Nigel Farage says it as it is

Batsy

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how much ado Farrage makes about this and that EU official being unelected (in the same way as the US Cabinet is, for that matter), but why doesn't he ever mention the fact that his own Head of State is likewise unelected?:rolleyes:

Farage knows, of course, that his Head of State in Britain is not only merely ceremonial but also is NOT a politician, and therefore doesn't need to be elected. Electing a ceremonial Head of State with no political power would be a pointless exercise.

The "Head of State" of the EU isn't ceremonial - he has lots of political power - and is also a politician and therefore Farage is correct to complain about the fact that the EU President isn't elected by the EU people. Farage, unlike the europhiles, is on the side of the people and democracy.

whatstherush

Batsy wrote: »

UKIP are "distateful" to those who want Britain to be amongst the 13% of the world's countries which are a part of the inward-looking EU, rather than be a part of the 87% of the world's nations who are outside the EU and therefore more outward-looking and global.

You've pulled this one out of a very deep rabbit hole, absolute bollix.

Batsy

whatstherush wrote: »

You've pulled this one out of a very deep rabbit hole, absolute bollix.

Almost every independent, sovereign nation around the world (of which Britain and Ireland are not two of) are more outward-looking and global than the notoriously inward-looking, self-obsessed Fortress EU.

whatstherush

Batsy wrote: »

Almost every independent, sovereign nation around the world (of which Britain and Ireland are not two of) are more outward-looking and global than the notoriously inward-looking, self-obsessed Fortress EU.

By what measure, Batsy's made in britain radar:D

And if it's such a Fortress why are you pissing and moaning about immigrants every second post.

Batsy

whatstherush wrote: »

By what measure, Batsy's made in britain radar:D

And if it's such a Fortress why are you pissing and moaning about immigrants every second post.

The EU is inward-looking and self-obsessed. Most people can see that. It is obvious to billions the world over, from Nova Scotia to Tierra del Fuego and from Donetsk to Durban.

The only ones who can't see it are the ever-shrinking minority who still support the EU.

whatstherush

Batsy wrote: »

The EU is inward-looking and self-obsessed. Most people can see that. The only ones who can't are the ever-shrinking minority who still support the EU.

So like I said absolute bollix

anymore

Batsy wrote: »

The EU is inward-looking and self-obsessed. Most people can see that. It is obvious to billions the world over, from Nova Scotia to Tierra del Fuego and from Donetsk to Durban.

The only ones who can't see it are the ever-shrinking minority who still support the EU.

Rule Brittania, Brittania Rule the waves !
Oh wait that was when they had an empire wasnt it ?
When a 16 pounder gun could blow all the damn natives to Kingdom Come !
Now, sadly they are reduced to being lackeys for the US. Embarassingly, the British Army had to be rescued from the Basra by the US marines
Seems as if the brits dont do so well when the natives can fire back with real guns !
So what were you saying again about being inward looking ?

Benny_Cake

Batsy wrote: »

whatstherush wrote: »

You've pulled this one out of a very deep rabbit hole, absolute bollix.

Almost every independent, sovereign nation around the world (of which Britain and Ireland are not two of) are more outward-looking and global than the notoriously inward-looking, self-obsessed Fortress EU.

Fortress EU?Given your comments in the past regarding immigration that's quite funny.

You do realise that EU members are allowed to have relations with other countries - we're in an open relationship here!

irishh_bob

Batsy wrote: »

What did Margaret Thatcher ever do that was detrimental to the Irish people?




Without the euro currency Ireland's economy would still be booming.

If the Irish government had actually listened to people like Nigel Farage - who has spent years warning people about the dangers of the euro - then you would have kept the punt and your economy would still be booming.

Instead you dismiss people like Farage, wrongly calling him far right and labelling him a xenophobic bigot (who actually has an Italian wife) and pursue a more pro-EU path - and then you end up suffering as a consequence.

she allowed internment without trial for several years for the crime of being catholic and irish , a violation of the most basic form of human rights

btw , i quite like nigel farrage , charismatic guy who isnt a euro clone

Batsy

anymore wrote: »

Rule Brittania, Brittania Rule the waves !
Oh wait that was when they had an empire wasnt it ?
When a 16 pounder gun could blow all the damn natives to Kingdom Come !

I'd rather be proud of being a citizen of an independent Great Britain with a global outlook and a booming economy than being a citizen of a Great Britain which is nothing more than a province of an economically sclerotic, democracy-starved, self-obsessed, German-dominated EU whose needless bureaucracy and red tape strangles Britain's economy and permanently slows down its economic growth.

Now, sadly they are reduced to being lackeys for the US.

I'd rather be a lackey of the US than a lackey of Brussels/Berlin/Paris/IMF.

Embarassingly, the British Army had to be rescued from the Basra by the US marines

Rubbish. British soldiers are the finest and the bravest in the world and did a much better job in Iraq than the Irish Army would have done.

Seems as if the brits dont do so well when the natives can fire back with real guns !

Tell that to those brave British soldiers who defeated Nazi Germany and Galtieri's Argentina.

So what were you saying again about being inward looking ?

