Your most significant moment in British History

[cockles is back]

Mine has to be 'Sau Paulo Shrimper' turning round to the boys in 2002 and saying 'its alright chaps these are on me'.....................

 

[DTS]

I am torn between World War II and seeing Che Wilson score twice in one season.

:guns:

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

I've gone for the Civil War... truly the genesis of the events that led to WWII taking place. In many respects, Cromwell and co. were centuries ahead of their time. The French revolution kicked off in 1789. The Italians didn't revolutionise their government until the 1860s, thanks to Garibaldi's efforts. The Germans weren't properly united until the Second Reich, following the Franco-Prussian wars of 1870. The Russians waited until 1917 for their revolution!

But Cromwell & co. got on with overthrowing its monarchy in 1649, beheading the King in the middle of London - executing a King at a time when "the Divine Right of Kings" was a concept in general currency throughout Europe, i.e. a King was appointed by God. It was unbelievably revolutionary at the time... it caused huge shockwaves (and indeed revulsion) throughout the monarchies of Europe.

Having got rid of the King as the seat of power in England, and having handed it to Parliament instead, it meant that we could get on with normal life uninterrupted by the fripperies and insanities of monarchy. Sure, we appointed some Kings back onto the throne (indeed, how very British of us to do so, we do love a bit of pomp, circumstance and tradition), but they were monarchs of Parliament's choosing, specifically chosen not to rock the boat.

In that way, the English could then get on with Union with Scotland (1707), an agrarian revolution (1670s onwards), then an industrial revolution (latter part of 18th century onwards), whilst at the same time setting off around the globe to find new markets to buy & sell from... and ultimately to colonise (e.g. our relationship with India started off as a mercantile one, before it became part of the Empire).

It was the industrial revolution which allowed us to build our Empire and become the wealthiest nation in the world... but it was the very existence of the Empire that, ultimately, caused the young upstarts of Europe (i.e. Germany, in particular) to envy us, and to want to pick fights with us. That was what led, eventually, to WWI - and as we all know, the seeds of WWII were sown in the fall-out from the Great War 25 years beforehand.

But ultimately, the genesis of it all was the Civil War. If we hadn't sorted out our system of government 150 years before everyone else got round to it, then we wouldn't have ploughed on with having an industrial revolution and building an Empire which everyone else in Europe coveted, and over which they would end up in wars in the 20th century.

:)

Oh, and Magna Carta comes second - for being, if you like, the foretaste of what would come in the Civil War (and Naps, I have to disagree with you that "nothing else comes close" to it. Edward I pretty much ignored Magna Carta with impunity, for instance...)

 

[ldnfatso]

My first booze cruise!

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Tough choice, and I've gone for "other"

Arguably the biggest influence will always be the first one, as this could be said to have caused the latter influences. I've decided not to go down that route though, and gone for what, in my mind, was one of the major events in the formation of the largest empire the world has ever known.

The Battle of Trafalgar gets my vote for two reasons.

1) If WW2 was squeaky bum time, so were the years around the beginning of the 19thC. For Hitler, read Napoleon, and an army that we'd have had as little chance against then as we would've the germans in 1940. The only thing that stopped them reaching us was a thin strip of water known as the ENGLISH channel. To cross this water they needed naval supremacy, something that, allied with the Spanish, they seemingly had, but, at Trafalgar, Nelson managed to nullify the combined effect of these fleets with his own smaller force. This saved us from potential invasion, and preserved British sovereignty.

2) The defeat of the French/Spanish fleet at Trafalgar was so great as to not only nullify the immediate threat of invasion, but to suddenly propel the Royal Navy from being a major naval power to being the undisputed ruler of the seas. For around 100 years after this battle Britain truly did "rule the waves". This gave us the ability to build an empire linked by sea, and a merchant trade that need fear no threats from other countries. For all out faults around this time, we did play fair regarding sea trade, and believed in free trade for all (with the exception of some politicians towards the end ofthe 19thC) we also used our power to help prevent slavery (a major role of the peace time RN was to capture slave vessels). By the end of this 100 years the RN was the largest, and most powerful fleet afloat (though was beginning to be "threatened" by the new German fleet, and that of the US by this time) and because of this, and the freedom it gained us, we were a rich country.

