BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 17 - 04:55 AM

Oh - and 500! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 17 - 04:12 AM

that sort of begs the question just what the fuck are you doing arguing the details of it.

Then you obviously have not understood a single thing. I am not arguing about any details of history. If you cannot grasp then then what the fuck are YOU doing arguing about it? I have tried to explain my point a number of times so one more time will probably not help but here goes. No one can state, as fact, what would have happened if a single event in history had been different. Any single aspect in history. You can predict all you like. You can apply the law of probabilities to attempt to prove it. But you can never be certain of what the outcome would have been. You will never know what else that single change would have done. And what is more, you will never be able to because it is in the past, it never happened and it never will. It may be clever and logical speculation but it is still fantasy.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 07:13 PM

❓

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: bobad
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 05:36 PM

Taking things out of context in order to demonize......the art of the scumbag.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 05:14 PM

You tell us. You know everything and never need to be told anything, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 03:44 PM

Hitler liked peanuts? Plain or dry roasted?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 03:39 PM

Gnome if you - "fully accept that you have studied the period and I have not" that sort of begs the question just what the fuck are you doing arguing the details of it.

Czechoslovakia, France, Great Britain as viewed by Adolf Hitler in 1938:

"Hitler's adjutant, Fritz Wiedemann, recalled after the war that he was "very shocked" by Hitler's new plans to attack Britain and France 3–4 years after "dealing with the situation" in Czechoslovakia.

General Ludwig Beck, chief of the German general staff, noted that Hitler's change of heart in favour of quick action was due to Czechoslovak defences still being improvised, which would cease to be the case 2–3 years later, and BRITISH RERMAMENT NOT COMING INTO EFFECT UNTIL 1941/42. General Alfred Jodl noted in his diary that the partial Czechoslovak mobilisation of 21 May, 1938 had led Hitler to issue a new order for Operation Green on 30 May 1938, and that this was accompanied by a covering letter from Keitel stating that the plan must be implemented by 1 October at the very latest.

Note from the above:

Operation Green by the way was the German plan for an all out attack and invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Hitler via Italian mediation at Munich and the agreements made with Great Britain and France (Who by the way had a formal alliance with Czechoslovakia - Great Britain did not) lost his chance to implement Operation Green and Great Britain's rearmament programme was advanced and accelerated by Chamberlain.

I am not in the least interested in the generalisations of predicting events, or your passive aggressive pedantic ramblings - this specific subject was raised by Jom who referred to Great Britain at the time licking Hitler's arse, referring to Neville Chamberlain as the Prime Minister who no-one dared to mention.

Liked this one Gnome:
"Many of the worlds innovations came out of war."

Very true, but the start point of them all is that you have to survive the initial onslaught. Tell me Gnome what great war winning innovations came out of the war as far as Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Holland, Denmark and Norway were concerned? The answer is none because they fell at the first hurdle - they did not survive the initial onslaught. Now I can think of loads that came out of Great Britain and the USA - see the difference? Or do you just want to argue out of ignorance for the sake of it?

Had Hitler achieved his aim and got his war in 1938 he would have won in the West, defeated Czechoslovakia, France totally, defeated Great Britain in the air and imposed and dictated peace terms to the British Government. In 1938 he had the means, the will and the equipment to do that. At Munich he was robbed of the opportunity and he was recorded as being furious about it. You have been appraised of all the significant preparatory steps that were taken by Great Britain in the intervening period between Munich and the outbreak of war - those Hitler, the German General Staff and German Intelligence did not expect until 1941 at the earliest. Chamberlain won us invaluable time let there be no doubt at all about that.