Britain isn't inward looking. It is - and always has been - an outward-looking, global country. Such a country has no place in the inward-looking EU.

irishh_bob

Batsy wrote: »

I'd rather be proud of being a citizen of an independent Great Britain with a global outlook and a booming economy than being a citizen of a Great Britain which is nothing more than a province of an economically sclerotic, democracy-starved, self-obsessed, German-dominated EU whose needless bureaucracy and red tape strangles Britain's economy and permanently slows down its economic growth.



I'd rather be a lackey of the US than a lackey of Brussels/Berlin/Paris/IMF.



Rubbish. British soldiers are the finest and the bravest in the world and did a much better job in Iraq than the Irish Army would have done.



Tell that to those brave British soldiers who defeated Nazi Germany and Galtieri's Argentina.




Britain isn't inward looking. It is - and always has been - an outward-looking, global country. Such a country has no place in the inward-looking EU.

britian might ( and probabley is ) an outward looking country but you come across as a quientesential little englander , a john bull

bmaxi

irishh_bob wrote: »

she allowed internment without trial for several years for the crime of being catholic and irish , a violation of the most basic form of human rights

btw , i quite like nigel farrage , charismatic guy who isnt a euro clone

Maybe I missed it but I can't remember upwards of half a million people being interned..
I'm no fan of Thatcher but from what I recall, internment was introduced by the N.I. government and maintained under a Labour Government in London, it had been scrapped long before Thatcher became PM.
Furthermore, though heavily weighted in numbers against Republicans, it was also used against Loyalists.

irishh_bob

bmaxi wrote: »

Maybe I missed it but I can't remember upwards of half a million people being interned..
I'm no fan of Thatcher but from what I recall, internment was introduced by the N.I. government and maintained under a Labour Government in London, it had been scrapped long before Thatcher became PM.
Furthermore, though heavily weighted in numbers against Republicans, it was also used against Loyalists.

thank you for correcting me on this , you are indeed 100% correct , internment was brought in close to a decade before thatcher became PM , must have been drinking bad coffee when i posted that

Batsy

irishh_bob wrote: »

she allowed internment without trial for several years for the crime of being catholic and irish , a violation of the most basic form of human rights

I think you'll find she did it because they were murderous, terrorist scumbags.

Batsy

irishh_bob wrote: »

britian might ( and probabley is ) an outward looking country but you come across as a quientesential little englander , a john bull

Why? Because I want my country to be an independent, sovereign state rather than being run by unelected foreigners in a foreign country?

Unusual as it might sound to the Europhile sheeple but I actually want the British to run Britain.

And if I'm racist for wanting independence for my nation then those Irish republicans who fought for Irish independence were nothing more than racist, far right Little Irelanders and any Scot who votes for the BNP is just a bigotted, inward-looking, racist Little Scotlander.

bmaxi

Batsy wrote: »

I think you'll find she did it because they were murderous, terrorist scumbags.

Poster has conceded she didn't do it. Why don't you quit while you're ahead?

nesf

Let's not turn this into a Northern Ireland thread, thanks.

anymore

Batsy wrote: »

I'd rather be proud of being a citizen of an independent Great Britain with a global outlook and a booming economy than being a citizen of a Great Britain which is nothing more than a province of an economically sclerotic, democracy-starved, self-obsessed, German-dominated EU whose needless bureaucracy and red tape strangles Britain's economy and permanently slows down its economic growth.



I'd rather be a lackey of the US than a lackey of Brussels/Berlin/Paris/IMF.



Rubbish. British soldiers are the finest and the bravest in the world and did a much better job in Iraq than the Irish Army would have done.



Tell that to those brave British soldiers who defeated Nazi Germany and Galtieri's Argentina.




Britain isn't inward looking. It is - and always has been - an outward-looking, global country. Such a country has no place in the inward-looking EU.

Re British Army : That is quite a joke - one of the reasons UK has a tendency to commemorate 'famous defeats' such as the battle of Dunkirk' is because it is such a crap army. Even its victories tend to be as much due to its allies as itself.
Frankly what I said about Basra and the Brit 'Army' is quite restrained in comparison to the comments of sering US Soldiers who had to ' deploy' the Brits out in order to assert control of the area. In fact the most effective units in the ' Brit Army' are the mercenary Gurkhas.
Oh if the Brit Army is so great, why do so many of its former soldiers end up in prison / The prison rates for Brit soldiers are horrifying.

Batsy

anymore wrote: »

Re British Army : That is quite a joke - one of the reasons UK has a tendency to commemorate 'famous defeats' such as the battle of Dunkirk' is because it is such a crap army. Even its victories tend to be as much due to its allies as itself.

I think you'd find that Dunkirk was something of a victory for the British. The Germans lost three times as many troops as the British during the campaign. Not only that but the Germans were hoping to cut the British off and prevent them escaping back across the Channel. This the Germans failed to do because somebody gave them the order to stop their advance on Dunkirk. This decision allowed over 215,000 British troops to get safely back to Britain.

