Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[RiG]

[John Lambies Doos]

Guardian headline from German politician to brexiteers. 'Stop fixating on WW2' love it... [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[mjw]

Lord Forsyth absolutely raging on Scotland tonight because devolution has taken away Westminsters ability to decide things for the UK.
He's debating with a Lib Dem but can't stop SNPbadding.

[bob the tank]

Lord Forsyth absolutely raging on Scotland tonight because devolution has taken away Westminsters ability to decide things for the UK.
He's debating with a Lib Dem but can't stop SNPbadding.

That will be the push starting to get the population on side when mundell, Alberto Costa FFS, lord reject of Perthshire and the anti terrorism woman from GCHQ close Holyrood and run north Britain from the Leith docks " tax office"

[Baxter Parp]

...and then we'll jump off a cliff.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

...and then we'll jump off a cliff.

The comments [emoji38]

Brexiteers really believe they are in a position of strength [emoji38]

Fucking simpletons.

[Granny Danger]

I’ve reached the conclusion that these c***s will never admit that Brexit is a mistake even when it happens and the economy tanks.

They will be in denial like the black knight in the holy grail

 

[Baxter Parp]

 

[John Lambies Doos]

 

All 2014 No voters need to look at themselves

[RiG]

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/911765/brexit-angela-merkel-theresa-may-davos-offer-deal-alzheimers-cure-symptoms-Oliver-Crane

Quote

The entire continent owes Britain a debt of gratitude for its stand against the Nazis and the part it played in creating a secure and peaceful post-war world. 

All this has been wilfully ignored or forgotten.  

[Fullerene]

47 minutes ago, RiG said:

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/911765/brexit-angela-merkel-theresa-may-davos-offer-deal-alzheimers-cure-symptoms-Oliver-Crane

Yes, Britain deserves praise for fighting the Nazis because the Nazis were a bunch of evil shits.

However, I sometimes get the impression that was not the main reason why we went to war - that it was more to do with protecting the empire.

Maybe this is not true for most people but I do find it disturbing whenever some Hitler apologist does well in some European elections and some people here seem pleased for them.

[NotThePars]

Yes, Britain deserves praise for fighting the Nazis because the Nazis were a bunch of evil shits.
However, I sometimes get the impression that was not the main reason why we went to war - that it was more to do with protecting the empire.
Maybe this is not true for most people but I do find it disturbing whenever some Hitler apologist does well in some European elections and some people here seem pleased for them.

There’s a strong current of historiographical thought that argues that Britain went to war primarily in defence of its empire particularly of you look how and where the British fought. Anyway if we’re looking at historical debts that have been forgotten I think we should thanking those damn Ruskies over in the east for paying more than enough in their own blood.

[AUFC90]

Yes, Britain deserves praise for fighting the Nazis because the Nazis were a bunch of evil shits.
However, I sometimes get the impression that was not the main reason why we went to war - that it was more to do with protecting the empire.
Maybe this is not true for most people but I do find it disturbing whenever some Hitler apologist does well in some European elections and some people here seem pleased for them.

Maybe we should let russia decide ehat happens with the EU since they actually won the war.

[renton]

28 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

There’s a strong current of historiographical thought that argues that Britain went to war primarily in defence of its empire particularly of you look how and where the British fought. Anyway if we’re looking at historical debts that have been forgotten I think we should thanking those damn Ruskies over in the east for paying more than enough in their own blood.

 

That makes little sense. British foreign policy (when it had one) has always fixated on the need to prevent the domination of Europe by any single power. That's why it fought Napoleon, that's why it was drawn into Europe in 1914: Control of the European coastline, particularly France and the low countries effectively denies Britain it's sea lane security, and threatens Britain with blockade and starvation. In other words, less about defending the Empire and more about defending itself.

Having been chucked off of the continent, the British could have sued for peace. Indeed, were Empire the primary consideration then it would've been logical to do so. However, the long term integrity of the British isles required that they continue a fight that at the time, preclude any reasonable chance of victory through re-entry to the continent.  This forced the British into a different 'how' of fighting, notably trying to bomb the Germans into abeyance.  That it ended up fighting in the Mediterranean is party a response to Italian aggression and partly because it was felt that there might be an alternate route into Europe via the 'underbelly' 

 

[NotThePars]

That makes little sense. British foreign policy (when it had one) has always fixated on the need to prevent the domination of Europe by any single power. That's why it fought Napoleon, that's why it was drawn into Europe in 1914: Control of the European coastline, particularly France and the low countries effectively denies Britain it's sea lane security, and threatens Britain with blockade and starvation. In other words, less about defending the Empire and more about defending itself.
Having been chucked off of the continent, the British could have sued for peace. Indeed, were Empire the primary consideration then it would've been logical to do so. However, the long term integrity of the British isles required that they continue a fight that at the time, preclude any reasonable chance of victory through re-entry to the continent.  This forced the British into a different 'how' of fighting, notably trying to bomb the Germans into abeyance.  That it ended up fighting in the Mediterranean is party a response to Italian aggression and partly because it was felt that there might be an alternate route into Europe via the 'underbelly' 
 

I have no idea if it makes sense I just remember it from my undergrad but I never followed it up because I’ve little interest in the British military campaigns of World War Two.

