Had we better leaders a century ago?

feargale

masti123 wrote: »

Pearse
Bit dodge on the youthful boys question. Imagine a cross between David Norris and Dev - he wanted young, Gaelic boys who would be athletic and Gaeilgeoirs. Less interest in the comely maidens, obviously.
Let's just say I'd rather he not get his hands on the Department of Education.

I'm no fan of Pearse, but to impute paedophilia to an adversary or to imply it without a shred of evidence is the dirtiest trick in the book. Pearse in fact had a more than casual attachment to a young woman who drowned in Kerry. I have heard a historian suggest he was asexual and for what my opinion is worth I wouldn't rule it out.

masti123 wrote: »

Collins Hero and traitor,

Clarify please. What or whom did he betray?

masti123 wrote: »

Burton Moan Burton.

You've had the silver-tongued rogues and chancers. You deserve more of the same if the best you can do in criticising a politician is to mock her slightly idiosyncratic way of speaking.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wasn't aware the average British person was "rampaging" across Ireland?

Why are the Irish so cowardly. "Let the big boys duke it out" what does that even mean? If America had pulled out and Britain been occupied do you think Ireland would have been left out of this new European order?

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
- Mark Twain

How could Ireland, barely 20 years independant have paid for involvement in a World War? The investment alone, to build and train a force that would be capable of forming a few divisions to assist operations on the Western Front would have been huge.

Could it even be done in 4 years? Even with unlimited budget I would go sofar as to say it would not even have been possible. It took Russia, with all its industrial might until July 1944 to push Germany past Minsk. It took the rest of the Allies, 4 years unopposed on the Western Front to be ready for D-Day. All these countries had large well equipped militaries in 1939 and still struggled. Ireland had nothing.

Secondly. Ireland whilst it was 'Neutral' actually did choose a side, they chose to covertly and materially help the allies.

De Valera has many, many things he can legitimately be criticised for, but as far as keeping Ireland out of the war, it was demonstrably the correct decision.

Thirdly, how can a nationality even be 'cowardly'? That in itself is a pretty fúckin' stupid thing to say.

feargale

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The entire anglosphere bar Ireland was united against Germany. We have cultural and ethnic ties with the rest of the anglosphere that we don't have with Germany or Italy.

I think you mean the British Empire. Should Switzerland's cultural and linguistic ties with Germany have driven it into a full-blown alliance with the Axis?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Britain was facing an existential crisis and to our shame we didn't help them. You can hardly blame the Americans for being appalled!

The same America that remained neutral until 7th December 1941?

Whatever opinion anyone held on Irish neutrality, once declared it should have been respected.

Orangebrigade

karma_ wrote: »

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
- Mark Twain

How could Ireland, barely 20 years independant have paid for involvement in a World War? The investment alone, to build and train a force that would be capable of forming a few divisions to assist operations on the Western Front would have been huge.

Could it even be done in 4 years? Even with unlimited budget I would go sofar as to say it would not even have been possible. It took Russia, with all its industrial might until July 1944 to push Germany past Minsk. It took the rest of the Allies, 4 years unopposed on the Western Front to be ready for D-Day. All these countries had large well equipped militaries in 1939 and still struggled. Ireland had nothing.

Secondly. Ireland whilst it was 'Neutral' actually did choose a side, they chose to covertly and materially help the allies.

De Valera has many, many things he can legitimately be criticised for, but as far as keeping Ireland out of the war, it was demonstrably the correct decision.

Thirdly, how can a nationality even be 'cowardly'? That in itself is a pretty fúckin' stupid thing to say.

The Republic stayed neutral during the war. The biggest shame the country has ever had upon it. That and the Priest abuse scandal and Gerry Adams becoming a TD.

feargale

Orangebrigade wrote: »

The Republic stayed neutral during the war. The biggest shame the country has ever had upon it. That and the Priest abuse scandal and Gerry Adams becoming a TD.