In short, Trafalgar turned a potentially disasterous situation into a phenomally successful one. it could be argued that this success was fuelled by the industrial revolution, but due to the greater size of the French/Spanish fleet this one gets my vote.

 

[Napster]

Oh, and Magna Carta comes second - for being, if you like, the foretaste of what would come in the Civil War (and Naps, I have to disagree with you that "nothing else comes close" to it. Edward I pretty much ignored Magna Carta with impunity, for instance...)

Edward I was a **** anyway

 

[steveo]

World War two, no question.

Without it we would never have seen Band of Brothers, The Dambusters, 633 Squadron etc etc

 

[chaco27saf]

I voted for the defeat of the Spanish Armada because of how much it meant for England at the time. It became Elizabeth's legacy and a point of pride for so many people. Also, England became relevant when it came to European power, as before this point England was not really a country that had much importance to the rest of Europe. Although England couldn't really rival France and Austria in terms of strength for the next hundred years after their victory over the Spanish, England had the confidence and the ability to match any other nation with their naval power, which was important since that was a period of exploration and expansion.

On second thought, however, my vote would be probably be the War of the Roses. It marked the end of one influential house of rulers (Plantagenet), and the beginning of Tudor rule. In my opinion King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I altered the course of England arguably more than any other monarchs that ruled before or after them. Without Henry, England may have never deviated from Catholicism, which would erase several hundreds of years of conflict with Ireland, which at the same time would have likely increased clashes with the Scottish.

 

[chaco27saf]

Roosevelt wanted to back Britain as far as he possibly could without taking a military option. Hence Lend / Lease.

That's not completely true. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, but he knew that the American public would not back him for several reasons. A) No one really knew how evil Hitler was at the onset of WWII. B) The US had been involved in WWI, and several people were still angry about that. Many thought that if we entered WWII we were just entering another European conflict which was none of our business. C) Many Americans thought that WWII was to a large extent a by-product of the Treaty of Versailles which the US refused to sign due to the harsh restrictions put on Germany by the Allies. (which to a large extent, Hitler was only able to come to power by using conditions created by this treaty to his advantage.)

Roosevelt did want to enter WWII fairly early on in the war. He knew that the only way it could happen was if the US was attacked first, and both him and the other Allied leaders believed that it was inevitable that a German submarine would sink an American vessel in the Atlantic. No one foresaw that eventually it would be the Japanese that attacked the US, and from that point on Germany was stuck declaring war on the US due to an agreement with Japan, and even if they had not, the US would probably still have declared war on Germany, since they were still an ally of our enemy.

In the three years since I became a member on SZ, there seems to be a thread every few months where some people begin to describe how they feel the US acted wrongly during the Second World War. I'm really starting to wonder (and this is NOT directed at canveyshrimper) if some people have the idea that the US leadership of the late 30's and early 40's almost took satisfaction out of seeing the French and British take heavy losses. Because that could not be further from the truth, France had been America's oldest and most trusted ally, and Britain was a nation that the US had forged a great relationship with by that point.

 

[londonblue]

I'd have to go with WWII aswell...

We came extremely close to invasion and, far from bending over for a facsist dictator a la France, we fought for our freedom and successfully eliminated arguably the worst ever Tyrant the right way. Take note America and your War against Terror.

It goes without saying, had Hitler invaded these shores and Russia, the World would be an extremely different place...

Have you ever read Fatherland by Robert Harris? It's based around celebrations for Hitler's 75th Birthday had he won the war. It's very good.