This angered many German officers. One wrote in his diary:

"Brauchitsch is angry ... The pocket would have been closed at the coast if only our armour had not been held back. The bad weather has grounded the Luftwaffe and we must now stand and watch countless thousands of the enemy get away to England right under our noses."

A theory as to why the order was given was that Hitler wanted to let the British off lightly in the hope they would surrender. If this was true it was another failure on the Germans' part.

Frankly what I said about Basra and the Brit 'Army' is quite restrained in comparison to the comments of sering US Soldiers who had to ' deploy' the Brits out in order to assert control of the area.

I take no notice of what arrogant US soldiers have to say concerning our military. Most of the time the Yanks don't know what the word "tactics" means even if it came over and punched them in the face.

In fact the most effective units in the ' Brit Army' are the mercenary Gurkhas.

I would say the SAS are probably the most effective.

anymore

Batsy wrote: »

I think you'd find that Dunkirk was something of a victory for the British. The Germans lost three times as many troops as the British during the campaign. Not only that but the Germans were hoping to cut the British off and prevent them escaping back across the Channel. This the Germans failed to do because somebody gave them the order to stop their advance on Dunkirk. This decision allowed over 215,000 British troops to get safely back to Britain.

This angered many German officers. One wrote in his diary:

"Brauchitsch is angry ... The pocket would have been closed at the coast if only our armour had not been held back. The bad weather has grounded the Luftwaffe and we must now stand and watch countless thousands of the enemy get away to England right under our noses."

A theory as to why the order was given was that Hitler wanted to let the British off lightly in the hope they would surrender. If this was true it was another failure on the Germans' part.



I take no notice of what arrogant US soldiers have to say concerning our military. Most of the time the Yanks don't know what the word "tactics" means even if it came over and punched them in the face.



I would say the SAS are probably the most effective.

You said yourself, for reason we dont know, Hitler held back his armour. Another famous 'Defeat' just like Arnheim !.
US soldiers tend to be ' arrogrant' possibly becaus ethe US has lost some many soldeiers rescuing the Dad's Army brits !
As for SAS, far far more of thier ops have been glorious failures than is ever revealed - Handy being able to classify operations as ' Top Secret' not ot be revlealed for 50 years ! Pity about the scvrew up in Libya wasnt it ?
Out of curioisity, if you are British citizen, why are you spending so much time posting on a small irish internet site ? You are quite entitled to of course, but it strikes me as odd !

Einhard

bedrock#1 wrote: »

Just as with Lisbon we will be bullied and threatened into these changes. And of course, our lovely government will, after some huffing and puffing (for show of course) concede. Next it will be their job to scare the living sh1te out of the Irish people, just like they did the last time and what we are left with is being a crappy EU backwater. No sovereignty here any more boys and girls.

Speak for yourself, I'll be delighted with closer integration. And I'll vote for it in any referendum. Just as I did in the eminently democratic referenda on Lisbon.

irishh_bob

Batsy wrote: »

I think you'll find she did it because they were murderous, terrorist scumbags.

were you born a dumb reactionary or did you develop it ?

heres a lesson you might find usefull in life , when you institutionalise discrimination on a grand scale , people will get pissed off and bite back

steelcityblues

irishh_bob wrote: »

britian might ( and probabley is ) an outward looking country but you come across as a quientesential little englander , a john bull

There is no basis for seeing the Brits as enemy #1 to us (they were, but not today), when at least they had enough backbone not to be swallowed into the euro currency scheme.

As tough as might be to admit, we have a few things we can learn from them.

Scofflaw

US soldiers tend to be ' arrogrant' possibly becaus ethe US has lost some many soldeiers rescuing the Dad's Army brits !

In fact, US ground forces aren't particularly good, and never really have been. Decent special forces, but most of the strength of the US is in the Navy and more particularly the Air Force. The US infantry was so poor in WW2 that Patton limited them to the most basic of tactics, and it's hard to think of a conflict where they've distinguished themselves since.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jmcc

Batsy wrote: »

I think you'd find that Dunkirk was something of a victory for the British. The Germans lost three times as many troops as the British during the campaign.

Yes but the Germans were also fighting the French.

This the Germans failed to do because somebody gave them the order to stop their advance on Dunkirk.

One theory is that the Germans had outrun their supply and logistics because the French and the British retreated too quickly.

Regards...jmcc

Batsy

jmcc wrote: »

Yes but the Germans were also fighting the French.

Who, unlike the British, surrendered as soon as the going got tough.

You seem to forget that when the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain in 1940 Britain was fighting Germany ALONE.

One theory is that the Germans had outrun their supply and logistics because the French and the British retreated too quickly.

Regards...jmcc

No. The Hun were looking to prevent the British from returning across the Channel and may have done so had the order not mysteriously been given for them to stop their chase.

anymore

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, US ground forces aren't particularly good, and never really have been. Decent special forces, but most of the strength of the US is in the Navy and more particularly the Air Force. The US infantry was so poor in WW2 that Patton limited them to the most basic of tactics, and it's hard to think of a conflict where they've distinguished themselves since.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And yet it was the US military which primarily and successfully launced the invasion of Europe in Normandy - small matter i suppose. Not to metion as i already have, that it was the US which rescued the Brits at basra !
Imagine if the US forces were good The two actual invasions of Iraq were astoundingly successful whayever about the follow ups. Again not bad for forces which arent particularily good.