Don't forget 1. since you mention international relations, support by William Craig and friends for Ian Smith's racist UDI, 2. Kincora House and attendant cover-ups, 3. the election of Paisley as an M.P., not forgetting the neanderthal anti-Catholic comments of elected Councillor Jolene Bunting. Show me any public representative in the Republic making similar remarks about Protestants.
Your posts are so simplistic as to be capable of being compressed into two short verses to be played on an orange flute ( preferably by another orange flute.)
If you have ever contributed a constructive post in Boards I have yet to see it.
I have met some very fine Ulster Protestants/Unionists and sadly I have also met some who were not so fine. I found the latter generally living in drab surroundings, but like North Koreans, convinced that they were the most fortunate people in the world, and superior to all others. While I abhor all violence from whatever quarter, and never have and never would condone any atrocity committed in NI by whoever against whoever, they, and your posts too, tend to lend credence to the claim that republicans came out of Long Kesh with degrees while loyalists came out with tattoos.
Sadly throughout the Troubles the best young NI Protestants left the place in droves, by and large leaving the dross behind.
Your constant amoral glorification of empire and might is right mentality belong to another age, having sown the seeds of the Mau Mau, ISIS and the IRA.
When I see a fool devoting his life to looking over his fence at the weeds in his neighbour's garden and badmouthing what he sees I shudder to think of how his own garden is faring,

Dirty Dingus McGee

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The entire anglosphere bar Ireland was united against Germany. We have cultural and ethnic ties with the rest of the anglosphere that we don't have with Germany or Italy. Britain was facing an existential crisis and to our shame we didn't help them. You can hardly blame the Americans for being appalled!

What a load of bollocks.

Sending Irish men to their deaths would have done us no good or the overall war effort.

It's easy to be brave 70 years later when you don't have to fight imagine if you lived back then and may have been forced to fight in WW2 despite Ireland never being invaded and having no reason to join.

K-9

masti123 wrote: »

No idea what you're trying to say..

Oops! I was talking about Pearse, just to clarify!

Ash.J.Williams

blackcard wrote: »

The question was relating to leaders. I read a piece in the Sindo the weekend where Niamh Horan was decrying the fact that the current leaders did not have the guts of the leaders a century ago

Yeah niamh horan irelands leading political heavy weight

Enda Kenny will go down in history if Denis O'Brien writes it.

Don't they say history is written by the winners? No one has won bigger than Denis. If you feel things have improved for you, send your thanks to Berlin.

Orangebrigade

feargale wrote: »

Don't forget 1. since you mention international relations, support by William Craig and friends for Ian Smith's racist UDI, 2. Kincora House and attendant cover-ups, 3. the election of Paisley as an M.P., not forgetting the neanderthal anti-Catholic comments of elected Councillor Jolene Bunting. Show me any public representative in the Republic making similar remarks about Protestants.
Your posts are so simplistic as to be capable of being compressed into two short verses to be played on an orange flute ( preferably by another orange flute.)
If you have ever contributed a constructive post in Boards I have yet to see it.
I have met some very fine Ulster Protestants/Unionists and sadly I have also met some who were not so fine. I found the latter generally living in drab surroundings, but like North Koreans, convinced that they were the most fortunate people in the world, and superior to all others. While I abhor all violence from whatever quarter, and never have and never would condone any atrocity committed in NI by whoever against whoever, they, and your posts too, tend to lend credence to the claim that republicans came out of Long Kesh with degrees while loyalists came out with tattoos.
Sadly throughout the Troubles the best young NI Protestants left the place in droves, by and large leaving the dross behind.
Your constant amoral glorification of empire and might is right attitude belong to another age, having sown the seeds of the Mau Mau, ISIS and the IRA.
When I see a fool devoting his life to looking over his fence at the weeds in his neighbour's garden and badmouthing what he sees I shudder to think of how his own garden is faring,

lol. You really do believe the Republican myth about degrees and all that bollocks. West Belfast is one of the most poverty stricken areas in the United Kingdom, possibly the number 1.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21506734

It is the 2nd highest for child poverty in the UK. So many "degrees" and so much poverty. It is complete bollocks, I wish people would stop believing it.

No excuse for the Republic to remain neutral in a war against the most evil regime that has ever existed. Shame on De Valera.

