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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roger_ramjet

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdiSalisbury

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

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.