Britain would not have let a country like Spain bully it over Gibraltar.

Puppet Britain may have no other choice than to give it up. The process of self-destruction in nations is the same as it is in people.

this is one of the primary reasons brexit happened, the delusion that "independent britain" is magic and always gets its way. this is also why brexit is going to be so painful, as you will get a hard reminder that there are countries and blocs that are a lot more powerful and influential than you and give not the slightest shit about how super independent and great england thinks it is.

the problems with gibraltar are a result of international treaties. you cannot go around breaking them willy nilly without consequence. you cannot resort to military action since its the 21st century and you have shit all military and the idea of winning a trade war with the EU is laughable. let's pretend the old order falls away and the great independent british leaders swoop into power. what are you going to do, exactly?

If I could get it done by decree I reckon I could see us out of this through sheer shitposting, hype, controversy, and modern radicalism alongside a rebirth of nationalism and flirting with other countries to join a third empire as co-equal members.

Corporate capitalism is absolutely fucking shit mate.
We pretty much just have to lurch headlong into alternatives and make a break for it before the other nations cotton on to it and move to catch up, and the pin prick of brexit won't mean shit by comparison.

We're not utilizing our population, our resources, none of it properly.

To take the place of the soviet union but as the good guys this time and build an international coalition would require room to maneuver the EU doesn't afford us.

But fuck it, we're just going to become a massive cayman islands instead i guess.

[Neu Leonstein]

Independent Britain would not have let a country like Spain bully it over Gibraltar.

Puppet Britain may have no other choice than to give it up. The process of self-destruction in nations is the same as it is in people.

Yeah, whatever. The problem with Britain is not that it is a puppet. It's that the referendum campaign never really finished. Yes, Cameron was wrong to push back on public service attempts to prepare for a Leave vote, but even after June 2016 there was enough time to work something out. But when May ended up the smallest common denominator choice, she didn't have the political capital to just make an executive call on what Brexit was going to be. Probably no one could have.

So the Brexiteers, who were now in important ministries, did the only thing they knew how to do: they kept campaigning for Brexit. Of course there were and are plenty of people who don't want it - almost half the voters had chosen Remain, and many hadn't bothered to vote and regretted it now. So they had an opposition to campaign against. And so what happened was that we had two years of speeches, and statements and interviews. From every last one of them.

But the problem is that this is all for a domestic audience. And this would normally have worked fine - that's what Brussels-bashing is all about, and a lot of these politicians had built a significant part of their careers on doing it. But now there was, in parallel, an actual policy problem to be solved. And no one bothered to do it. Davis is completely incompetent, and the best piece of proof that unintelligent people can end up in incredibly well-paid, important positions as long as they have the drive and lack of shame. But May didn't do anything either, and the rest of her cabinet is a bunch of jokers with only one plan: appeal to the Daily Mail editors until the PM was gone and then have a shot at the job themselves.

The EU is a process-driven organisation, not a politics-driven one. It has to be, because there is no way to herd a bunch of 27 (or 28) cats otherwise. The UK civil service understands this: they were a major part of it for four decades and helped write the processes themselves. They have a lot of experience in these sorts of negotiations. But the politicians didn't want to know. They actually fired key people for having generated politically inconvenient soundbites. They sidelined Whitehall or anyone who actually had solid experience with Brussels and created new departments they could staff with loyalists. And then they didn't worry about actually running them.

So the civil service has been adrift for two years, while the only type of Brexit policy that was being produced were occasional big goal-setting speeches. There was one brief flurry where they put out a bunch of position papers, but that lasted all of two weeks (though these were still vague, at least that was something). This week is the perfect example: the European Commission sits down and produced a legal treaty draft, and the UK response is domestic political posturing and ... a speech by May on Friday.

So of course the UK is not making any headway in these negotiations. They are winning the politics domestically (probably... who knows whether we won't have a Corbyn government soon enough), but they are barely even showing up for the actual negotiations. I mean, there were literally cancelled negotiation rounds because Davis couldn't be bothered to come to Brussels for them. So yes, the only stuff being talked about, and ultimately agreed on because there are fixed deadlines involved in all this, is the stuff the EU wants to be talked about. And yes, in part that is because the EU is big and cumbersome and Britain is small and flexible. But a huge part is just the incompetence of the UK government to actually do what they keep telling people they are doing.