A Battle of Britain fought in late 1938 or early 1939 would have had Great Britain's Gloster Gladiator fighters knocked out of the air by German Me-109 fighters like clay pigeons.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 03:16 PM

"There is not an historian who knows anything about the period or a military expert who specialises in the Second World War who would disagree with anything I have stated"
Arrogant to the last - even as the ship goes down
Most historians, even those who defend Chamberlain, put his appeasement own to the situation he inherited by previous politicians in allowing Hitler to strengthen his hold on Germany.
The reasons they give for this are varied, ranging from support for Hitlers aims, the fear of Bolshevism, through to economic and political self-interest by those who still believed the war would go away and the Nazis would confine their atrocities within Germany
The British establishment was riddled with antisemitism who were happy to see the Jews (whining Yids, as some referred to them) brought to heel.
"There is not an historian who knows anything about the period or a military expert who specialises in the Second World War who would disagree with anything I have stated"
I thought we'd seen the last of shit like this when Keith hung his historical spurs up - I forgot about your meglomania
Anybody who knows a smidgen about history wil tell yuo that, pu six historians in a room together and you get twenty differing accounts of and piece of history.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 12:45 PM

So, if the French had not negotiated with Hitler the war would have begun in 1938 eh? You just don't get it do you. Nothing to do with what did happen but what could have happened.

What about when Hitler had his meal celebrating the folly of the French and choked to death on a peanut leaving the third Reich leaderless and mourning? Or what about the assassin lurking on the Champs-Élysées during the victory parade? You have no idea what other factors would have come into play had events taken a different turn. No one has. It is all fantasy.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 11:54 AM

"You simply cannot say if X did not happen then Y would not have either in a situation so complex."

WTF???

If Chamberlain and the French had not "negotiated" with Hitler in 1938 then that would have been when Hitler got the war he wanted in the West bang on when the German General Staff had told him he should have it - there would not have been peace, that was not what Hitler wanted.

That is NOT saying "if X did not happen then Y would not have either" that is saying "if X did not happen then Y would have".

If Chamberlain and the French had not "negotiated" with Hitler in 1938 and the war had begun in 1938 France would have been overrun and Great Britain would have been defeated in the air and forced to accept German peace terms - because in 1938 Great Britain was simply not prepared for, or equipped to fight a war.

There is not an historian who knows anything about the period or a military expert who specialises in the Second World War who would disagree with anything I have stated. Again it does not come down to saying "if X did not happen then Y would not have either" it is a case of saying via logic and reason that "if X did not happen then Y would most certainly have happened". Hitler could not have cared a toss about the West, alliances forced him to focus on the West because those alliances interfered with his plans in the East - He'd mentioned them in his book in 1923.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM

Could you also tell me why it would be easier to come out with better ideas under wartime conditions than it would in time of peace?

Many of the worlds innovations came out of war. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say. But you are still either missing the point or deliberately clouding the issue. You simply cannot say if X did not happen then Y would not have either in a situation so complex. I fully accept that you have studied the period and I have not but to unequivocally say that "without him doing precisely what he did we would have lost the war" is not a fact. Which is the only argument I have put forward.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 09:38 AM

Shaw "reckons" that it's politicians' jobs to be well-informed. Which is not at all what you say "I reckoned," is it, Bill? Stop twisting things to suit your agenda and just work with what you have. In other words, try to be honest. I mean, that's twice in one day now.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 09:27 AM

"What duel standards Raggy?"

The duel standard is very obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

You maintain that British citizens who go to "fight as private citizens in someone else's war" should have their passports shredded but you are quite happy that the British Army have an entire regiment of foreign nationals from an independent nation fighting in its ranks.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 09:20 AM

"I have always said that the electorate on both sides were misinformed and manipulated. Without the misinformation and manipulation" There would have been no campaigns at all "Leave", or "Remain" - Campaigning politicians ALWAYS lie, they always misrepresent, they want you to do as they tell you, if you do not know that by now then you must be incredibly naïve.

Shaw reckons that the politicians are so well informed there should never be any referendums - Don't know about you, but during the Scottish Independence Referendum; the General Election; the EU Referendum it became pretty obvious to me that our collection of "professional politicians" were about as clueless as bunch as anybody else - far, far better to make your own mind up, with regard to the wheat and the chaff - sort it out yourself.

Recent General Election - Labour said, with completely straight faces, that their Manifesto was fully costed at £48.6 billion. The Institute of Fiscal Studies thought differently.

- The £6.5 billion they say they will get from tightening up tax avoidance and evasion - IFS state that the figures are just made and told both the Conservatives and Labour that two years ago when they both came out with these figures for 2015 General Election.

