OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

US joined a war that started in 1914, in 1917. They joined a second in 1941 that had started in 1939. Up until that point, the UK was the only stumbling block in both cases.

€22 Billion a year trade deficit with Germany and €30 billion with the EU as a whole to add on to our net EU contribution.

Amster...not sure what’s happened recently as I seldom disagree with you, but couldn’t your ‘the UK was the only stumbling block in both cases’ comment be regarded as being equally disrespectful to all the French, German, Belgian, Dutch and Anzacs etc who made an enormous sacrifice in both World Wars.

Our geographical location was massively important to the outcome of both World Wars as was the involvement of the Americans...can anyone sensibly argue with that?

[AdiSalisbury]

Not really RA. The campaign and capability of both forces would have been very different, if it even would've happened at all. He can shout fact as much as he likes, but he's not convincing me.

Edit...

"Our geographical location was massively important to the outcome of both World Wars as was the involvement of the Americans...can anyone sensibly argue with that?"

Of course not. Nor was the big blue bit between Europe and America. Or the involvement of our Commonwealth forces. Or the fight with Japan. Or the battles in Africa. Or that brave RAF bomber who accurately destroyed a munitions factory.

If we didn't have a giant moat, so much would be different, it's over simplistic to say that the result would have been the other way without it.

[MadAmster]

Amster...not sure what’s happened recently as I seldom disagree with you, but couldn’t your ‘the UK was the only stumbling block in both cases’ comment be regarded as being equally disrespectful to all the French, German, Belgian, Dutch and Anzacs etc who made an enormous sacrifice in both World Wars.

Our geographical location was massively important to the outcome of both World Wars as was the involvement of the Americans...can anyone sensibly argue with that?

No disrespect intended to any. However, the Germans were the aggressor, The Dutch, Belgians and French (with the exception of their wonderful resistance movements) all capitulated rather quickly. We then had to regroup from Blighty following Dunkirk. Held Hitler at arms length while still fighting in the Western Desert (My owd fella was out there for four and a half years, most of which was spent intercepting German signals behind enemy lines). The Anzacs were, indeed, a great help to us. As were the Gurkha and others. For a while, resistance groups apart, it was the UK and Commonwealth/Empire troops that were the stumbling block until the US joined in, in 1941. The big battles involving the Russians on the Eastern Front were, if I remember correctly, in 42 and 43. If my memory is playing tricks I stand to be corrected.

Our geographical location was, as you say, massively important.

[roger_ramjet]

Yet equally that same strip of water also protected the krauts from the counterattack launched from southern England, but it didn't stop the Allies!

[ramAnag]

No disrespect intended to any. However, the Germans were the aggressor, The Dutch, Belgians and French (with the exception of their wonderful resistance movements) all capitulated rather quickly. We then had to regroup from Blighty following Dunkirk. Held Hitler at arms length while still fighting in the Western Desert (My owd fella was out there for four and a half years, most of which was spent intercepting German signals behind enemy lines). The Anzacs were, indeed, a great help to us. As were the Gurkha and others. For a while, resistance groups apart, it was the UK and Commonwealth/Empire troops that were the stumbling block until the US joined in, in 1941. The big battles involving the Russians on the Eastern Front were, if I remember correctly, in 42 and 43. If my memory is playing tricks I stand to be corrected.

Our geographical location was, as you say, massively important.

I’m absolutely certain there was no disrespect intended MA...I know you better than that...but equally I don’t think Swale was being disrespectful last night and who’s to say, despite all the undoubted examples of bravery, that ‘we’ wouldn’t have capitulated just as quickly without Adi’s ‘giant moat’? Think that’s all Swale, in his own inimitable way, was saying.

Blessed are the peas makers...again!

[roger_ramjet]

I’m absolutely certain there was no disrespect intended MA...I know you better than that...but equally I don’t think Swale was being disrespectful last night and who’s to say, despite all the undoubted examples of bravery, that ‘we’ wouldn’t have capitulated just as quickly without Adi’s ‘giant moat’? Think that’s all Swale, in his own inimitable way, was saying.

Blessed are the peas makers...again!

Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any growers of the Pisum Sativum or allied plants of the Fabaceae genus such as Cajanus Cajan or lathyrus genus........... . again

[ramAnag]

Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any growers of the Pisum Sativum or allied plants of the Fabaceae genus such as Cajanus Cajan or lathyrus genus........... . again

Lol...I love a good pisum!

[swaledale]

His agenda blinds his objectivity.

eg.

"Fact 1 the Uk was saved from invasion by a combination of its geographical isolation from the rest of europe and the Nazi's initial reluctance to press home their advantage at Dunkirk - if you believe that we would not have suffered the same fate as France et al but for the English Channel then your myopic in the extreme."

Opinion, presented as a Swaley fact, as usual blind to the many complexities involved in the campaign, that would have been equally as different and complicated if we were part of the mainland.

Not opinion presented as fact at all but the expert analysis of people who ahve studied the war and written about it - the BEF - briths Expeditionary Force were in headlong retreat, what pray would have stopped the Germans continuing their advance into the Uk if it had been joined to europe?