But of course you can't explain that to people without their eyes glazing over because details are boring. Maybe if there was a better press it could be done. But evidently there's no need to look into the conduct of journalism in the UK any further either, so whatever. At this point one can only shake one's head.

[Questers]

Yeah, whatever. The problem with Britain is not that it is a puppet. It's that the referendum campaign never really finished. Yes, Cameron was wrong to push back on public service attempts to prepare for a Leave vote, but even after June 2016 there was enough time to work something out. But when May ended up the smallest common denominator choice, she didn't have the political capital to just make an executive call on what Brexit was going to be. Probably no one could have.

So the Brexiteers, who were now in important ministries, did the only thing they knew how to do: they kept campaigning for Brexit. Of course there were and are plenty of people who don't want it - almost half the voters had chosen Remain, and many hadn't bothered to vote and regretted it now. So they had an opposition to campaign against. And so what happened was that we had two years of speeches, and statements and interviews. From every last one of them.

Sure, but this is also why the process has to be a decisive one, because the referendum was so close. The referendum did not come with a clear mandate and neither major political leaders have enough capital to assert their vision of what it should be, and that's if they even had one. The EU is a dividing factor in British politics. Eventually, one of the sides must surrender to the other. It didn't matter which, in the end, but now we have given official notice to withdraw, we simply can't go back, even if the EU keeps saying we can. So now we have to find some way ahead.

The EU is a process-driven organisation, not a politics-driven one. It has to be, because there is no way to herd a bunch of 27 (or 28) cats otherwise. The UK civil service understands this: they were a major part of it for four decades and helped write the processes themselves. They have a lot of experience in these sorts of negotiations. But the politicians didn't want to know. They actually fired key people for having generated politically inconvenient soundbites. They sidelined Whitehall or anyone who actually had solid experience with Brussels and created new departments they could staff with loyalists. And then they didn't worry about actually running them.

So of course the UK is not making any headway in these negotiations. They are winning the politics domestically (probably... who knows whether we won't have a Corbyn government soon enough), but they are barely even showing up for the actual negotiations. I mean, there were literally cancelled negotiation rounds because Davis couldn't be bothered to come to Brussels for them. So yes, the only stuff being talked about, and ultimately agreed on because there are fixed deadlines involved in all this, is the stuff the EU wants to be talked about. And yes, in part that is because the EU is big and cumbersome and Britain is small and flexible. But a huge part is just the incompetence of the UK government to actually do what they keep telling people they are doing.

I am not blaming the EU for their position or behaviour. They are playing the game roughly as I would in this situation and we are barely playing. But our elected representatives are not competent and have almost no experience, are not driven to any particular outcome, have no cohesion and no real ideology. That's what democracy has given us, and that's what we have to live with (for now.) It is going to be rocky in the future but I am confident we will weather the storm.

But of course you can't explain that to people without their eyes glazing over because details are boring. Maybe if there was a better press it could be done. But evidently there's no need to look into the conduct of journalism in the UK any further either, so whatever. At this point one can only shake one's head.

A malinformed public is a requirement for liberal representative democracy to function. An informed and educated public would take one look at our system and overthrow it with gusto.

[Questers]

this is one of the primary reasons brexit happened, the delusion that "independent britain" is magic and always gets its way. this is also why brexit is going to be so painful, as you will get a hard reminder that there are countries and blocs that are a lot more powerful and influential than you and give not the slightest shit about how super independent and great england thinks it is.

the problems with gibraltar are a result of international treaties. you cannot go around breaking them willy nilly without consequence. you cannot resort to military action since its the 21st century and you have shit all military and the idea of winning a trade war with the EU is laughable. let's pretend the old order falls away and the great independent british leaders swoop into power. what are you going to do, exactly?

Spain has no route to occupy Gibraltar militarily, since Britain is part of NATO. If we had competent leadership our government would have laid down red lines during the negotiations such as "Gibraltar can not be used as a toy" and simply refused to negotiate at all if these red lines weren't accepted. If we don't express to them that there is a point beyond which we do not care if negotiations succeed then there is no point negotiating.