The_Valeyard

Orangebrigade wrote: »

lol. You really do believe the Republican myth about degrees and all that bollocks. West Belfast is one of the most poverty stricken areas in the United Kingdom, possibly the number 1.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21506734

It is the 2nd highest for child poverty in the UK. So many "degrees" and so much poverty. It is complete bollocks, I wish people would stop believing it.

No excuse for the Republic to remain neutral in a war against the most evil regime that has ever existed. Shame on De Valera.

Most evil regime that has ever existed?
I suppose Stalin's Russia, Maos China, Pol Pots Cambodia and Imperial Japan were just kittens so.

Orangebrigade

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Most evil regime that has ever existed?
I suppose Stalin's Russia, Maos China, Pol Pots Cambodia and Imperial Japan were just kittens so.

No regime has been as brutal and as evil as the Third Reich based on the ideology they believed in and just what they done to over 6 million Jews. That isn't to say others haven't been horrific, they have but the amount of effort and precision they went to to eliminate over 6 million human beings is beyond anything ever seen in human history.

Genocides have happened outside the holocaust but I don't think any have been as evil as what happened to the Jews based solely on the ideology of the Nazi regime and how they went about doing it.

blackcard

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Yeah niamh horan irelands leading political heavy weight

My outlook on everything is heavily influenced by the writings of Niamh Horan

eeguy

blackcard wrote: »

My outlook on everything is heavily influenced by the writings of Niamh Horan

Didn't know who she was so I googled her. Here's the first result:

As I bent over with a blonde's hand slipping around the top of my thigh, I pondered how there are worse ways to burn 
calories on a sleepy Thursday evening.

Now usually I'd make someone buy me dinner before getting into this position.
But here I was, getting my first taste of the world of women's rugby.

Wow.

blackcard

eeguy wrote: »

Didn't know who she was so I googled her. Here's the first result:

As I bent over with a blonde's hand slipping around the top of my thigh, I pondered how there are worse ways to burn 
calories on a sleepy Thursday evening.

Now usually I'd make someone buy me dinner before getting into this position.
But here I was, getting my first taste of the world of women's rugby.

Wow.

I am thinking of setting up a 'Niamh Horan Appreciation Club', all are welcome

feargale

eeguy wrote: »

Didn't know who she was so I googled her. Here's the first result:

As I bent over with a blonde's hand slipping around the top of my thigh, I pondered how there are worse ways to burn 
calories on a sleepy Thursday evening.

Now usually I'd make someone buy me dinner before getting into this position.
But here I was, getting my first taste of the world of women's rugby.

Wow.

Maybe she should sex up her politico-historical analysis in the same way.

LorMal

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Most evil regime that has ever existed?
I suppose Stalin's Russia, Maos China, Pol Pots Cambodia and Imperial Japan were just kittens so.

I don't know what your argument is but whatever it is has been completely undermined by that effort in relativism.
I think you need to try again.

Dirty Dingus McGee

LorMal wrote: »

I don't know what your argument is but whatever it is has been completely undermined by that effort in relativism.
I think you need to try again.

I think the point he might be trying to make as well is that nobody in Europe did much to stop those regimes yet it never gets held against them.Going against Nazi Germany was out of self interest and not out of any interest in the people suffering because of Hitler.We were not invaded by the Germans so had no real reason to go to war against them.

LorMal

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I think the point he might be trying to make as well is that nobody in Europe did much to stop those regimes yet it never gets held against them.Going against Nazi Germany was out of self interest and not out of any interest in the people suffering because of Hitler.We weren't attacked by the Germans so had no real reason to go to war against them.

really? We had no reason to join the allies? In 1941, Hitler controlled Europe. Other than Britain, no one stood in his way. The British now admit that Germany could have won the Battle of Britain - they were on the very edge.
Are you honestly suggesting that Hitler would have respected our self important 'neutrality' if they had succeeded? (You might like to take into account that the Germans had full plans drawn up for how they would manage us post invasion).
We would have been off to the salt mines.

karma_

LorMal wrote: »

really? We had no reason to join the allies? In 1941, Hitler controlled Europe. Other than Britain, no one stood in his way. The British now admit that Germany could have won the Battle of Britain - they were on the very edge.
Are you honestly suggesting that Hitler would have respected our self important 'neutrality' if they had succeeded? (You might like to take into account that the Germans had full plans drawn up for how they would manage us post invasion).
We would have been off to the salt mines.

