Brian Kirby Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 747 - 2019-03-18 11:47 PM I thought the Marshall Plan funded European mainland countries and not the UK directly? The US certainly did us no favours regarding what we owed them financially, we just paid the debt off a few years ago. So did I until a few years back. In fact, the UK received more than any other country, and spent most of it trying to look as though the war hadn't affected out economy. The truth was that we were flat broke, and only American money kept us afloat. Not sure why we should expect the UK to do us favours (didn't enough Americans die in the two world wars to earn a bit of respect?), but in fact, and despite our apparent ingratitude, they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-03-19 8:57 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-03-18 9:49 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-18 9:15 PM 1 Did the UK collapse after 2 world wars?........ 2 Did the UK collapse when we were kicked out of the ERM without warning?....... 3 Did the UK collapse after numerous recessions?....... Nope :-| ................. 1 Not quite, but without US assistance under the Marshall Plan it well may have done. 2 No. However, it was not kicked out, it withdrew after having entered at an unsustainable exchange rate and then had its error made plain by the currency markets. We were on the brink of recession, from the cost of trying to prevent a run on the pound. Guess which party was in charge of that little UK fiasco, trying to do a fur coat and no knickers act? 3 No, do you advocate continuous recession as the best form of economic management? What is your point? 1.......As Bullets link explains ;-) .........It was wasted by Labour, even so the UK did not collapse :D ...... 2.......We had to withdraw because of the actions of your Remoaner Hero Sorearse *-) .........Although it has since proved to have worked in our favour as the UK can control it's own interest rates B-) ........ 3.......I thought Labours Brown had cured Boom & Bust? (lol) ........But my point is that the UK is doing great in spite of Brexit B-) ........and history shows that if the UK really wants to commit financial suicide again....Vote Labour >:-) ........ Doesn't stack up though, does it? 1 Yes the Marshall Aid was largely wasted by Britain ding its fur coat and no knickers act. In short, vanity. So no, the UK did not collapse, but its economy had collapsed, and it was only shored up by that American money. There is a considerable difference between collapse of a country, and collapse of a countries economy? 2 Yes Soros (but why do you see him as a "remainer" hero - he's no hero of mine?) , along with many others, successfully bet against Sterling. However, the underlying cause of the run on the pound was not Soros, it was that the UK had joined the ERM at an unrealistically high exchange rate. Another example of our fur coat and no knickers desire to keep up appearances. Again, vanity. Again, the UK did not collapse, but our gold reserves did. Same difference again. 3 UK is not doing well despite Brexit. We have not yet Brexited, and the true impact will not be apparent until Brexit is a) manifest and b) 5 to 10 years have passed. However, the fear of the economic impact of Brexit was recorded by the international currency markets within hours of the referendum result. Just as over the ERM, the traders could see whether the next developments would be positive, or negative. In both cases their view was negative, so they acted accordingly. Suicide is terminal. There is no recovery from suicide. I assume that would equate, in your book of hyperbole, to collapse of the UK? Funny, isn't it, that the UK has survived both Labour and Conservative government attempts to kill it off. You really need to get out of your party political bunker and look around you. To (mis)quote Heseltine's 1976 speech "A one-legged army limping away from the storm they have created. Right, right, right, right, right". Boot on other foot (no not Michael's), same outcome. So with Brexit. You political extremists are doomed to fail, and repeat the mistakes of the past, because you unquestioningly believe your own myths. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-03-19 11:19 AM pelmetman - 2019-03-19 8:57 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-03-18 9:49 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-18 9:15 PM 1 Did the UK collapse after 2 world wars?........ 2 Did the UK collapse when we were kicked out of the ERM without warning?....... 3 Did the UK collapse after numerous recessions?....... Nope :-| ................. 1 Not quite, but without US assistance under the Marshall Plan it well may have done. 2 No. However, it was not kicked out, it withdrew after having entered at an unsustainable exchange rate and then had its error made plain by the currency markets. We were on the brink of recession, from the cost of trying to prevent a run on the pound. Guess which party was in charge of that little UK fiasco, trying to do a fur coat and no knickers act? 3 No, do you advocate continuous recession as the best form of economic management? What is your point? 1.......As Bullets link explains ;-) .........It was wasted by Labour, even so the UK did not collapse :D ...... 2.......We had to withdraw because of the actions of your Remoaner Hero Sorearse *-) .........Although it has since proved to have worked in our favour as the UK can control it's own interest rates B-) ........ 