- Costs of Labour's proposed nationalisation programme not included.

- The £100 billion required for Labour's new National Investment Bank is not costed.

- University Tuition Fees the cost is £35 billion not £11.8 billion, Labour forgot to cost in the bit about writing off existing Student debt.

Their costings are between 100% and 200% out - Guess who's got to pay for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 08:48 AM

"If we did not have those ships how do you know that something else would have not come up? While I am sure that it is true that the Flower class did exactly as you say how do you know that, had that class not have been built, something even more effective would have been? You don't. I don't. No one does." - Gnome

1: How do you know that something else would not have come up? Asks Gnome.

It takes time to design and built a ship? The shortage of Escort vessels compelled the Admiralty to adapt an existing design and all of this was done in 1938. They did not look at anything else perhaps that is why it can be said with a fair degree of certainty that had they not gone through that exercise in 1938 then there would have been nothing to come up with in 1939 to make good our escort losses.

2: "how do you know that, had that class not have been built, something even more effective would have been?"

Well Gnome as said above if the idea had not been taken and acted upon in 1938 the ships would not have been available at all. So war starts and you find yourself dependent on convoys bringing in food and essential raw materials and supplies. You find yourself losing merchant ships and escorts. You only have a finite number of shipyards and a quantifiable ship building capacity so Gnome what do you build merchant ships, or escorts? Could you also tell me why it would be easier to come out with better ideas under wartime conditions than it would in time of peace? Tally up the losses in escort vessels and then take away the 294 Flower Class Corvettes - had they not been built our convoys would have been sailing unprotected. The Corvettes, thought of in 1938 and built in 1939 bought us time to do two things:

1: Provide convoy protection from the start
2: Design and build the later classes of Sloops and Frigates that replaced them.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 07:16 AM

"a totally unelected, corrupt, unaccountable, cosy little club"

All untrue. The EU is not totally unelected. It is certainly not totally unaccountable. As for totally corrupt, that is just nonsense. You may be able to point to some corrupt practices. As the EU is predicated on the rule of law, accusations of corruption in the EU strongly imply illegal practices for personal or national gain. So let's be having them. But the EU is far from being totally corrupt. And we have got elected representatives in Brussels, so the EU is not totally unelected. The EU is accountable to each and every one of its members. Any brexit deal, for example, must be agreed by all 27 members, not by a central unaccountable administration. The overwhelming amount of EU legislation is agreed by all the countries it applies to, just a very small minority of laws causing any dispute. Only five percent or less of EU legislation has ever been disputed by the UK, a long-time Eurosceptic member. You don't get that by being totally unaccountable. When you say stupid things like this, what price the rest of your unending, tedious, blustering verbiage?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 06:55 AM

Let's just take one of your points as an example.

Without those ships added to the fleet the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost.

If we did not have those ships how do you know that something else would have not come up? While I am sure that it is true that the Flower class did exactly as you say how do you know that, had that class not have been built, something even more effective would have been? You don't. I don't. No one does.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 06:46 AM

Another load of bluster but there are a few points you have missed yet again.

The Leave vote was won by politicians lying to and MSM manipulating the electorate.

I have not said that. Look back. I have always said that the electorate on both sides were misinformed and manipulated. Without the misinformation and manipulation I have no idea how the vote would have gone. Maybe if both sides had stuck to the truth and kept hysteria out of it we would have still voted to leave. I am not speculating on a result based on things that may or may not have been.

In that context

Yes, context is everything isn't it. A fact that you and some others conveniently forget when it suits you.

I tend to lump you all together because you certainly never seem to correct or contradict one another

I have said specifically that I do not want another referendum. Others have disagreed.

You say that nobody can state with any certainty what would have happened. I think that you are wrong, unless of course you can demonstrate that the following had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of what kept Hitler's war in the West alive and led to his ultimate defeat and Germany's unconditional surrender:

I am happy that you say that you think I am wrong. That is the way it should be. If you have said "without him doing precisely what he did, I think we would have lost the war I would have had no argument. It is putting over speculation as fact that I object to.

