Why would US-UK be "seem to be on bad terms"? I mean, some silly arguments about dialect can't really be compared to the degree of loathing along the Nazi-Soviet axis.
Why would US-UK be "seem to be on bad terms"? I mean, some silly arguments about dialect can't really be compared to the degree of loathing along the Nazi-Soviet axis.
Nagato doesn't seem to have a good grasp on world politics. We don't get along very well but we get along much better than the soviets and nazis, or the french and the british.
Brits don't really hate the French any more, we prefer the Germans, but then so do the French ( compared to us ); however there is a diffused suspicion of all foreigners, fanned by the right-wing press ( 95% of it ).
Why would US-UK be "seem to be on bad terms"? I mean, some silly arguments about dialect can't really be compared to the degree of loathing along the Nazi-Soviet axis.
仲悪い and 仲良い can both be on bad/good terms, or just simply 'get along poorly/well', it's not necessarily anything to do with animosity or the like, it can just be personality clashes or something simple.
In Nagato's mind, she just doesn't see the times that they get along, so they just don't "gel", so to speak.
Nagato doesn't seem to have a good grasp on world politics. We don't get along very well but we get along much better than the soviets and nazis, or the french and the british.
I accidentally down-voted your comment while scrolling down and I keep getting "Validation failed: you have already voted" when I try to undo it. Sorry about that.
Why would US-UK be "seem to be on bad terms"? I mean, some silly arguments about dialect can't really be compared to the degree of loathing along the Nazi-Soviet axis.
Hmm, I always thought that pre-WW2, relations between US and UK weren't as close as it is now. There's even War Plan Red.
Then again, I don't have much knowledge on history and international relations things.
The Seven-Year War, American Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte, White House burns, the Great Game, Otto von Bismarck, World War I, the communists, the fascists then the Cold War (and McCarthyism). Truly, two centuries is enough time to shift the world upside down umpteen times.
Hmm, I always thought that pre-WW2, relations between US and UK weren't as close as it is now. There's even War Plan Red.
Then again, I don't have much knowledge on history and international relations things.
After the Great War, the prevailing theory was that the next war would be over trade and economy concerns. In the post-war era, the two largest economic rivals were the US and UK, with the US finally having rebuilt its huge merchantman fleet after the loses from as far back as the Civil War. In addition to this the two country's navies were becoming about equal in size and the Americans could afford to continue expanding, while the British could not afford it realistically anymore, since by policy they would have to match both the United States and Japan in terms of numbers, which was becoming impossible. The British were having trouble maintaining a navy that was the size of both the German Navy and the American Navy, before the Americans ramped up to war time level production.
By late 1921, the Americans were building eight battleships and six battlecruisers while Japan was building two battleships and four battlecruisers (Maryland, Nagato and Mutsu having been finished of the Big Seven) The British were toying with building more but seemed to want the Washington Treaty to save them from being forced to build more ships. Taking the two Nelsons as their prize following the signing of the treaty.
A common phrase used by the British people concerning American GIs: "Overpaid, oversexed, and over here".
Funny, the implication I always heard was that Americans were undersexed/afraid of sex, and "oversexed" was how people referred to Europeans (especially Italians and French...)
ArdWar said:
Hmm, I always thought that pre-WW2, relations between US and UK weren't as close as it is now. There's even War Plan Red.
Then again, I don't have much knowledge on history and international relations things.
To have a plan to deal with an enemy is not the same thing as to have an enemy.
There have been wargames the US Military set up specifically to train for invading Israel, for example, but that doesn't mean the US is in any way considering such an invasion. It's just that military planners are expected to be all Batman-prepared with a plan for every possible enemy, no matter how unlikely, because it's... you know, literally their job to do so.
There have been wargames the US Military set up specifically to train for invading Israel, for example, but that doesn't mean the US is in any way considering such an invasion. It's just that military planners are expected to be all Batman-prepared with a plan for every possible enemy, no matter how unlikely, because it's... you know, literally their job to do so.
Maj. Gen. James Mattis, U.S. Secretary of Defense, said:
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
Appear to be on bad termsWhat d'you think?Appear to be on bad termsAppear to be on bad termsAppear to be on bad termsAppear to be on bad termsAppear to be on bad termsAppear to be on bad termsThis is just my impression so far, but...Appear to be on bad termsAppear to be on bad termsAppear to be on bad termsWhat adorable drawings...!Yeah....