Batsy

anymore wrote: »

And yet it was the US military which primarily and successfully launced the invasion of Europe in Normandy - small matter i suppose. Not to metion as i already have, that it was the US which rescued the Brits at basra !
Imagine if the US forces were good !

The Invasion of Normandy would have been impossible had the British - fighting alone - not defeated the Germans in the Battle of Britain. If the British had lost that battle the chances are Germany would have invaded Britain and then, of course, an Allied invasion of Normandy from the south coast of England could not have happened.

Also, British troops outnumbered American troops during the Battle of Britain.

The American forces numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops.

The British forces numbered 83,115 troops: 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

There was also Operation Neptune during D-Day. This involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. This operation had over twice as many British as American troops taking part: 52,889 US and 112,824 British.

anymore

Batsy wrote: »

The Invasion of Normandy would have been impossible had the British - fighting alone - not defeated the Germans in the Battle of Britain. If the British had lost that battle the chances are Germany would have invaded Britain and then, of course, an Allied invasion of Normandy from the south coast of England could not have happened.

Also, British troops outnumbered American troops during the Battle of Britain.

The American forces numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops.

The British forces numbered 83,115 troops: 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

.
There was also Operation Neptune during D-Day. This involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. This operation had over twice as many British as American troops taking part: 52,889 US and 112,824 British.

The british were not fighting alone during the battel of britain - this is one of the most demonstrable false ' facts peddled as heroic legend' of the conflict - the only country which fought alone during the second world war was poland which fought against a german military whichh ad been supplied, up to 1938, with vital strategic materials by the UK ! yes. Hitlers war effort required british assistance - for the record a substantial part of Hitlers military relied upon horse for transport !!!!!:)

Batsy

anymore wrote: »

The british were not fighting alone during the battel of britain - this is one of the most demonstrable false ' facts peddled as heroic legend' of the conflict - the only country which fought alone during the second world war was poland which fought against a german military whichh ad been supplied, up to 1938, with vital strategic materials by the UK ! yes. Hitlers war effort required british assistance - for the record a substantial part of Hitlers military relied upon horse for transport !!!!!:)

Britain fought alone during the Battle of Britain. The battle was between the British and the Germans and the British were the only ones fighting the Germans in 1940.

In fact, the British Empire is the only power on the planet to have fought both world wars from beginning to end. It is the only power to have fought WWI from 1914 to 1918 and then WWII from 1939 to 1945.

All the others that took part either just sat back and did nothing until the war was already underway for years (such as America in both world wars), were invaded and then effectively taken out of the war (such as France and much of the rest of Continental Europe during WWII), or surrendered before the war was over (such as Germany in 1945).

The British Empire is the only one which fought the entirety of both world wars.

anymore

Batsy wrote: »

Britain fought alone during the Battle of Britain. The battle was between the British and the Germans and the British were the only ones fighting the Germans in 1940.

In fact, the British Empire is the only power on the planet to have fought both world wars from beginning to end. It is the only power to have fought WWI from 1914 to 1918 and then WWII from 1939 to 1945.

All the others that took part either just sat back and did nothing until the war was already underway for years (such as America in both world wars), were invaded and then effectively taken out of the war (such as France and much of the rest of Continental Europe during WWII), or surrendered before the war was over (such as Germany in 1945).

The British Empire is the only one which fought the entirety of both world wars.

The two British expeditionary forces to France were dismal, dismal failures.
You neglect to metion that for countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, freedom fron the invader only came after the fall of the berlin Wall - but why let 50 years or so get in the way of a good fairy tale ! The brits even forced some Eastern Europeans at bayonet point back into to Stalin's hands to facr certain incareration or death. But that is the British way - do business with tyrants and let your brave allies go to hell or to thier deaths - business is business - look at Libya !

jmcc

Batsy wrote: »

Who, unlike the British, surrendered as soon as the going got tough.

They had nowhere left to run.

No. The Hun were looking to prevent the British from returning across the Channel and may have done so had the order not mysteriously been given for them to stop their chase.

The theory is that the British and the French retreated so quickly that the Germans outran their supply lines and had tanks running out of fuel. Now you may want to present this as a victory but it seems to historians as if the British only ran away faster than the Germans could advance. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history understands the importance of logistics.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

Batsy wrote: »

Also, British troops outnumbered American troops during the Battle of Britain.

Have you figured out why? The US only officially entered WW2 in 1941 whereas the Battle of Britain was, for the most part, in 1940. The Battle of Britain, in case you didn't know, was mainly fought in the air.

Regards...jmcc

Batsy

anymore wrote: »

The two British expeditionary forces to France were dismal, dismal failures.

You have to bear in mind that the British Expeditionary Forces in France were vastly outnumbered by the Germans. Also, the Germans were much more prepared for war than the British. The Germans had spent the 1930s beefing up their military in preparation for a possible war in the near future, whereas the British stupidly made huge cuts to their Armed Forces in the belief that there was no threat to Britain for at least the next ten years (something which the current supporters of cuts to the British Armed Forces fail to take heed of). It was only in 1938 when the British realised that the Germans were a threat did they start panicking and increasing the size of their armed forces.

