James Holland

It's like 189,000 strong, which might seem reasonably large by today's standards, but it's absolutely tiny by 1939 standards.

You know, whereas, you know, Germany's got an army of,

three and a half million in 1939.

So, you know, these are big, big, big differences.

But America's coming at it from a different perspective.

Britain's coming at it from a different perspective.

You know, Britain's empire is all about, you know, it's a shipping, it's a seaborne empire.

You know, Britain's empire is all about, you know, it's a shipping, it's a seaborne empire.

You know, Britain's empire is all about, you know, it's a shipping, it's a seaborne empire.

You know, Britain's empire is all about, you know, it's a shipping, it's a seaborne empire.

Whereas there's also another point, which is having large armies is actually inherently impractical and inefficient because the larger army, the more people you've got to feed, the more kind of barracks you've got to have, the more space you've got to have for training, the more people you're taking out of your workforce to produce tanks and shells and all the rest of it because they're tramping around with rifles.

Whereas there's also another point, which is having large armies is actually inherently impractical and inefficient because the larger army, the more people you've got to feed, the more kind of barracks you've got to have, the more space you've got to have for training, the more people you're taking out of your workforce to produce tanks and shells and all the rest of it because they're tramping around with rifles.

Whereas there's also another point, which is having large armies is actually inherently impractical and inefficient because the larger army, the more people you've got to feed, the more kind of barracks you've got to have, the more space you've got to have for training, the more people you're taking out of your workforce to produce tanks and shells and all the rest of it because they're tramping around with rifles.

Whereas there's also another point, which is having large armies is actually inherently impractical and inefficient because the larger army, the more people you've got to feed, the more kind of barracks you've got to have, the more space you've got to have for training, the more people you're taking out of your workforce to produce tanks and shells and all the rest of it because they're tramping around with rifles.

So there's an argument saying, actually, it's not a very good way of doing things.

So there's an argument saying, actually, it's not a very good way of doing things. So very much the British way and subsequently the United States way and way of Britain's dominions and empire is to use kind of steel, not our flesh as a principle. The idea is that you use steel.

So there's an argument saying, actually, it's not a very good way of doing things. So very much the British way and subsequently the United States way and way of Britain's dominions and empire is to use kind of steel, not our flesh as a principle. The idea is that you use steel.

So there's an argument saying, actually, it's not a very good way of doing things. So very much the British way and subsequently the United States way and way of Britain's dominions and empire is to use kind of steel, not our flesh as a principle. The idea is that you use steel.

So very much the British way and subsequently the United States way and the way of Britain's dominions and empire is to use kind of steel, not our flesh as a principle.

The idea is that you use steel.