 

[canveyshrimper]

That's not completely true. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, but he knew that the American public would not back him for several reasons. A) No one really knew how evil Hitler was at the onset of WWII. B) The US had been involved in WWI, and several people were still angry about that. Many thought that if we entered WWII we were just entering another European conflict which was none of our business. C) Many Americans thought that WWII was to a large extent a by-product of the Treaty of Versailles which the US refused to sign due to the harsh restrictions put on Germany by the Allies. (which to a large extent, Hitler was only able to come to power by using conditions created by this treaty to his advantage.)

Roosevelt did want to enter WWII fairly early on in the war. He knew that the only way it could happen was if the US was attacked first, and both him and the other Allied leaders believed that it was inevitable that a German submarine would sink an American vessel in the Atlantic. No one foresaw that eventually it would be the Japanese that attacked the US, and from that point on Germany was stuck declaring war on the US due to an agreement with Japan, and even if they had not, the US would probably still have declared war on Germany, since they were still an ally of our enemy.

In the three years since I became a member on SZ, there seems to be a thread every few months where some people begin to describe how they feel the US acted wrongly during the Second World War. I'm really starting to wonder (and this is NOT directed at canveyshrimper) if some people have the idea that the US leadership of the late 30's and early 40's almost took satisfaction out of seeing the French and British take heavy losses. Because that could not be further from the truth, France had been America's oldest and most trusted ally, and Britain was a nation that the US had forged a great relationship with by that point.

Good post & well said, and I was a bit brief in my post about the motives of FDR at the outset of WWII. A good point about WWI, and it has to be said that under Wilson the US did in fact operate an isolationist policy. How do you wish that were the case today? There is no way in my knowledge of history that America took satisfaction of the losses Britain & France took (possibly Joseph Kennedy excepted), and many US journalists/observers/politicians actively lobbied FDR for America to enter the European conflict earlier.

However my point about FDR wanting the Pacific as a US rather than British sphere of influence stands.

 

[londonblue]

That's not completely true. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, but he knew that the American public would not back him for several reasons. A) No one really knew how evil Hitler was at the onset of WWII. B) The US had been involved in WWI, and several people were still angry about that. Many thought that if we entered WWII we were just entering another European conflict which was none of our business. C) Many Americans thought that WWII was to a large extent a by-product of the Treaty of Versailles which the US refused to sign due to the harsh restrictions put on Germany by the Allies. (which to a large extent, Hitler was only able to come to power by using conditions created by this treaty to his advantage.)

Roosevelt did want to enter WWII fairly early on in the war. He knew that the only way it could happen was if the US was attacked first, and both him and the other Allied leaders believed that it was inevitable that a German submarine would sink an American vessel in the Atlantic. No one foresaw that eventually it would be the Japanese that attacked the US, and from that point on Germany was stuck declaring war on the US due to an agreement with Japan, and even if they had not, the US would probably still have declared war on Germany, since they were still an ally of our enemy.

In the three years since I became a member on SZ, there seems to be a thread every few months where some people begin to describe how they feel the US acted wrongly during the Second World War. I'm really starting to wonder (and this is NOT directed at canveyshrimper) if some people have the idea that the US leadership of the late 30's and early 40's almost took satisfaction out of seeing the French and British take heavy losses. Because that could not be further from the truth, France had been America's oldest and most trusted ally, and Britain was a nation that the US had forged a great relationship with by that point.

There's a lot of good points made there. However, one thing I would disagree with is this:-

and from that point on Germany was stuck declaring war on the US due to an agreement with Japan

I don't think Hitler would have had any qualms going back on an agreement with anyone, he'd done it many times in the past. Invading Czechoslovakia, and Poland after agreeing not to for example.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Because that could not be further from the truth, France had been America's oldest and most trusted ally

True, but I bet you don't hear many French people say 'If it wasn't for us you would all be speaking English now'.

:)

 

[MK Shrimper]

I don't know enough about this to choose, but as history is cause and effect, could it be that IF we weren't invaded by the normans, that none of the others would have happened?