You also have to remember, as I've said, that today the Battle of Dunkirk is seen more of a failure on the Germans' part, not the British. As I've mentioned, the Germans were looking to annihilate the British forces in France. They hoped to cut them off at Dunkirk and destroy them. Instead they failed miserably because a high ranking German officer gave the order to stop their pursuit of the British. This allowed the British to escape back across the Channel - thousands of precious men, equipment and other resources which could be used later in the war. And whilst this cause a feelgood factor - known as the Dunkirk spirit - to spread throughout the British nation many German officers, on the other hand, were angry that the British got away. In that sense, Dunkirk was a British success and a German failure.

You neglect to metion that for countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, freedom fron the invader only came after the fall of the berlin Wall - but why let 50 years or so get in the way of a good fairy tale !

If it wasn't for the British almost the whole of Europe - including Ireland - would be under German rule, not just Poland and Czechoslovakia. We'd be a part of the thousand year Third Reich and, if we didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, we'd all be living in brutal concentration camps.

The brits even forced some Eastern Europeans at bayonet point back into to Stalin's hands to facr certain incareration or death. But that is the British way - do business with tyrants and let your brave allies go to hell or to thier deaths - business is business - look at Libya !

And the Irish Nazi-loving Taoiseach, Eamonn de Valera, wanted to kick all Jews out of Ireland during the War.

Batsy

jmcc wrote: »

They had nowhere left to run.

Rubbish. Charles de Gaulle - who fled to Britain during the war - was very much against the French surrender. He advocated instead that the French government remove itself to North Africa and carry on the war as best it could from France's African colonies. Of course, this never happened.

In fact, de Gaulle did much to try and prevent the French from surrendering. While serving as a liaison with the British government, de Gaulle telephoned Paul Reynaud, the French prime minister, from London on 16th June 1940 informing him of the offer by Britain of a Declaration of Union. The declaration, inspired by Jean Monnet, would have merged France and the United Kingdom into one country, with a single government and army. This would have allowed the French to continue their fight with the Germans. The offer was a desperate, last-minute effort to strengthen the resolve of Reynaud's government. However, his cabinet was so hostile to the offer that Reynaud had to resign.

The theory is that the British and the French retreated so quickly that the Germans outran their supply lines and had tanks running out of fuel. Now you may want to present this as a victory but it seems to historians as if the British only ran away faster than the Germans could advance. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history understands the importance of logistics.

Nah. The theory I believe is that Hitler ordered the Germans to stop their chase of the British because he hoped that, by sparing the British Expeditionary Forces, the British would finally surrender. He was then left hugely disappointed when they didn't.

jmcc

Batsy wrote: »

Rubbish. Charles de Gaulle - who fled to Britain during the war - was very much against the French surrender.

Well they could hardly roll up France and take it with them, could they? Then again, Churchill and the British High Command had realised that the French leadership was not effective and had decided not to commit any more air support to the campaign as it was effectively lost and it then became an operation to extract as many troops as possible. However most of the BEF's equipment and weaponry was left on the beaches.

Nah. The theory I believe is that Hitler ordered the Germans to stop their chase of the British because he hoped that, by staring the British Expeditionary Forces, the British would finally surrender. He was then left hugely disappointed when they didn't.

And is this your own theory? Perhaps you would be good enough to cite supporting evidence. I think that there are some accounts of German armour having to forage for fuel and German soldiers having to forage for food as they had advanced so quickly.

Regards...jmcc

Plautus

Batsy wrote: »

You have to bear in mind that the British Expeditionary Forces in France were vastly outnumbered by the Germans. Also, the Germans were much more prepared for war than the British. The Germans had spent the 1930s beefing up their military in preparation for a possible war in the near future, whereas the British stupidly made huge cuts to their Armed Forces in the belief that there was no threat to Britain for at least the next ten years (something which the current supporters of cuts to the British Armed Forces fail to take heed of). It was only in 1938 when the British realised that the Germans were a threat did they start panicking and increasing the size of their armed forces.

You also have to remember, as I've said, that today the Battle of Dunkirk is seen more of a failure on the Germans' part, not the British. As I've mentioned, the Germans were looking to annihilate the British forces in France. They hoped to cut them off at Dunkirk and destroy them. Instead they failed miserably because a high ranking German officer gave the order to stop their pursuit of the British. This allowed the British to escape back across the Channel - thousands of precious men, equipment and other resources which could be used later in the war. And whilst this cause a feelgood factor - known as the Dunkirk spirit - to spread throughout the British nation many German officers, on the other hand, were angry that the British got away. In that sense, Dunkirk was a British success and a German failure.



If it wasn't for the British almost the whole of Europe - including Ireland - would be under German rule, not just Poland and Czechoslovakia. We'd be a part of the thousand year Third Reich and, if we didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, we'd all be living in brutal concentration camps.