As to your list of things that helped us to win the war, I have no doubt about their veracity or that they did help us to win. I have never disputed any of that so asking me to demonstrate that they had no effect is a pointless exercise. As pointless as me asking you to demonstrate how the Allies would have lost the war based on an isolated incident. Neither you, I nor anyone else can ever know the knock on effect of something that did not happen because, well, it dod not happen.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 05:24 AM

Points made so far Gnome, by you, or your pals:

1: The Leave vote was won by politicians lying to and MSM manipulating the electorate.

In that context - I stated that I did not have to be told anything by a lying politician or by any article broadcast by MSM to know how I was going to vote - My views on the EU had already been formed long before the referendum on the EU was ever announced - My decision was based upon observing over the years what the EU said it would do and I then compared that to what the EU actually did - a totally unelected, corrupt, unaccountable, cosy little club run for the exclusive benefit of France and Germany.

The only other thing that you failed to realise when you and/or your pals (I tend to lump you all together because you certainly never seem to correct or contradict one another) stated the above, i.e. lying politicians and manipulating MSM, was the fact that for the majority of them - THEY WERE ALL FOR THE REMAIN CAMP - if you doubt that then name one major political party that campaigned for LEAVE.

2: That Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich was somehow shameful and that we should have gone to war earlier (Jom's view) - then you pitched in with the following:

Dave the Gnome - 30 Jun 17 - 12:57 PM

"... without him doing precisely what he did we would have lost the war." - Directly quoted from Teribus 30 Jun 17 - 11:27 AM


And who told you that then?

You say that nobody can state with any certainty what would have happened. I think that you are wrong, unless of course you can demonstrate that the following had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of what kept Hitler's war in the West alive and led to his ultimate defeat and Germany's unconditional surrender:

- Radar and the integrated air defence system that was put in place and perfected between 1938 and 1940.
- The equipping of RAF Fighter Command with Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft that replaced the obsolete Gloster Gladiator between 1938 and 1940
- ASDIC, prior to 1938 the Royal Navy only had ASDIC fitted to one class of ship, by 1939 five different classes of escort were fitted with the device in addition to ASDIC fitted to submarines.
- In 1938 in the event of war the Royal Navy knew that it was desperately short of escort vessels so in the months leading up to World War II the RN returned to the concept of a small escort warship being used in the shipping protection role. The Flower class was based on the design of Southern Pride, a whale-catcher. The original Flower-class, 225 vessels ordered during the 1939 and 1940 building programmes; and the modified Flower-class, which followed with a further 69 vessels ordered from 1940 onward. The modified Flowers being slightly larger and better armed. Without those ships added to the fleet the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost.
- In 1938 the Poles let the British in on their work to crack the German ENIGMA codes. Do you really want to tell us all that the information we received through this work was not instrumental in us winning the Second World War?

All of the above could be done under peacetime conditions solely because of that little piece of paper Chamberlain came back with from Munich.

Oddly enough Jom did come out with something that was perfectly true. 1936 was the best time to take on the Germans. In 1933 Hitler had denounced the Treaty of Versailles, in occupying the Rhineland in 1936, Germany broke the terms of that Treaty. But there would have had to have been a George W. Bush in power in either Great Britain or France to do that, and simply put there wasn't. German General, Heinz Guderian's own autobiography stated that had one single French Gendarme been standing on the bridge used by the German Army as it was in 1936 their orders were to turn back - That by the way Gnome is fact, Guderian was man leading the column and I would imagine that he did know what he was talking about. That was 1936 and after the industrial Rhineland had been re-occupied German rearmament proceeded apace. By 1938 the German Army, German air force and submarine branch of the German Navy would have had all the advantages against the British and the French. So yes I do think that there are sufficient grounds to state quite unequivocally that had Chamberlain not won us those months before the start of the Second World War we would have lost it had we been attacked in 1938.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 05:03 AM

Iains D the G. Operation sealion required 4 conditions to be met before taking place.1)The RAF was to be "beaten down in its morale and in fact, that it can no longer display any appreciable aggressive force in opposition to the German crossing". That is documented fact.

And I have already said that I have not and will not dispute any of the factual evidence you present. The statement I was referring to was

without him doing precisely what he did we would have lost the war.