Except that after September 1940, approximately 11 months after the start of the War, it was accepted by everyone that there was to be no invasion of Britain. The Germans were never really prepared for it in any case.

So what is your point exactly?

Dirty Dingus McGee

LorMal wrote: »

really? We had no reason to join the allies? In 1941, Hitler controlled Europe. Other than Britain, no one stood in his way. The British now admit that Germany could have won the Battle of Britain - they were on the very edge.
Are you honestly suggesting that Hitler would have respected our self important 'neutrality' if they had succeeded? (You might like to take into account that the Germans had full plans drawn up for how they would manage us post invasion).
We would have been off to the salt mines.

Great .I went on a school tour of salt mines in Bavaria.It was great craic there was even a big wooden slide down to the very bottom of them.

It was the correct decision to stay out of the war.Why would a tiny nation with very few military resources get involved in a war unless it was 100% necessary and they were actually invading the country.It would have made no difference either way if we got involved on the allied side and cost many Irish peoples lives when it wouldn't have been necessary.Loads of other countries didn't get involved in the war so why should we have when we didn't need to.

The_Valeyard

LorMal wrote: »

I don't know what your argument is but whatever it is has been completely undermined by that effort in relativism.
I think you need to try again.

No, it was well made and understood. Sorry you couldn't comprehend that post. Please try again later.

Baggy Trousers

tomwaterford wrote: »

Of the ones a century ago....only one of em lived long enough to be comparable de velera?

De Valera was not a great leader, just a lucky one.

I am reading Tim Pat Coogan's book. 2 things I found surprising.

1) I always thought De Valera was one of the commandants spared execution because he was American. It seems he was #16 on the list but Maxwell stopped the executions because the Brits saw the damage they were doing.

2) De Valera saw very little action in 1916 even though the rest of his company did. In fact he broke down during the rising and did very little at all.

Bottom line, he was jealous of Collin's popularity and arranged for Collins to "sign his own death warrant" at the Treaty negotiations. De Valera knew from a previous visit to London that there would be partition. De Valera also ensured that McQuaid and the rest of the Roman church took over controlling and abusing Irish people after the British left.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Except that after September 1940, approximately 11 months after the start of the War, it was accepted by everyone that there was to be no invasion of Britain. The Germans were never really prepared for it in any case.

So what is your point exactly?

Nonsense.

Baggy Trousers

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There has been nothing really innovative by the current government that led to the country turning around. What we can really thank is a weak euro.

The recovery in the economy is down to oil prices, ongoing low interest rates, our biggest trading partners recovering (UK & USA), foreign direct investment (US multinationals essentially), corporation tax windfalls and hard working Irish people.

There is no single FG initiated policy that helped any of above.

Iwasfrozen

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

What a load of bollocks.

Sending Irish men to their deaths would have done us no good or the overall war effort.

It's easy to be brave 70 years later when you don't have to fight imagine if you lived back then and may have been forced to fight in WW2 despite Ireland never being invaded and having no reason to join.

It's a good thing for Europe the Americans were not so cowardly.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's a good thing for Europe the Americans were not so cowardly.

They didn't get directly involved until after Pearl Harbour.

Also the Americans could make a difference we couldn't.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nonsense.

Well, the Battle of Britain was won by October 1940, and Operation Sea Lion was cancelled sometime mid-September when it became obvious to all that air-superiority was not winnable.

In fact, the whole operation was dismissed as folly well before it had even begun by the higher echelons of the Kriegsmarine and Wehrmacht, probably in Luftwaffe circles too.

Still, I'm impressed by your ability to maximise the amount of ignorance present in a single post by just one word. Kudos.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's a good thing for Europe the Americans were not so cowardly.

Or the Russians?

And by the same logic, the Germans, Italians, Japanese, etc. etc.

Or by such reasoning that you too are a coward given your nationality?