3.......I thought Labours Brown had cured Boom & Bust? (lol) ........But my point is that the UK is doing great in spite of Brexit B-) ........and history shows that if the UK really wants to commit financial suicide again....Vote Labour >:-) ........ Doesn't stack up though, does it? 1 Yes the Marshall Aid was largely wasted by Britain ding its fur coat and no knickers act. In short, vanity. So no, the UK did not collapse, but its economy had collapsed, and it was only shored up by that American money. There is a considerable difference between collapse of a country, and collapse of a countries economy? 2 Yes Soros (but why do you see him as a "remainer" hero - he's no hero of mine?) , along with many others, successfully bet against Sterling. However, the underlying cause of the run on the pound was not Soros, it was that the UK had joined the ERM at an unrealistically high exchange rate. Another example of our fur coat and no knickers desire to keep up appearances. Again, vanity. Again, the UK did not collapse, but our gold reserves did. Same difference again. 3 UK is not doing well despite Brexit. We have not yet Brexited, and the true impact will not be apparent until Brexit is a) manifest and b) 5 to 10 years have passed. However, the fear of the economic impact of Brexit was recorded by the international currency markets within hours of the referendum result. Just as over the ERM, the traders could see whether the next developments would be positive, or negative. In both cases their view was negative, so they acted accordingly. Suicide is terminal. There is no recovery from suicide. I assume that would equate, in your book of hyperbole, to collapse of the UK? Funny, isn't it, that the UK has survived both Labour and Conservative government attempts to kill it off. You really need to get out of your party political bunker and look around you. To (mis)quote Heseltine's 1976 speech "A one-legged army limping away from the storm they have created. Right, right, right, right, right". Boot on other foot (no not Michael's), same outcome. So with Brexit. You political extremists are doomed to fail, and repeat the mistakes of the past, because you unquestioningly believe your own myths. :-D It's your Remoaner "Experts" who have been shown to be the spreader of false myths Brian ;-) ......... But you're so blinkered you keep on believing them 8-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-03-19 8:47 AM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 1:08 AM 747 - 2019-03-18 11:47 PM I thought the Marshall Plan funded European mainland countries and not the UK directly? The US certainly did us no favours regarding what we owed them financially, we just paid the debt off a few years ago. UK got the largest share from the Marshall Plan aid......more than any other European country, but successive governments squandered billions on dreams of being a global power. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml From your link ;-) .......... "The truth is that the post-war ***Labour*** Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose NOT to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid." (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Thanks for highlighting yet another example of LABOURS incompetence >:-) ...... Well i'm amazed you actually opened the link......quite an impressive achievement. Pity you only managed the first para and never read further though there had already been a whacking big clue right at the top which said, "Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain." You do understand what 'successive' means don't you? Do you also understand the use of singular and plural.....for example when indicating more than one government we would place an 's' to the end to make it governmentS....just like in the linked article. That's just very basic English grammar which most kids have learned by junior school grade and should have told you immediately the article was not referencing one, and only one government, but more than one. Further down, where you never quite made it, iit went on to say; It was this victor's psychology that deluded both Labour and Conservative politicians into believing that Britain - at the centre of the Commonwealth and the Sterling area - could have a future that was similar to her past. British politicians saw the United Kingdom as a first-class power in the same league as the United States. And certainly Britain looked in many ways like a global power, with more than two million men in fleets, garrisons and air squadrons sprawled across the world, from their bases at home to those in Japan. Neither Labour or Conservative politicians come well out of the Marshal Aid spending and you have to accept incompetence as you call it was attributed to both......hence the use of the terms "successive" and "governmentS". Always good to get things in context so we have the full facts rather than your preferred political bias isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 3:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-19 8:47 AM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 1:08 AM 747 - 2019-03-18 11:47 PM I thought the Marshall Plan funded European mainland countries and not the UK directly? The US certainly did us no favours regarding what we owed them financially, we just paid the debt off a few years ago. UK got the largest share from the Marshall Plan aid......more than any other European country, but successive governments squandered billions on dreams of being a global power. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml From your link ;-) .......... "The truth is that the post-war ***Labour*** Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose NOT to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid." (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Thanks for highlighting yet another example of LABOURS incompetence >:-) ...... Well i'm amazed you actually opened the link......quite an impressive achievement. Pity you only managed the first para and never read further though there had already been a whacking big clue right at the top which said, "Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain." You do understand what 'successive' means don't you? Do you also understand the use of singular and plural.....for example when indicating more than one government we would place an 's' to the end to make it governmentS....just like in the linked article. That's just very basic English grammar which most kids have learned by junior school grade and should have told you immediately the article was not referencing one, and only one government, but more than one. Further down, where you never quite made it, iit went on to say; It was this victor's psychology that deluded both Labour and Conservative politicians into believing that Britain - at the centre of the Commonwealth and the Sterling area - could have a future that was similar to her past. British politicians saw the United Kingdom as a first-class power in the same league as the United States. And certainly Britain looked in many ways like a global power, with more than two million men in fleets, garrisons and air squadrons sprawled across the world, from their bases at home to those in Japan. Neither Labour or Conservative politicians come well out of the Marshal Aid spending and you have to accept incompetence as you call it was attributed to both......hence the use of the terms "successive" and "governmentS". Always good to get things in context so we have the full facts rather than your preferred political bias isn't it? Ooooh touched a nerve there didn't I? (lol) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-03-19 9:26 PM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 3:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-19 8:47 AM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 1:08 AM 747 - 2019-03-18 11:47 PM I thought the Marshall Plan funded European mainland countries and not the UK directly? The US certainly did us no favours regarding what we owed them financially, we just paid the debt off a few years ago. UK got the largest share from the Marshall Plan aid......more than any other European country, but successive governments squandered billions on dreams of being a global power. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml From your link ;-) .......... "The truth is that the post-war ***Labour*** Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose NOT to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid." (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Thanks for highlighting yet another example of LABOURS incompetence >:-) ...... Well i'm amazed you actually opened the link......quite an impressive achievement. Pity you only managed the first para and never read further though there had already been a whacking big clue right at the top which said, "Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain." You do understand what 'successive' means don't you? Do you also understand the use of singular and plural.....for example when indicating more than one government we would place an 's' to the end to make it governmentS....just like in the linked article. That's just very basic English grammar which most kids have learned by junior school grade and should have told you immediately the article was not referencing one, and only one government, but more than one. Further down, where you never quite made it, iit went on to say; It was this victor's psychology that deluded both Labour and Conservative politicians into believing that Britain - at the centre of the Commonwealth and the Sterling area - could have a future that was similar to her past. British politicians saw the United Kingdom as a first-class power in the same league as the United States. And certainly Britain looked in many ways like a global power, with more than two million men in fleets, garrisons and air squadrons sprawled across the world, from their bases at home to those in Japan. Neither Labour or Conservative politicians come well out of the Marshal Aid spending and you have to accept incompetence as you call it was attributed to both......hence the use of the terms "successive" and "governmentS". Always good to get things in context so we have the full facts rather than your preferred political bias isn't it? Ooooh touched a nerve there didn't I? (lol) ........ No you simply made a fool of yourself (as usual) due to not reading through the article properly. Your nonsensical remark was easily dealt with as i already knew the history of the Marshall Aid Plan and the often perpetuated myth that European countries received more funding than poor little UK when the absolute opposite was the factual truth....just that we squandered it with delusions of self importance and lack of investment in industry where other countries used their share more responsibly. US had a vested interest with its Marshall Plan in Europe, part of which was it's fear and loathing of Communism which became a fanatical obsession during years of batsh1t crazy McCarthyism. Though aid was initially offered which the US knew Russia would refuse, which they did, they set up their own "Marshall Plan" called the Molotov Plan so no Eastern bloc countries in Europe received Marshall Plan aid. After the war Germany in particular had no