Btw I accept the basic premise that Britain is weak relative to the EU. That's a consequence of us opting to become weak in the first place. We got ourselves into this situation many, many decades ago. We now have no choice but to haul ourselves out with every ounce of energy the whole country can muster.

[Souseiseki]

i'm going to put the previous rape stuff in a spoiler

Only counting rape and made to penetrate, even in the CDC study, brings us to 60-40ish

using this abstract

In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women (or >23 million women) have been raped during their lifetimes (Table 1). Completed forced penetration was experienced by an estimated 11.5% of women.

An estimated 1.7% of men (or almost 2.0 million men) were raped during their lifetimes [and] the lifetime prevalence of being made to penetrate a perpetrator was an estimated 6.7% (>7.6 million men)

that's rape of women compared to rape of men + men made to penetrate. that gives us 9.6/32.6 which is more of a 30:70 number. the only way it gets to 40-60 for men-women is if you use completed forced penetration only vs made to penetrate. i would reject this, as made to penetrate is defined as "Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them" in the CDC's report. this means it is not sufficiently broken down to distinguish between attempted and completed in the tables we have been provided with and it would therefore be unwise to compare it to a split rape figure. if you weren't doing that then i'm still not 100% sure where you're getting this figure from.

excerpts from two books 1 - 2 i found mentioning the longdon citation did not mention repressed memories. they mentioned that using the term "sexual experiences" instead of "sexual abuse" caused a lot more men to respond. this is already accounted for by asking about specific actions instead of abuse. the second is that many of them appear to have said the abuser was male in order to get help after being brushed off by therapists. this is not a forgotten memory. i would actually be tempted to ask if anyone actually said there were repressed memories involved ("discomfort" does not in of itself mean repressed memory) or if this was your own inferrence. i can't actually see the study/expert first hand so i too am relying on second hand descriptions, but all three second hand descriptions that i have seen (including the one you provided) do not seem to explictly mention the concept of repressed memories.

i am skeptical that such a pattern would be replicated in an anonymous and random study and am not entire comfortable extraploating it outwards as you have. similarly, your juvenile figure seems to be related primary to prisons, a closed system whose results cannot necessarily be generlized to the greater world.

Check the yearly rates, not lifetime rates.

i cannot see such figures. the CDC studies are lifetime studies, with only one instance of extra details being given in relation to things that happened in the 12 months the study was taking place. this is not a yearly rate per se. it also seems like gallo has, somehow, linked the same 2010 CDC study three times. i am not sure if that was intentional.

The issue of males being more likely to suppress the event over time, alongside other issues, makes this more important.

this is the same thing that feminists do when they say rape is always sigificantly higher than we know of and the NSPCC does when they say that child abuse is always significantly higher than we know of. this is probably true, but it does leave us in the situation of not actually knowing anything. we could just as well turn around and say "ah, i see your unquantifiable amount of repressed male victims and raise you even more repressed female victims". since neither of the numbers can actually be proven and may be anywhere between 1% to 1000% higher than we can actually show, this leaves us with nowhere to go.

For the issue of pedophilia and child sex abuse, I refer you again to the Atlantic article and it noting 90% of juvenile males who are abused report a female sexual abuser.

(in prisons)

However, if you paste the "forgetting" section into that, you get (20%/64)*100 = 31.25% of girls, and (5%/16)*100 = 31.25% of boys.

the linked page has nothing on "forgetting". i think i have already covered why i don't think any of the statistics or studies provided statisfy a claim of "forgetting". finding victims that may have been forgotten or not consider themselves to be victims is the entire point of a random study using questions on specific acts.

From the feminist thread, an independent evaluation of womens privilege in the justice system as it relates to child rape by teachers.

huh, i actually just saw that linked today in one of the florida threads. what an odd coincidence.

as always, i don't think they're 100% wrong. our justice system is retarded and needs to stop sending twice as many people per 100,000 to jail as other comparable countries. the issue is that they're not applying it to both sexes, which i will admit is blatant sexism and in part due to the misconceptions of popular "feminism".