And the Irish Nazi-loving Taoiseach, Eamonn de Valera, wanted to kick all Jews out of Ireland during the War.

First of all, you might want to read R.J.B. Bosworth's excellent 'Nations remember their past' - it might cure you of one-up-manship and realise the extent to which history is framed after the fact by the victors. Nobody owes plucky little Britain a living for events sixty years passed. http://www.jstor.org/pss/494801

If I were a betting man, I'd have put down good money that a topic on Nigel Farage would have descended into the use (and abuse) of the history of the Second World War very quickly. It's practically a sub-species of Godwin's Law.

Secondly, I'd love to see the source for DeValera wanting to kick all of the Jews out of Ireland. Signing the book of condolence for Hitler was unfortunate, but where's your positive evidence for him being 'Nazi-loving'?

French veterans of Gembloux in 1940, and many other battlegrounds, would be rightly insulted by your insinuation that they didn't fight fiercely against the Germans and 'surrendered as soon as the going got tough.' They were defeated, they did not surrender when they still could have won (like Sir Percival on Singapore island in 1942). http://www.jstor.org/stable/120789

French high command was an appalling mess of mis- and non-communication and not responsive enough. Something was wrong when General HQ had to sign off on both the strategic and tactical situation in Paris, and information was relayed to it from the front by motorcycle couriers with a minimum 4-7 hour delay (for the round-trip). The ad hoc radio command and control of the Germans lent them alacrity but was also ballsy - Rommel raced far ahead of the ground troops and often cut communications with High Command. He was lucky he wasn't surrounded on the drive to the Channel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Ghost_Division

The Germans were positively frightened that they could get bogged down in France again, and the relatively swift defeat (two months of fighting) was as much of a surprise to them as anyone else: to judge from General Halder at least. And the Germans also got lucky by following the Von Manstein plan for a drive through the Ardennes pretty close to the time: it had been rubbished several months before that.

irishh_bob

Batsy wrote: »

The Invasion of Normandy would have been impossible had the British - fighting alone - not defeated the Germans in the Battle of Britain. If the British had lost that battle the chances are Germany would have invaded Britain and then, of course, an Allied invasion of Normandy from the south coast of England could not have happened.

Also, British troops outnumbered American troops during the Battle of Britain.

The American forces numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops.

The British forces numbered 83,115 troops: 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

There was also Operation Neptune during D-Day. This involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. This operation had over twice as many British as American troops taking part: 52,889 US and 112,824 British.

all of that is true but the battle of britain was much less important than eastern front , the soviet union won the war for the allies

irishh_bob

Batsy wrote: »

You have to bear in mind that the British Expeditionary Forces in France were vastly outnumbered by the Germans. Also, the Germans were much more prepared for war than the British. The Germans had spent the 1930s beefing up their military in preparation for a possible war in the near future, whereas the British stupidly made huge cuts to their Armed Forces in the belief that there was no threat to Britain for at least the next ten years (something which the current supporters of cuts to the British Armed Forces fail to take heed of). It was only in 1938 when the British realised that the Germans were a threat did they start panicking and increasing the size of their armed forces.

You also have to remember, as I've said, that today the Battle of Dunkirk is seen more of a failure on the Germans' part, not the British. As I've mentioned, the Germans were looking to annihilate the British forces in France. They hoped to cut them off at Dunkirk and destroy them. Instead they failed miserably because a high ranking German officer gave the order to stop their pursuit of the British. This allowed the British to escape back across the Channel - thousands of precious men, equipment and other resources which could be used later in the war. And whilst this cause a feelgood factor - known as the Dunkirk spirit - to spread throughout the British nation many German officers, on the other hand, were angry that the British got away. In that sense, Dunkirk was a British success and a German failure.



If it wasn't for the British almost the whole of Europe - including Ireland - would be under German rule, not just Poland and Czechoslovakia. We'd be a part of the thousand year Third Reich and, if we didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, we'd all be living in brutal concentration camps.



And the Irish Nazi-loving Taoiseach, Eamonn de Valera, wanted to kick all Jews out of Ireland during the War.

your either completely ignorant of history or are a bald faced liar , well respected members of the jewish community in ireland have often remarked upon develeras efforts to protect jews living in ireland during the 1930,s , they contrasted devs possition with that of the blueshirts led by o duffy

Plautus

irishh_bob wrote: »

all of that is true but the battle of britain was much less important than eastern front , the soviet union won the war for the allies

Not to mention that Gold, Sword and Juno beaches were 'easier' beach-heads than Utah or Omaha ... and that Canadians predominated at Juno.

JustinDee

irishh_bob wrote: »

your either completely ignorant of history or are a bald faced liar , well respected members of the jewish community in ireland have often remarked upon develeras efforts to protect jews living in ireland during the 1930,s , they contrasted devs possition with that of the blueshirts led by o duffy

His government curtailed and almost prevented in its entirety (bar the 66 who made it), flight of Jewish refugees from Europe.
An odd soundbite or quote from a now dead member of the Briscoe family doesn't really outweigh that.

anymore

Batsy wrote: »

You have to bear in mind that the British Expeditionary Forces in France were vastly outnumbered by the Germans. Also, the Germans were much more prepared for war than the British. The Germans had spent the 1930s beefing up their military in preparation for a possible war in the near future, whereas the British stupidly made huge cuts to their Armed Forces in the belief that there was no threat to Britain for at least the next ten years (something which the current supporters of cuts to the British Armed Forces fail to take heed of). It was only in 1938 when the British realised that the Germans were a threat did they start panicking and increasing the size of their armed forces.