I specifically quoted that and you are now bringing in other things, said to other people that have nothing to do with my point to cloud the issue. It does not work. My point, once again, is that the statement quoted is NOT a fact. It is speculation portrayed as fact.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 04:50 AM

Britain had sold out to the Nazis before the Battle of Britain was a twinkle in anybody's eye
Fascism could have been stopped in the thirties and the slaughter that was World War Two need never have happened
How the **** could the powers that be foresee these battles, let alone plan for them?
The "free" world was happy as an antidote to The Soviet Union as the leaders declare - they said so
Even the Royal family had embraced it
Everything else is evasive bullshit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Iains
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 04:36 AM

D the G. Operation sealion required 4 conditions to be met before taking place.1)The RAF was to be "beaten down in its morale and in fact, that it can no longer display any appreciable aggressive force in opposition to the German crossing". That is documented fact.
As Teribus states the bi plane Gloster Gladiator was the immediate predecessor of the Hurricane and first in squadron service on 23 February 1937. It was obsolete before it entered service and superceded just over a year later. Even the RAF described it as "an anachronistic survival from an earlier generation of fighter aircraft. The Gladiator filled a gap in defence requirements between the older biplanes and the new, modern monoplanes"
Had the battle of Britain been fought with an inferior aircraft the outcome would have been very different and the first qualification for sea lion to occur would have been satisfied.
Some of the above may be regarded as conjecture but no more so than holding your hand in a flame and disputing as to whether or not you will be burnt.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 04:03 AM

Iains and Teribus, the point you are both astutely avoiding is that no one can say with certainty that the past would have been X if event Y had or had not happened. It is pure speculation. The prediction may be correct but no one will ever know.

Teribus, the point you keep missing is that without someone telling you something, and that includes an author in a book or a presenter on the screen, you would know nothing. I know that I know very little and the older I get the more I realise how much more I have to learn. You, in your arrogance, tell us that no one needs to tell you anything. The proof you offer for this argument? Knowledge that you have gained by someone telling you something. Priceless as Raggy says.

Bluster and spout history all you like. I have not and will not dispute any of the factual evidence you present. What I will dispute is speculation and opinion presented as fact and the mind set of someone who believes he has nothing more to learn.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 03:10 AM

How Britain's GREAT AND GOOD fought Fascism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 03:03 AM

You always do this Teribus - avoid the main points by nit-picking on incidentals - I knew you would here - inevitable as the next shit!00
I know little about the Spitfire and have no interested in what it was called before it developed into what it eventually became
The point I made, which you are attempting to avoid buy strutting you military stuff - is Britain had no intention in stopping the rise of fascism (as Iaians claimed) and would happily have looked the other way if ten times the number of Jews had ended up in the Camps - and I have no doubt you have been happy to hold their coat while they did so.
Nobody has ever attempted to absolve Chamberlain - he will always be the great appeaser of fascism
Franco's Spain was a testing ground for fascism and he might have been stopped if the so-called democratic states had made the effort, instead of criminalising those who tried.
These men were heroes - scum like you try to turn them into traitors
I have no doubt the BNP hold the same view - why not check it out at your next branch meeting?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 05:39 PM

"In context of the meaning of "world" you wrote This country is my context and this country is what I meant, clear to all bar morons so why not use the word 'country' in the first place, rather than 'world'. You expound at length in the 'Oxford comma' thread about the need for meaning to be clear, so presumably, in this case, you were looking to be obscure.
And what is wrong with the good word 'except'? 'Bar morons' sound like the thick crowd you would meet in your local pub!"