Spain has no route to occupy Gibraltar militarily, since Britain is part of NATO. If we had competent leadership our government would have laid down red lines during the negotiations such as "Gibraltar can not be used as a toy" and simply refused to negotiate at all if these red lines weren't accepted. If we don't express to them that there is a point beyond which we do not care if negotiations succeed then there is no point negotiating.

i mean, yes, you could do that. but it would also mean you'd fly out of the EU with no deal. which is... pretty bad for you?

Btw I accept the basic premise that Britain is weak relative to the EU. That's a consequence of us opting to become weak in the first place. We got ourselves into this situation many, many decades ago. We now have no choice but to haul ourselves out with every ounce of energy the whole country can muster.

and again i must ask, when did this happen and why?

[Questers]

Of course it may be that Britain is forced to surrender the rock. It will be our greatest national humiliation since Yamashita entered Singapore.

Good. It will be the right sort of shock, just as that was then. We will learn one important lesson: if you are fat, and lazy, and weak, people will exploit you.

[Questers]

i mean, yes, you could do that. but it would also mean you'd fly out of the EU with no deal. which is... pretty bad for you?

Sure, or they would agree. Clearly they desire a deal, or they would not be negotiating for one now. The problem isn't their attitude, the problem is that we aren't negotiating (as Leonstein well pointed out.)

and again i must ask, when did this happen and why?

It predates joining the EU. It was probably the natural result of the collapse of Empire.

[Souseiseki]

i mean, yes, you could do that. but it would also mean you'd fly out of the EU with no deal. which is... pretty bad for you?

Sure, or they would agree.

and again i must ask, when did this happen and why?

It predates joining the EU. It was probably the natural result of the collapse of Empire.

do you think the empire collapsed because we surrendered it for no real reason? do you think suez would have worked had we just put a little bit mote elbow grease into it?

[Questers]

Sure, or they would agree.

It predates joining the EU. It was probably the natural result of the collapse of Empire.

do you think the empire collapsed because we surrendered it for no real reason? do you think suez would have worked had we just put a little bit mote elbow grease into it?

Our position vis a vis the rest of the world was almost definitely demographics. Our internal strength is a different matter.

There are countries which are safe, prosperous, and influential relative to their size that aren't members of supranational organisations.

[Souseiseki]

do you think the empire collapsed because we surrendered it for no real reason? do you think suez would have worked had we just put a little bit mote elbow grease into it?

Our position vis a vis the rest of the world was almost definitely demographics. Our internal strength is a different matter.

"demographics" is an interesting choice of word

[Questers]

Our position vis a vis the rest of the world was almost definitely demographics. Our internal strength is a different matter.

"demographics" is an interesting choice of word

We have 1/6th as many people as America. We would have to be six times richer than them per capita to have the same GDP.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sure, or they would agree.

It predates joining the EU. It was probably the natural result of the collapse of Empire.

do you think the empire collapsed because we surrendered it for no real reason? do you think suez would have worked had we just put a little bit mote elbow grease into it?

Suez would have worked if we'd recognized the Americans as a new player on the international stage and included them in our discussion instead of assuming that WW1 and WW2 were flukes.

We didn't pull Suez alone, nor many of our imperial shenanigans, often seeking international support like the modern US does. We sought France and Israel to back us.
The US demanding we cease was due in large part to the presidents anger at having not been notified, and his threat to wage economic war was what cowed us.

So literally yes.
More elbow grease in the foreign, intelligence, and defense ministries, may well have drastically changed the outcome.
Literally one person saying;
"Maybe we should inform the Americans" could have radically changed history.

That it was Conservatives in power refusing to adjust to modern international power dynamics and assuming nothing had changed might be suggestive as to what exactly that cost us, compared to if say the Liberals or Labour were in power trying similar shit.

Admittedly, gallivanting into Egypt with US backing against Soviet protests might have dramatically changed the tone of the Cold War too, so it's not to say things would have been better.
(It was joint US and Soviet condemnation that forced UK+France to back down. Flipping one would change the outcome.)

[Souseiseki]

do you think the empire collapsed because we surrendered it for no real reason? do you think suez would have worked had we just put a little bit mote elbow grease into it?

Suez would have worked if we'd recognized the Americans as a new player on the international stage and included them in our discussion instead of assuming that WW1 and WW2 were flukes.