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Well, the Battle of Britain was won by October 1940, and Operation Sea Lion was cancelled sometime mid-September when it became obvious to all that air-superiority was not winnable.

In fact, the whole operation was dismissed as folly well before it had even begun by the higher echelons of the Kriegsmarine and Wehrmacht, probably in Luftwaffe circles too.

Still, I'm impressed by your ability to maximise the amount of ignorance present in a single post by just one word. Kudos.

The Battle of Britain may have been over by 1940 but to say it was accepted by everyone at the time there would be no invasion by 1940 is patently nonsense.

The German's were till making preparations for the attack post 1940, they clearly didn't accept there would be no invasion. From wiki:

As part of a Kriegsmarine competition, prototypes for a prefabricated "heavy landing bridge" or jetty (similar in function to later Allied Mulberry Harbours) were designed and built by Krupp Stahlbau and Dortmunder Union and successfully overwintered in the North Sea in 1941–42.[51] Krupp's design won out, as it only required one day to install, as opposed to twenty-eight days for the Dortmunder Union bridge. The Krupp bridge consisted of a series of 32m-long connecting platforms, each supported on the seabed by four steel columns. The platforms could be raised or lowered by heavy-duty winches in order to accommodate the tide. The German Navy initially ordered eight complete Krupp units composed of six platforms each. This was reduced to six units by the autumn of 1941, and eventually cancelled altogether when it became apparent that Sea Lion would never take place.[52]

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Or the Russians?

And by the same logic, the Germans, Italians, Japanese, etc. etc.

Or by such reasoning that you too are a coward given your nationality?

Yes, good thing for Europe the Russians weren't as cowardly as Dirty Dingus.

As for the axis countries, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, you might want to go back to my post and re read what I wrote.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Battle of Britain may have been over by 1940 but to say it was accepted by everyone at the time there would be no invasion by 1940 is patently nonsense.

The German's were till making preparations for the attack post 1940, they clearly didn't accept there would be no invasion. From wiki:

Sea Lion was NEVER going to take place. German command KNEW that in 1940, and this has been documented. Britain KNEW by September 1940 that they would win the Battle of Britain.

The fact that preparations continued until 1941 only further illustrated Hitler's military ineptness. Sea Lion required first of all, for the RAF to be completely destroyed, secondly it needed the Royal Navy defeated. Neither of those were going to happen and such was the consensus of German High Command in 1940.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, good thing for Europe the Russians weren't as cowardly as Dirty Dingus.

As for the axis countries, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, you might want to go back to my post and re read what I wrote.

If you can't even follow your own logic I'm certainly not going to spell it out for you.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Sea Lion was NEVER going to take place. German command KNEW that in 1940, and this has been documented. Britain KNEW by September 1940 that they would win the Battle of Britain.

The fact that preparations continued until 1941 only further illustrated Hitler's military ineptness. Sea Lion required first of all, for the RAF to be completely destroyed, secondly it needed the Royal Navy defeated. Neither of those were going to happen and such was the consensus of German High Command in 1940.

You wrote by 1940 "it was accepted by everyone that there was to be no invasion of Britain"

I called your statement nonsense since it was nonsense and when you called me on it I provided you evidence to show you it was not accepted by everyone. It's fine to admit you were wrong.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

If you can't even follow your own logic I'm certainly not going to spell it out for you.

No I can't follow your logic, which is a different thing it its entirety.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You wrote by 1940 "it was accepted by everyone that there was to be no invasion of Britain"

I called your statement nonsense since it was nonsense and when you called me on it I provided you evidence to show you it was not accepted by everyone. It's fine to admit you were wrong.

And if you had bothered at all to pick up a history book this question has been examined countless times since 1945 and pretty much unanimously all military expert opinion and historians conclude that Operation Sea Lion was a farce from the beginning and had almost zero chance of success.

You should have listened to Twain.

feargale

Thank you Billy, you have made my point perfectly clear, namely that your focus is utterly limited. Perhaps I over estimated in suggesting that your posts were worthy of two verses on an orange flute. Three bangs on a Lambeg drum might be a more accurate assessment.
Would you not even address one point in my post i.e. do you condone or condemn Jolene Bunting's bigoted anti-Catholic rants?