Why did the germans delay the final onslaught which allowed so many to escape at Dunkirk? Again I am in no way suggesting that the actions of those who fought a brave rearguard action did not help, but that was logistically and realistically not going to stop the germans from simply marching into the Uk if geography hadn't played a part.

Nor am i blind to the complexities of any war, but there are key facts that shaped the outcome. Just as it is undeniably the case that the UK could not on its own have mounted the man power and equipment for a successful invasion and eventual defeat of the nazi regime.

[swaledale]

Not really RA. The campaign and capability of both forces would have been very different, if it even would've happened at all. He can shout fact as much as he likes, but he's not convincing me.

Edit...

"Our geographical location was massively important to the outcome of both World Wars as was the involvement of the Americans...can anyone sensibly argue with that?"

Of course not. Nor was the big blue bit between Europe and America. Or the involvement of our Commonwealth forces. Or the fight with Japan. Or the battles in Africa. Or that brave RAF bomber who accurately destroyed a munitions factory.

If we didn't have a giant moat, so much would be different, it's over simplistic to say that the result would have been the other way without it.

Of course its over simplistic, if I laid out all the factors involved, even in a summary it would take up more space than anyone would bother to read. My original comment was made to rebut the idea that the Uk on its own stopped and eventually defeated the Germans.

[Andy_Faber]

Of course its over simplistic, if I laid out all the factors involved, even in a summary it would take up more space than anyone would bother to read. My original comment was made to rebut the idea that the Uk on its own stopped and eventually defeated the Germans.

Not what you wrote at all, you described Britain as nothing more than 'through geographic fortune able to provide a handy launch pad', what an insult.

[ramAnag]

Not what you wrote at all, you described Britain as nothing more than 'through geographic fortune able to provide a handy launch pad', what an insult.

C’mon Andy...it’s Christmas...and I don’t think he did describe things that way. The emotive ‘nothing more’ is your own embellishment...I can’t see where Swale said that. The rest is largely true.

[roger_ramjet]

Oh yes he did


Look out behind you....

But notwithstanding, those posts were demeaning to those many thousands of British people who gave their lives in WW2. It may not have been meant that way, but my reading of it concurs with AF and Adi's interpretation.

I realise Swale is pro European unification but I doubt that even he would have been in favour of the 1940s version of it - or maybe he would have been a conscie down the mines secretly hoping for an away win?

[ramAnag]

Oh yes he did


Look out behind you....

But notwithstanding, those posts were demeaning to those many thousands of British people who gave their lives in WW2. It may not have been meant that way, but my reading of it concurs with AF and Adi's interpretation.

I realise Swale is pro European unification but I doubt that even he would have been in favour of the 1940s version of it - or maybe he would have been a conscie down the mines secretly hoping for an away win?

Oh no he didn’t...he didn’t say ‘nothing more than’. The posts were only demeaning to the ‘British people who gave their lives’ if you wanted to read it that way imo.
I realise that Swale can be controversial but deliberate misinterpretation helps no one and I don’t believe he would have been demeaning or disrespectful to those who died in WW2. Neither, I very much suspect, do you.

In the words of a certain Mr. Churchill...’Wars are not won by evacuations’...and I speak as someone who had a close relative who lost the hearing in one ear and the sight in one eye at Dunkirk. Had the Nazis, for whatever reason, gone in the for the kill at Dunkirk, had we not had the protection of being an island and had the Americans not become involved things would, imo, have been very different.

No idea what it’s all got to do with Brexit anyway.

[roger_ramjet]

Until those posts I would have agreed with you

[swaledale]

Oh yes he did


Look out behind you....

But notwithstanding, those posts were demeaning to those many thousands of British people who gave their lives in WW2. It may not have been meant that way, but my reading of it concurs with AF and Adi's interpretation.

I realise Swale is pro European unification but I doubt that even he would have been in favour of the 1940s version of it - or maybe he would have been a conscie down the mines secretly hoping for an away win?

They are only demeaning to those whose jingoism misleads them to think that the UK won WW2 on its own, to those who cling on (as many a Brexit supporter does) to the quaint idea that we are still in the days of the empire when half the world was pink and we implemented our own "benevolent" rule over countries.

Lets not forget the concentration camp was an invention of the British in the Boer War or overlook that there were many in the UK population, including many in the establishment who were more than a tad sympathetic to fascism and supported Moseley.

No where did I even suggest anything detrimental to those who fought in the war, or that their contribution and those of the Poles, the Free french and many others wasn't significant.

However, for those who know their history as against those who believe in fables about the "Greatness" of Britain the geographic isolation of the Uk from the continent, strategic errors made by Hitler and the entry of the USA (plus the assistance provided before then) were ultimately what led to the defeat of Germany.

As for being pro european unification, yes in the sense that countries who work together for mutual benefit are less likely to wage war, something that has by and large worked in Europe since WW2 compared to the chaos that existed in the 50 years before it.

Not surprised that Andy who professes to believe in something for which there is far more evidence disproving much of what is stated as truth, is happy to believe non factual, patriotic bull****!

Given the aversion to facts by many, I'm not at all surprised that misinterpretation is the name of the game.