We didn't pull Suez alone, nor many of our imperial shenanigans, often seeking international support like the modern US does. We sought France and Israel to back us.
The US demanding we cease was due in large part to the presidents anger at having not been notified, and his threat to wage economic war was what cowed us.

So literally yes.
More elbow grease in the foreign, intelligence, and defense ministries, may well have drastically changed the outcome.
Literally one person saying;
"Maybe we should inform the Americans" could have radically changed history.

i mean that basically translates as "ask the master first", which doesn't fare well for independent britain

[Questers]

Also it was because Germany defeated Britain in WWII. That has a lot to do with it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Suez would have worked if we'd recognized the Americans as a new player on the international stage and included them in our discussion instead of assuming that WW1 and WW2 were flukes.

We didn't pull Suez alone, nor many of our imperial shenanigans, often seeking international support like the modern US does. We sought France and Israel to back us.
The US demanding we cease was due in large part to the presidents anger at having not been notified, and his threat to wage economic war was what cowed us.

So literally yes.
More elbow grease in the foreign, intelligence, and defense ministries, may well have drastically changed the outcome.
Literally one person saying;
"Maybe we should inform the Americans" could have radically changed history.

i mean that basically translates as "ask the master first", which doesn't fare well for independent britain

The context of the time was multipolar and shortly after WW2 during British/French recovery, the Suez Crisis forcing a Bipolar situation.
It's possible that seeking US or Soviet backing for international shenanigans for a while would have seen us capable of operating alone at a later date. The key would be keeping up our ability to initiate international shenanigans with US support, rather than completely capitulating and conceding that the US can threaten us into submission, and maintaining an aloofness that suggested we might, just might, flip to the Soviets if pissed off enough

"Not all Soviet Allies are Communist, cousin." should have been put on a billboard outside the American embassy.

[Souseiseki]

Also it was because Germany defeated Britain in WWII. That has a lot to do with it.

the german perspective of the UK must be mental

germany: "i will rule the world"
uk: "no it's mine"
*wwi*
germany: "join us, we will rule the world together!"
uk: "no it's mine"
*wwii*
germany: "join us, we will rule the world together!"
uk: "no i want to be shitty singapore and hope that daddy america gives me headpats"

[Ostroeuropa]

Also it was because Germany defeated Britain in WWII. That has a lot to do with it.

the german perspective of the UK must be mental

germany: "i will rule the world"
uk: "no it's mine"
*wwi*
germany: "join us, we will rule the world together!"
uk: "no it's mine"
*wwii*
germany: "join us, we will rule the world together!"
uk: "no i want to be shitty singapore and hope that daddy america gives me headpats"

This is the image we seek to cultivate with all foreign nations though.
But pretty much yeah.

[Dooom35796821595]

Also it was because Germany defeated Britain in WWII. That has a lot to do with it.

the german perspective of the UK must be mental

germany: "i will rule the world"
uk: "no it's mine"
*wwi*
germany: "join us, we will rule the world together!"
uk: "no it's mine"
*wwii*
germany: "join us, we will rule the world together!"
uk: "no i want to be shitty singapore and hope that daddy america gives me headpats"

The UK still had the empire during WWII, and America was isolationist until 1941, I don't know what you're on about.
And Germany was the ones who got the American handouts after the war.

[Souseiseki]

the german perspective of the UK must be mental

germany: "i will rule the world"
uk: "no it's mine"
*wwi*
germany: "join us, we will rule the world together!"
uk: "no it's mine"
*wwii*
germany: "join us, we will rule the world together!"
uk: "no i want to be shitty singapore and hope that daddy america gives me headpats"

The UK still had the empire during WWII, and America was isolationist until 1941, I don't know what you're on about.
And Germany was the ones who got the American handouts after the war.

i think you might be reading it backwards. the last part is post-war not during war, for example.

[Ostroeuropa]

The UK still had the empire during WWII, and America was isolationist until 1941, I don't know what you're on about.
And Germany was the ones who got the American handouts after the war.

i think you might be reading it backwards. the last part is post-war not during war, for example.

Post-suez perhaps. Notably we only wanted to join the EU after that.