Nigel, I employ a style here that I describe as "literate vernacular." I do like to add a splash of colour to my prose in this grey world of mudcat. I'm not writing legalese nor a medical treatise. I suggest you confine your pedantic attacks to threads dealing with grammatical subjects. I'm known here for disliking attacks on my grammar, punctuation and writing style and have been known to forensically take apart the posts of attackers, exposing them to the ridicule they usually deserve. Hope you enjoyed the "split infinitive." Critics of said non-crime have never really understood what an infinitive actually is.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 04:59 PM

"Note:The first Spitfire I to enter service with the RAF arrived at 19 Squadron, Duxford, on 4 August 1938 " - THAT IS TRUE (Documented FACT Jom)

"Work on the Spitfire stared in the late 1920s" - Says "Jom the infallible"

Ehmmmmm No Jom. The work started by Supermarine in the late 1920s was a purely private venture connected to the Schneider Trophy which was an international air race for seaplanes. The advances in technology and design brought about as a result of this series of races LATER spawned the following successful fighter aircraft:

- The British Supermarine Spitfire
- The Italian Macchi C.202 Folgore
- The North American P-51 Mustang (Once it was powered by the Rolls Royce Merlin engine)

Mitchell did not start work on the Spitfire until the Spring of 1934 as a follow on from the Supermarine Type 224 and Supermarine Type 300 both of which were rejected by the Air Ministry.

All of the above Jom is documented FACT.

Had Neville Chamberlain been more bellicose and given Hitler the war he wanted in 1938 instead of meeting Hitler in Munich the mainstay of RAF Fighter Command would have been the Gloster Gladiator biplane fighter which was basically obsolete as soon as it came into service - no match at all for the Me-109 as was proved to be the case in Finland, Norway and Greece.

"At the beginning of the Spanish Civil War the Luftewaffe was not even functional - an ideal time to have nipped fascism in the bud" - says Jom rather inaccurately

Ever heard of the Condor Legion Jom fully operational in Spain from July 1936 until March 1939. It was Ju-52 transport aircraft of the Condor Legion that airlifted Franco's Army from Spanish Morocco to Spain in 1936.

"Chamberlain was not trying to win time to fight Hitler - he genuinely sought a pact with him and was prepared to see other nations fall as long as it didn't effect us"

Wasn't that roughly what you said Britain should have done in 1914 Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 04:39 PM

My last link does not appear to work so I link to a national archives educational article. The last paragraph of the article, by the Secretary of the committee of Imperial defense Major General Ismay is crucial.

https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/educati

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 04:06 PM

Didn't you bother to read the rest of it Jerk?

No snide Raggy lap-dog comments on the content? Or do you not have the knowledge or the intelligence to work out what the outcome would have been for a war fought between Great Britain and Germany in 1938?

Looking at what people said and what they Raggy:

Spanish Air Force (Including aircraft sent from Russia) - Proved to be totally inferior to the German Condor Legion.
Czech Air Force not modernised - slaughtered basically in days.
Polish Air Force not modernised - slaughtered basically in days.
French Air Force semi-modernised along with Hurricane Fighter Squadrons operating with no integrated command and control system - slaughtered basically in days.

Now care to discuss any of those points Raggy, or do you have to wait for your pals to give you a lead (As usual).

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 04:02 PM

Jim."It was only brought into service in 1938 when the British leadership realised that attempts to appease fascism had not worked.
Wrong again!
"Peace for our time" was a declaration made by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his 30 September 1938 speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration.

a pretty little picture on a drawing board needs to be built. Strangely enough a concept cannot destroy opposing planes. although in your fantasy world it might be feasible. FACT. Operational monocoque fighters first went on active service in the uk in dec 1938. To go from concept to reality in the space of less than three months is stretching credibility even for you. I suppose in your dreamworld it was hiding in a cupboard and whipped out when needed.

Tell me when is this fairy story of yours,masquerading as history, going to be published. Perhaps you could persuade the Dandy or Beano to serialise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 03:13 PM

"Note:The first Spitfire I to enter service with the RAF arrived at 19 Squadron, Duxford, on 4 August 1938 "
Work on the Spitfire stared in the late 1920s
It was only brought into service in 1938 when the British leadership realised that attempts to appease fascism had not worked
At the beginning of the Spanish Civil War the Luftewaffe was not even functional - an ideal time to have nipped fascism in the bud
Many of the British establishment,, far from preparing for war with
Germany were welcoming what was happening there, particularly to the Jews
Lord Rothermere's Daily Mail ran regular column describing the new German paradise.
When British workers took to the streets to oppose the Blackshirts, not only did they have to face Mosley's thugs, but also mounted police woith batons protecting them
"New Germany is a bulwark of the menace of Bolshevism" - official.
Chamberlain was not trying to win time to fight Hitler - he genuinely sought a pact with him and was prepared to see other nations fall as long as it didn't effect us
Where did this "preparing for war" bullshit come from?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 02:56 PM

"From: Teribus - PM Date: 30 Jun 17 - 02:33 PM "Who told me that Gnome? Nobody had to tell me that"

Of course no one has to tell you anything terikins, you claim to be the fount of all knowledge.