[welshbairn]

12 minutes ago, renton said:

That it ended up fighting in the Mediterranean is party a response to Italian aggression and partly because it was felt that there might be an alternate route into Europe via the 'underbelly' 

 

I suspect that might have partly been Churchill trying to make up for his Gallipoli disaster which had a similar strategy. Think I read somewhere that Hitler was prepared to guarantee we could keep the Empire if we stayed out of the war.

[Fullerene]

6 minutes ago, renton said:

That makes little sense. British foreign policy (when it had one) has always fixated on the need to prevent the domination of Europe by any single power. That's why it fought Napoleon, that's why it was drawn into Europe in 1914: Control of the European coastline, particularly France and the low countries effectively denies Britain it's sea lane security, and threatens Britain with blockade and starvation. In other words, less about defending the Empire and more about defending itself.

Having been chucked off of the continent, the British could have sued for peace. Indeed, were Empire the primary consideration then it would've been logical to do so. However, the long term integrity of the British isles required that they continue a fight that at the time, preclude any reasonable chance of victory through re-entry to the continent.  This forced the British into a different 'how' of fighting, notably trying to bomb the Germans into abeyance.  That it ended up fighting in the Mediterranean is party a response to Italian aggression and partly because it was felt that there might be an alternate route into Europe via the 'underbelly' 

 

Fighting in the Mediterranean was also based on  the idea that the Italian soldier was not as good as the German soldier (or not as committed to the cause).  The Russians took a similar view when they attacked the Romanian part of the supply line to Stalingrad and cut off the Germans in the city.

Ultimately, it was the Japanese and not the Germans that destroyed the British Empire.  Countries that suffered under the Japanese were not that keen on having their old masters return. 

[renton]

3 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

I have no idea if it makes sense I just remember it from my undergrad but I never followed it up because I’ve little interest in the British military campaigns of World War Two.

 

Let's send the army to Belgium to protect Canada makes no sense.  Let's send the army to Belgium so the Germans can't use the channel ports to starve out our population, pick off our fleet and invade Kent, makes a modicum of sense. 

No idea why you have no interest, it's got lots of explosions. 

It's easy to imagine all of Britain's worst impulses, and a lot of them were associated with Empire. It get's lazy though when you try to ascribe everything through that lens. For the most part, 1940 was simply a war of survival for the British isles.

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I suspect that might have partly been Churchill trying to make up for his Gallipoli disaster which had a similar strategy. Think I read somewhere that Hitler was prepared to guarantee we could keep the Empire if we stayed out of the war.

Yeah, also in 1940/41 there was no realistic chance of getting back into Europe via France, and it was felt the Italians would be easier to pick off. Unfortunately it doesn't take a large force to adequately defend a narrow, hilly front like Italy, as the allies found out. On the other hand, a striaght up assault on France was simply not viable before mid 1944 - it would've been a disaster.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

Let's send the army to Belgium to protect Canada makes no sense.  Let's send the army to Belgium so the Germans can't use the channel ports to starve out our population, pick off our fleet and invade Kent, makes a modicum of sense. 

No idea why you have no interest, it's got lots of explosions. 

It's easy to imagine all of Britain's worst impulses, and a lot of them were associated with Empire. It get's lazy though when you try to ascribe everything through that lens. For the most part, 1940 was simply a war of survival for the British isles.

Yeah, also in 1940/41 there was no realistic chance of getting back into Europe via France, and it was felt the Italians would be easier to pick off. Unfortunately it doesn't take a large force to adequately defend a narrow, hilly front like Italy, as the allies found out. On the other hand, a striaght up assault on France was simply not viable before mid 1944 - it would've been a disaster.

According to the Churchill film with Brian Cox he resisted the D-Day plans till the end and favoured an amphibious assault from Allied controlled Italy on the South coast of France. He had a thing about soft bellies.

[renton]

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

According to the Churchill film with Brian Cox he resisted the D-Day plans till the end and favoured an amphibious assault from Allied controlled Italy on the South coast of France. He had a thing about soft bellies.

That actually did happen, a couple of months after Normandy. US and French units withdrawn from Italy and Africa were used.  I'm sure Churchill was prone to severe doubt over the success of the operation, literally everyone was (The Supreme Allied Commander and future US President Eisenhower even had a communication drafted up in case of failure) but I think he'd generally accepted it was gonna happen - the British had already successfully stopped it going ahead in 42 and 43.  In any event Brooke, the British army chief, was adept at keeping a lid on Churchill and preventing him ranting off too much.