Orangebrigade wrote: »

lol.

You should tell us more about your L.O.L.. ( for those of you from the Blasket Islands that means Loyal Orange Lodge. ) For instance, how many flutes are in situ? You don't even tell us the number of the lodge. BTW I did attend a twelfth once purely to further my education. In the afternoon while Rev. Geoffrey Abraham ( heard of him? ) was in the field giving a very long sermon, listened to only by one female and myself, about half a dozen kids were in the same field playing fairground games, and every other man and woman was up the village getting sozzled.

Orangebrigade wrote: »

West Belfast is one of the most poverty stricken areas in the United Kingdom, possibly the number 1.
It is the 2nd highest for child poverty in the UK.

I'm not interested in a puerile tit for tat with you, but since you want to talk about child poverty here are the latest figures:
Republic of Ireland 12%
UK 17%
Northern Ireland 23%
West Belfast 43%
North Belfast 36%
Now, instead of engaging in your usual gloating game, with your 36 pence looking down on 43 pence, would it not be better to light a candle, for yourself at least, rather than curse your neighbour's darkness?

BTW have you ever been to the Republic? Just for some perspective could you tell us how many southern counties you have visited?

Orangebrigade wrote: »

You really do believe the Republican myth about degrees and all that bollocks.
So many "degrees" and so much poverty.

I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I haven't counted the degrees or the tattoos. You are too busy mouthing the mantras to pay attention. I said that the neanderthals and also your own posts lend credence to the assertion.

Orangebrigade wrote: »

It is complete bollocks, I wish people would stop believing it.

Your wish is unlikely to be realised as long as the North Korea style triumphalism and neanderthal bigotry are being shouted across the fence into your neighbour's garden.

Orangebrigade wrote: »

No excuse for the Republic to remain neutral in a war against the most evil regime that has ever existed. Shame on De Valera.

Boom, boom, boom.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

And if you had bothered at all to pick up a history book this question has been examined countless times since 1945 and pretty much unanimously all military expert opinion and historians conclude that Operation Sea Lion was a farce from the beginning and had almost zero chance of success.

You should have listened to Twain.

Shifting the goalposts there bud. I didn't say the above was nonsense I said the below was nonsense.

"Except that after September 1940, approximately 11 months after the start of the War, it was accepted by everyone that there was to be no invasion of Britain."

Which it is. Utter nonsense and I provided you proof that the Germans were making making preparations after 1940 to demonstrate it wasn't accepted by everyone. I'm not exactly sure why you're trying to defend the indefensible here but I suspect you just don't like being wrong.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Shifting the goalposts there bud. I didn't say the above was nonsense I said the below was nonsense.

"Except that after September 1940, approximately 11 months after the start of the War, it was accepted by everyone that there was to be no invasion of Britain."

Which it is. Utter nonsense of the highest order and I provided you proof that the Germans were making making preparations after 1940 to demonstrate it wasn't accepted by everyone. I'm not exactly sure why you're trying to defend the indefensible here but I suspect you just don't like being wrong.

Ah I see, so you have no real argument at all, except for an extremely pedantic point that would have been avoided had I prefaced that by adding 'pretty much' before the word 'everyone'. That's what you prolonged this whole miserable point for?

Look, it boils down to this, what you are saying here is little more than a bizarre nonsensical fringe theory that defies all logic. Still, if that's what you want to believe you keep on truckin'. Looks like it's just 'pretty much' you and Hitler who thought it was a good plan.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Ah I see, so you have no real argument at all, except for an extremely pedantic point that would have been avoided had I prefaced that by adding 'pretty much' before the word 'everyone'. That's what you prolonged this whole miserable point for?

Look, it boils down to this, what you are saying here is little more than a bizarre nonsensical fringe theory that defies all logic. Still, if that's what you want to believe you keep on truckin'. Looks like it's just 'pretty much' you and Hitler who thought it was a good plan.