PRICELESS!!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 02:33 PM

Who told me that Gnome? Nobody had to tell me that.

Here is a little exercise for you Gnome - it only involves looking at what was said by whom and what was done.

Advance the Blitzkrieg attack in Europe to 1938

Britain does not have the things I mentioned that were rushed into place between 1938 and 1940 (start of the Battle of Britain) courtesy of the time bought us by Neville Chamberlain.

So NO:

- Operational, integrated Chain Home Defence system;
- Operational RAF Squadrons flying Spitfire or Hurricane fighter aircraft;
- No ASDIC to aid fight the Battle of the Atlantic;
- No design for or any Corvettes built;
- Extremely limited intelligence related to Germany - No ENIGMA, No ULTRA.

Tell us Gnome how much would the lack of all of that have "enhanced" our chances of survival against the Germans?

Oh especially for you Gnome - No Polish, or Czech pilots present in Great Britain to plug the gaps in the 1938 version of the Battle of Britain - which of course would have meant that there would have been no Gnome typing and sniping away on Mudcat today, and I would never have had the pleasure of meeting and talking to Rear-Admiral Joe Bartosik RN, CB, DSC.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 02:09 PM

D the G. try opening a history book and try to understand what is inside the covers.
2 snapshots, both fairly typical:

http://www.deanscommunityhighschool.com/uploads/09-04-2014-1227147885345089e9b604_Appeasement-Issue3-WhyBritainadoptedappeasemen

In the second link I draw your attention to note 3.Conclusion from General Ismay to the British Cabinet sent on September 20th, 1938


Conclusion of Note from General Ismay to the British Cabinet sent on September 20th, 1938

Note:The first Spitfire I to enter service with the RAF arrived at 19 Squadron, Duxford, on 4 August 1938 and over the next few weeks aircraft were delivered at the rate of one a week to 19 and 66 Squadrons (also based at Duxford) 306 in service by the outbreak of war.
Note: Dec. 1938 first 4 Hurricanes in service. Nearly 500 by the outbreak of war.
The battle of Britain without these two aircraft types would likely have been a massacre. Without Chamberlain buying time these aircraft would still have been experimental prototypes on the outbreak of war.
It is also likely that without the Russian Front in 1941, the outcome in the west would likely have been entirely different.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 01:58 PM

"it was the depression and no one wanted to get in the way of what little business there was."
People in fear of their jobs cannot be compared to elected politicians who actually used racism and xenophobia to cover up their own inhumanity and incompetence
There was a fascinating television programme last week entitled "who should we let in" on the history of immigration in Britain, fronted by Ian Hislop.
A little short on deep analysis, but crammed full of useful information - Who'd have thought that Winston Churchill was once an enthusiastic multiculturalist and a vehement anti-racist
Fascinating stuff
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 01:33 PM

i think the logic of both sides only works if you assume that England has some responsibility and natural inclination to do the decent thing.

not really sure that, unfortunately that is a 'given'.

we occupy a place in history, and like all reality - its ambiguous.

fascism wasn't anathema to a large portion of Englishmen.

think of Edward Viii's fascism. the fashion for upper classes to call their pet dogs 'Musso'. the anti left core at the heart of our security services like MI5. The anti semitism in the works of popular authors like Agatha Christie and John Buchan.

my mum was a quaker in St Helens in the 1930's - she reckons there were refugees coming over from Germany with all sorts of horror stories of what was going on as early as 1933. a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum chose to look the other way. it was the depression and no one wanted to get in the way of what little business there was.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 12:57 PM

without him doing precisely what he did we would have lost the war.