You also have to remember, as I've said, that today the Battle of Dunkirk is seen more of a failure on the Germans' part, not the British. As I've mentioned, the Germans were looking to annihilate the British forces in France. They hoped to cut them off at Dunkirk and destroy them. Instead they failed miserably because a high ranking German officer gave the order to stop their pursuit of the British. This allowed the British to escape back across the Channel - thousands of precious men, equipment and other resources which could be used later in the war. And whilst this cause a feelgood factor - known as the Dunkirk spirit - to spread throughout the British nation many German officers, on the other hand, were angry that the British got away. In that sense, Dunkirk was a British success and a German failure.



If it wasn't for the British almost the whole of Europe - including Ireland - would be under German rule, not just Poland and Czechoslovakia. We'd be a part of the thousand year Third Reich and, if we didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, we'd all be living in brutal concentration camps.



And the Irish Nazi-loving Taoiseach, Eamonn de Valera, wanted to kick all Jews out of Ireland during the War.

I suggest you read UK historian Niall Ferguson's account of the war,
As he poits out, the RAF had an incomparable advantage in the battle of Britain. German pilots had about enough fuel for 20/30 minutes over Britain before having to return to france. Britain had superiority in either planes or pilots - sorry cant remember which and parity in other areas. The RAF also had pilots from across the Commonwealth as well some pilots from Poland etc.
Again I repeat the UK had up until late 1938 been selling vital strategic military materials to Hitler. Much of the whermacht went to war using horses ! The main difference was superior german tactics and soldiers.
The only reason and the absilutely reason why all of Europe, other than those parts allied with germany or neutral, was not under German rule was the Soviet Union. The UK was a minor miltary power in that sense.:D

JustinDee

anymore wrote: »

I suggest you read UK historian Niall Ferguson's account of the war,
As he poits out, the RAF had an incomparable advantage in the battle of Britain. German pilots had about enough fuel for 20/30 minutes over Britain before having to return to france. Britain had superiority in either planes or pilots - sorry cant remember which and parity in other areas. The RAF also had pilots from across the Commonwealth as well some pilots from Poland etc.
Again I repeat the UK had up until late 1938 been selling vital strategic military materials to Hitler. Much of the whermacht went to war using horses ! The main difference was superior german tactics and soldiers.
The only reason and the absilutely reason why all of Europe, other than those parts allied with germany or neutral, was not under German rule was the Soviet Union. The UK was a minor miltary power in that sense.:D

Try not to be so tunnel-visioned in your summary of that particular conflict (well, collection of conflicts as your chosen historian pointed out).

Nobody else bothered their keysters in dealing with the Third Reich until Britain and France declared war on Germany (though not for some reason, the USSR). Yes, there was the phoney war, the ill-fated slip on Norway and the arrogance of the Maginot Line but no other world power did a thing.
The Soviets started the European war when they sidled with Germany invading and dividing Poland for each other.
No Britain then Europe was doomed in its entirety, and thats even before considering the Royal Navy's efforts.
The very reason the Soviet Union was halted in its advance over the continent is down to the US and British expeditionary and intelligence forces. Defeat over Germany was not only due to the second front (a result of greed over Romanian and Finnish territories) but down to Allied supply rotting, intrinsic intelligence work and a refusal to not go down, even after the disaster of 1940.

anymore

JustinDee wrote: »

Try not to be so tunnel-visioned in your summary of that particular conflict (well, collection of conflicts as your chosen historian pointed out).

Nobody else bothered their keysters in dealing with the Third Reich until Britain and France declared war on Germany (though not for some reason, the USSR). Yes, there was the phoney war, the ill-fated slip on Norway and the arrogance of the Maginot Line but no other world power did a thing.
The Soviets started the European war when they sidled with Germany invading and dividing Poland for each other.
No Britain then Europe was doomed in its entirety, and thats even before considering the Royal Navy's efforts.
The very reason the Soviet Union was halted in its advance over the continent is down to the US and British expeditionary and intelligence forces. Defeat over Germany was not only due to the second front (a result of greed over Romanian and Finnish territories) but down to Allied supply rotting, intrinsic intelligence work and a refusal to not go down, even after the disaster of 1940.

Again I suggest that a reading of Mr ferguson's history of the conflict would be educational ! As he points out, Britain refused Frances pleas to Britain to take action much eariler when Hitler's army was far less prepared than they were - and again I suggest please bear in mind German armies were far from being as prepared as it is being suggested - again this is not view at all, I am merely reflected the published views of UK historians. You might also remeber much of BritAIN'S upper classes, including the Duke of Windsor and the daily Mail, had quite a positive view of the Nazis and Hitler. Try also to remember the secod World war actaully broke out in 1936/7 when the Japanese invaded China and the Italins had aslo commenced war in North Africa. But they I suppose were only ' Johnny Foreigners' !