delusions or time for feeling 'self important'. After all, they'd been beaten into submission......'we won, you lost' (hmm....now where have i heard that before?), so got on with the job of quietly rebuilding it's infrastructure and industry which had been pretty much razed to the ground. We carried on partying, making silly decisions over infrastructure and industries....our transport system being just one example where time warp UK was still running inefficient old steam trains and mechanical signalling well into the late 60's whilst countries like Germany and France had long gone electric. Germanys strength and success is also due to it's 'Mittelstand' concept of business, medium and small, often family owned businesses which still today remain the backbone of the country. Wise investment from government and a willingness to work hard at rebuilding has meant the average German worker enjoys a higher standard of living than their UK counterpart. This shows the amounts given to each country plus explains more history relevant to Germany.....so you probably won't read it. https://tinyurl.com/y3zbu4on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 10:59 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-19 9:26 PM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 3:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-19 8:47 AM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 1:08 AM 747 - 2019-03-18 11:47 PM I thought the Marshall Plan funded European mainland countries and not the UK directly? The US certainly did us no favours regarding what we owed them financially, we just paid the debt off a few years ago. UK got the largest share from the Marshall Plan aid......more than any other European country, but successive governments squandered billions on dreams of being a global power. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml From your link ;-) .......... "The truth is that the post-war ***Labour*** Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose NOT to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid." (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Thanks for highlighting yet another example of LABOURS incompetence >:-) ...... Well i'm amazed you actually opened the link......quite an impressive achievement. Pity you only managed the first para and never read further though there had already been a whacking big clue right at the top which said, "Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain." You do understand what 'successive' means don't you? Do you also understand the use of singular and plural.....for example when indicating more than one government we would place an 's' to the end to make it governmentS....just like in the linked article. That's just very basic English grammar which most kids have learned by junior school grade and should have told you immediately the article was not referencing one, and only one government, but more than one. Further down, where you never quite made it, iit went on to say; It was this victor's psychology that deluded both Labour and Conservative politicians into believing that Britain - at the centre of the Commonwealth and the Sterling area - could have a future that was similar to her past. British politicians saw the United Kingdom as a first-class power in the same league as the United States. And certainly Britain looked in many ways like a global power, with more than two million men in fleets, garrisons and air squadrons sprawled across the world, from their bases at home to those in Japan. Neither Labour or Conservative politicians come well out of the Marshal Aid spending and you have to accept incompetence as you call it was attributed to both......hence the use of the terms "successive" and "governmentS". Always good to get things in context so we have the full facts rather than your preferred political bias isn't it? Ooooh touched a nerve there didn't I? (lol) ........ No you simply made a fool of yourself (as usual) due to not reading through the article properly. Your nonsensical remark was easily dealt with as i already knew the history of the Marshall Aid Plan and the often perpetuated myth that European countries received more funding than poor little UK when the absolute opposite was the factual truth....just that we squandered it with delusions of self importance and lack of investment in industry where other countries used their share more responsibly. US had a vested interest with its Marshall Plan in Europe, part of which was it's fear and loathing of Communism which became a fanatical obsession during years of batsh1t crazy McCarthyism. Though aid was initially offered which the US knew Russia would refuse, which they did, they set up their own "Marshall Plan" called the Molotov Plan so no Eastern bloc countries in Europe received Marshall Plan aid. After the war Germany in particular had no delusions or time for feeling 'self important'. After all, they'd been beaten into submission......'we won, you lost' (hmm....now where have i heard that before?), so got on with the job of quietly rebuilding it's infrastructure and industry which had been pretty much razed to the ground. We carried on partying, making silly decisions over infrastructure and industries....our transport system being just one example where time warp UK was still running inefficient old steam trains and mechanical signalling well into the late 60's whilst countries like Germany and France had long gone electric. Germanys strength and success is also due to it's 'Mittelstand' concept of business, medium and small, often family owned businesses which still today