Not pedantic at all, let alone extremely pedantic, whether everyone agreed Britain was uninvadable post 1940 is important to the discussion. You said they did, I'm pointing out to you that they didn't. I don't know why you have to resort to insults but it's a poor substitute for accuracy.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not pedantic at all, let alone extremely pedantic, whether everyone agreed Britain was uninvadable post 1940 is important to the discussion. You said they did, I'm pointing out to you that they didn't.

Fair enough. I'll change that then so, just to keep you happy.

By September 1940 the prevailing opinion by the vast majority of all involved was that there would be no invasion.

In fact, did you know that Churchill himself is on record stating that there were quite a few in British High Command that actually wanted the Germans to try because they knew it would be a horrible disaster and shorten the war. But that's neither here or there.

What kind of shambles of a thread can't even be godwinned?

kupus

leaders then leaders now, you really think there is any difference. Ireland came out of a war for inddependence, and then a civil war.
During and after people made a lot of money thru dirty dealings.

Do I have any proof. Nope not a shred. But im fairly certain if any history student went digging in the right places that they could find how certain people made their empires. Dev for one, taking control of the media. Ring a bell with anyone thats recently took over a paper??

The only thing thats changed is time.

twowheelsonly

Weathercheck wrote: »

No, again media hype.

If anything the leaders of today are better, they have to be, more regulation, less corruption.

!

Regulated and legalised the corruption more like...

The nepotism and cronyism are still rife and we're still awaiting the transparency and the sacking of politicians that aren't up to the job (as promised..) A certain 'Media Mogul' has them all in his pocket and they strangely enough won't stand up to him. Dear Joan has TWO well paid advisers, Enda has God knows how many and between them all they seem to be capable of doing is slagging off the others in the Dail.
All of a sudden they can see the light and knows what has to be done...just give them 5 more years to do it !!! Joan suddenly realising that it's not all about economics - the people and their circumstances have to be a big consideration. Laughable, but not funny.
BTW, all the talk of this big recovery is also laughable IMO. recovery for whom?? I certainly don't see it in my wages/work/circumstances. Neither do any of my family, nor my next door neighbour, nor any of my work colleagues and I'm pretty sure none of the record numbers in emergency accommodation are felling it either.

In reply to the OP - It's an impossible comparison really but I'd certainly think that our leaders of yesteryear had far more integrity that those of today whatever about anything else. They were willing to fight and die for their principles. Todays lot (all parties BTW) will fight for a seat and a pension pot and only worry about principles for 2 months every 5 years.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

eeguy wrote: »

Lots of German immigrants in the US and a big isolationist movement. Roosevelt pushed for war but it took the lusitania and unrestricted sub warfare to get them in.

What war are we talking about here? First or Second?

K-9

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

De Valera also ensured that McQuaid and the rest of the Roman church took over controlling and abusing Irish people after the British left.

Some man considering he wasn't in power after the British left, not for another 10 years.

Chain Smoker

It's easier to admire leaders who were able to make bold decisions which (in some way or another) turned out well or are remembered as having noble intentions. Can only imagine the leaders of 100 years ago either had far fewer external influencers to listen to or were just completely oblivious to them (i.e. it's a lot easier now to predict the absolutely ridiculous domino effects any kind of state decision may have than it was back then).

It's not as though the leaders of 100 years ago were necessarily looked upon anywhere near as fondly at the time when people had to live under all their decisions rather than just recollecting the choice few that've been remembered (largely with the assistance of propaganda from their associated contemporaries and the like, I'm sure).

Skylinehead

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Shifting the goalposts there bud. I didn't say the above was nonsense I said the below was nonsense.

"Except that after September 1940, approximately 11 months after the start of the War, it was accepted by everyone that there was to be no invasion of Britain."

Which it is. Utter nonsense and I provided you proof that the Germans were making making preparations after 1940 to demonstrate it wasn't accepted by everyone. I'm not exactly sure why you're trying to defend the indefensible here but I suspect you just don't like being wrong.

The Germans made some small preparations after the Battle of Britain, but it was a psychological ploy against the British more than anything else - by that point, Hitler had abandoned any ideas of invading Britain and was starting to funnel resources into Barbarossa.