JustinDee

anymore wrote: »

Again I suggest that a reading of Mr ferguson's history of the conflict would be educational ! As he points out, Britain refused Frances pleas to Britain to take action much eariler when Hitler's army was far less prepared than they were - and again I suggest please bear in mind German armies were far from being as prepared as it is being suggested - again this is not view at all, I am merely reflected the published views of UK historians. You might also remeber much of BritAIN'S upper classes, including the Duke of Windsor and the daily Mail, had quite a positive view of the Nazis and Hitler. Try also to remember the secod World war actaully broke out in 1936/7 when the Japanese invaded China and the Italins had aslo commenced war in North Africa. But they I suppose were only ' Johnny Foreigners' !

Don't put all your eggs in one basket there, fella. Don't rely on one solitary bit of literature topped up with wikimagic just because you like the idea it gets across. Don't forget Niall Ferguson likes to create a bit of a controversial stir too (such as yesterday's sensationalist newspaper piece, for example).

The claim on Manchuria being invaded is a little disingenuous, but interesting. It was already and remained continually contested for a start. Claiming a member of the royals and a newspaper represent some sort of leniency towards Germany and the USSR is also a little weak.

anymore

JustinDee wrote: »

Don't put all your eggs in one basket there, fella. Don't rely on one solitary bit of literature topped up with wikimagic just because you like the idea it gets across. Don't forget Niall Ferguson likes to create a bit of a controversial stir too (such as yesterday's sensationalist newspaper piece, for example).

The claim on Manchuria being invaded is a little disingenuous, but interesting. It was already and remained continually contested for a start. Claiming a member of the royals and a newspaper represent some sort of leniency towards Germany and the USSR is also a little weak.

Yeah right FELLA - just like all of britiain's 'colonies'. For 'Colonies' read countries that they robbed raped and plundered ! In fact the British Empire was a primary source of inspiration for the nazis.
For your information , I havent used WIKi at all for my posts on this part of the thread and I certainly dont rely one one book. I have read very extensively on the European conflicts over the last 20 years.
Some facts that I have referrd to are simply bare faced undeniable facts such as the fact that Britain forcibly at gun point handed over some of thier own allies into Stalin's murderous hands. And of course Churchill's aptly coined phrase ' iron curtain' turned out to be quite true. Of course in turn Churchill got to return to the ' liberated ' colonies !
Again the primary and undenable cause of HITLER'S defeat was the enormous sacrifice that was made the peoples of the Soviet Union. Thier sacrifice is treacherously and scandalously overlooked by all who claim to want to ' Hounour the heroes' of the second wrold war.

Scofflaw

anymore wrote: »

And yet it was the US military which primarily and successfully launced the invasion of Europe in Normandy - small matter i suppose. Not to metion as i already have, that it was the US which rescued the Brits at basra !
Imagine if the US forces were good The two actual invasions of Iraq were astoundingly successful whayever about the follow ups. Again not bad for forces which arent particularily good.

Again, though, both the Iraq wars were primarily won by the air force and the use of the initial airborne "shock and awe" - leaving relatively little to be mopped up on the ground, because the US is pretty allergic to body bags. And the claim that the US ground forces were relatively poor in quality in WW2 isn't contradicted by the point that their use was necessary - if a US division was only 75% as effective as, say, a British one, that's hardly the same thing as their being useless.

I can understand Batsy's adulation of British forces, but I can't really understand other people's apparently uncritical admiration for US forces, unless they're actually American themselves. It seems more than a little weird to me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bmaxi

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, though, both the Iraq wars were primarily won by the air force and the use of the initial airborne "shock and awe" - leaving relatively little to be mopped up on the ground, because the US is pretty allergic to body bags. And the claim that the US ground forces were relatively poor in quality in WW2 isn't contradicted by the point that their use was necessary - if a US division was only 75% as effective as, say, a British one, that's hardly the same thing as their being useless.

I can understand Batsy's adulation of British forces, but I can't really understand other people's apparently uncritical admiration for US forces, unless they're actually American themselves. It seems more than a little weird to me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd imagine criticism of British forces has more to do with prejudice than hard evidence. No matter what our past, the fact is, we do owe a debt of gratitude to Britain for her stand in WW2, they weren't "virtual" people who came home in boxes or didn't come home at all. The same applies to the U.S., Canada, Australia et al.
In my experience working among the U.S. military, their biggest failing is discipline. There is a degree of familiarity among the private soldiers toward their officers and NCOs which wouldn't be found in the British or indeed the Irish, forces and this can be counter productive.
Under battle conditions, it is essential that orders are carried out immediately and without question, no matter how unreasonable that order may seem. It appeared to me that sometimes U.S. personnel paused to debate their orders.

AlekSmart

Worth a thread split perhaps...Nigel Farrage has spawned TWO interesting elemental items....You GO Nige !! :eek:

Scofflaw

Yes, we do appear to be some way off topic at this stage...

moderately,
Scofflaw