remain the backbone of the country. Wise investment from government and a willingness to work hard at rebuilding has meant the average German worker enjoys a higher standard of living than their UK counterpart. This shows the amounts given to each country plus explains more history relevant to Germany.....so you probably won't read it. https://tinyurl.com/y3zbu4on That's history ;-) ...........In 9 days time we'll be making history B-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-03-20 8:02 AM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 10:59 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-19 9:26 PM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 3:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-19 8:47 AM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 1:08 AM 747 - 2019-03-18 11:47 PM I thought the Marshall Plan funded European mainland countries and not the UK directly? The US certainly did us no favours regarding what we owed them financially, we just paid the debt off a few years ago. UK got the largest share from the Marshall Plan aid......more than any other European country, but successive governments squandered billions on dreams of being a global power. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml From your link ;-) .......... "The truth is that the post-war ***Labour*** Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose NOT to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid." (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Thanks for highlighting yet another example of LABOURS incompetence >:-) ...... Well i'm amazed you actually opened the link......quite an impressive achievement. Pity you only managed the first para and never read further though there had already been a whacking big clue right at the top which said, "Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain." You do understand what 'successive' means don't you? Do you also understand the use of singular and plural.....for example when indicating more than one government we would place an 's' to the end to make it governmentS....just like in the linked article. That's just very basic English grammar which most kids have learned by junior school grade and should have told you immediately the article was not referencing one, and only one government, but more than one. Further down, where you never quite made it, iit went on to say; It was this victor's psychology that deluded both Labour and Conservative politicians into believing that Britain - at the centre of the Commonwealth and the Sterling area - could have a future that was similar to her past. British politicians saw the United Kingdom as a first-class power in the same league as the United States. And certainly Britain looked in many ways like a global power, with more than two million men in fleets, garrisons and air squadrons sprawled across the world, from their bases at home to those in Japan. Neither Labour or Conservative politicians come well out of the Marshal Aid spending and you have to accept incompetence as you call it was attributed to both......hence the use of the terms "successive" and "governmentS". Always good to get things in context so we have the full facts rather than your preferred political bias isn't it? Ooooh touched a nerve there didn't I? (lol) ........ No you simply made a fool of yourself (as usual) due to not reading through the article properly. Your nonsensical remark was easily dealt with as i already knew the history of the Marshall Aid Plan and the often perpetuated myth that European countries received more funding than poor little UK when the absolute opposite was the factual truth....just that we squandered it with delusions of self importance and lack of investment in industry where other countries used their share more responsibly. US had a vested interest with its Marshall Plan in Europe, part of which was it's fear and loathing of Communism which became a fanatical obsession during years of batsh1t crazy McCarthyism. Though aid was initially offered which the US knew Russia would refuse, which they did, they set up their own "Marshall Plan" called the Molotov Plan so no Eastern bloc countries in Europe received Marshall Plan aid. After the war Germany in particular had no delusions or time for feeling 'self important'. After all, they'd been beaten into submission......'we won, you lost' (hmm....now where have i heard that before?), so got on with the job of quietly rebuilding it's infrastructure and industry which had been pretty much razed to the ground. We carried on partying, making silly decisions over infrastructure and industries....our transport system being just one example where time warp UK was still running inefficient old steam trains and mechanical signalling well into the late 60's whilst countries like Germany and France had long gone electric. Germanys strength and success is also due to it's 'Mittelstand' concept of business, medium and small, often family owned businesses which still today remain the backbone of the country. Wise investment from government and a willingness to work hard at rebuilding has meant the average German worker enjoys a higher standard of living than their UK counterpart. This shows the amounts given to each country plus explains more history relevant to Germany.....so you probably won't read it. https://tinyurl.com/y3zbu4on That's history ;-) ........... Which you don't understand so go off bashing your keyboard making inane remarks. In 9 days time we'll be making history B-) ........ Destroying whats left of a country you've already made a mess of. Hardly anything to be proud of. You need to change your profile signature prediction......it's history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-03-20 2:05 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-20 8:02 AM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 10:59 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-19 9:26 PM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 3:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-03-19 8:47 AM Bulletguy - 2019-03-19 1:08 AM 747 - 2019-03-18 11:47 PM I thought the Marshall Plan funded European mainland countries and not the UK directly? The US certainly did us no favours regarding what we owed them financially, we just paid the debt off a few years ago. UK got the largest share from the Marshall Plan aid......more than any other European country, but successive governments squandered billions on dreams of being a global power. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml From your link ;-) .......... "The truth is that the post-war ***Labour*** Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose NOT to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid." (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Thanks for highlighting yet another example of LABOURS incompetence >:-) ...... Well i'm amazed you actually opened the link......quite an impressive achievement. Pity you only managed the first para and never read further though there had already been a whacking big clue right at the top which said, "Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain." You do understand what 'successive' means don't you? Do you also understand the use of singular and plural.....for example when indicating more than one government we would place an 's' to the end to make it governmentS....just like in the linked article. That's just very basic English grammar which most kids have learned by junior school grade and should have told you immediately the article was not referencing one, and only one government, but more than one. Further down, where you never quite made it, iit went on to say; It was this victor's psychology that deluded both Labour and Conservative politicians into believing that Britain - at the centre of the Commonwealth and the Sterling area - could have a future that was similar to her past. British politicians saw the United Kingdom as a first-class power in the same league as the United States. And certainly Britain looked in many ways like a global power, with more than two million men in fleets, garrisons and air squadrons sprawled across the world, from their bases at home to those in Japan. Neither Labour or Conservative politicians come well out of the Marshal Aid spending and you have to accept incompetence as you call it was attributed to both......hence the use of the terms "successive" and "governmentS". Always good to get things in context so we have the full facts rather than your preferred political bias isn't it? Ooooh touched a nerve there didn't I? (lol) ........ No you simply made a fool of yourself (as usual) due to not reading through the article properly. Your nonsensical remark was easily dealt with as i already knew the history of the Marshall Aid Plan and the often perpetuated myth that European countries received more funding than poor little UK when the absolute opposite was the factual truth....just that we squandered it with delusions of self importance and lack of investment in industry where other countries used their share more responsibly. US had a vested interest with its Marshall Plan in Europe, part of which was it's fear and loathing of Communism which became a fanatical obsession during years of batsh1t crazy McCarthyism. Though aid was initially offered which the US knew Russia would refuse, which they did, they set up their own "Marshall Plan" called the Molotov Plan so no Eastern bloc countries in Europe received Marshall Plan aid. After the war Germany in particular had no delusions or time for feeling 'self important'. After all, they'd been beaten into submission......'we won, you lost' (hmm....now where have i heard that before?), so got on with the job of quietly rebuilding it's infrastructure and industry which had been pretty much razed to the ground. We carried on partying, making silly decisions over infrastructure and industries....our transport system being just one example where time warp UK was still running inefficient old steam trains and mechanical signalling well into the late 60's whilst countries like Germany and France had long gone electric. Germanys strength and success is also due to it's 'Mittelstand' concept of business, medium and small, often family owned businesses which still today remain the backbone of the country. Wise investment from government and a willingness to work hard at rebuilding has meant the average German worker enjoys a higher standard of living than their UK counterpart. This shows the amounts given to each country plus explains more history relevant to Germany.....so you probably won't read it. https://tinyurl.com/y3zbu4on That's history ;-) ........... Which you don't understand so go off bashing your keyboard making inane remarks. In 9 days time we'll be making history B-) ........ Destroying whats left of a country you've already made a mess of. Hardly anything to be proud of. You need to change your profile signature prediction......it's history. Keep up Bullet ;-) ....... The UK has climbed the world happiness table since we voted to leave the EU :D ........ So I guess 52% of us being happy must be an improvement B-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.