And who told you that then? Oh, sorry, I forgot that you need no source of information other than your own infallible method of comparing what is said and what is done. I didn't realise that it went as far as predicting an outcome that never actually happened.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 12:53 PM

"Oh I don't think it was just Britain Jom. "
So - we are only answerable for our own governments
"And those brave men you refer to, does that also include the Germans and Italians who went to fight for Franco "
No it most certainly does not
Fascism became the main threat to our civilisation in the thirties and it was backed by the might of German
Those who left Britain and The U.S. weer opposing that power, but also that of their own governments who criminalised them for going - and their Church, in the case of Catholics
You skate over Britain's appeasement - as you would, and you claim my own account is "fiction" - without offering a shred of evidens
You now habitually throw out dishonest accuasitiona as defensive confetti
If my account is "fiction" have the balls to prove it
Ant=y moron can dismiss uncomfortable facts as lies - as you habitually do
Even putting forward documented facts that don't fit your agenda has become "made-up shit
Prove it - any of it
You debase this forum with your bullying and lying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 11:27 AM

"Britain appeased fascism and continued to lick Hitlers arse long after brave men saw what was happening in Europe and went off to fight in Spain"

Oh I don't think it was just Britain Jom. And those brave men you refer to, does that also include the Germans and Italians who went to fight for Franco - you didn't make that clear - you just eulogised brave men who as private citizens wandered off to fight in Spain and as everybody knows there are a minimum of two sides in every conflict.

If you read any book (An actual Historical work as opposed to fiction as preferred by Jom) you would know that the German General Staff gave Hitler two dates to fight a two front war:

1: He must first attack in the West and he must do that after 1936 and before 1939.

2: He must attack in the East no later than 1944.

With the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop in August 1938 there was absolutely nothing that could be done to save Czechoslovakia. By reaching an agreement with Hitler in Munich in September 1938 Chamberlain bought Great Britain time. Great Britain used that time to:

- Establish and make operational the integrated Chain Home Defence system;
- Re-equip RAF Fighter Command squadrons with modern mono-plane fighter aircraft;
- Push through develop and fit ASDIC to Royal Navy escorts;
- Design and build cheap, light escort vessels;
- Increase the intelligence networks focusing on Germany codes and capabilities. Had Chamberlain not succeeded in coming to an agreement with Adolf Hitler in September 1938, Britain would never have had the slightest clue about ENIGMA.

So much for the Prime Minister no-one dares to mention - You ignorant prat without him doing precisely what he did we would have lost the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 10:56 AM

What duel standards Raggy?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 06:34 AM

Jim. Not everyone shares your opinion of Chamberlain. It could be argued he bought time by sacrificing Czechoslovakia. We were unprepared for war in 1939-any sooner and the results would have been even more dire.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/09/neville_chamberlain_was_right_to_cede_czechoslovakia_to_adolf

I wonder what the outcome would have been with Corbyn in charge back then. No doubt the RAF would have been weighed in for scrap, and the only uniformed military left would have been the "Sally" army. No other choice but to appease then, would there be?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 05:37 AM

"The British Government introduces, debates and passes into law legislation that only affects the British people and those living within the country"
Crap
Politicians deciding among themselves is no more valid for sending young men to their deaths if far lss democratic than people volunteering to fight
You've made your support for fascism quite clear on numerous occasions - not least on Spain.
Britain appeased fascism and continued to lick Hitlers arse long after brave men saw what was happening in Europe and went off to fight in Spain
Because of inaction on the part of the "free" nations, the Luftwaffe were allowed to cut their newly invigourated teeth on the market-place in Guernica and on the people of Madrid.
Chamberlain (the Prime Minister no-one dares to mention) came back to Britain proudly brandishing his piece of paper, having sold out Czechoslovakia "a far away country..... of whom we know nothing" and Hitler was allowed to make war when he was ready to do so.
As far as yo people are concerned, the only contact we should have with other nations is to sell arms to them.
We are governed by predatory scum.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 05:31 AM

Duel standards at the ready eh Teri.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 05:21 AM

"If the British Government should shred the passport of anyone who has gone to fight for a foreign state, surely that should according to your logic, also apply to any government anywhere in the world"

Why Raggy? The British Government introduces, debates and passes into law legislation that only affects the British people and those living within the country. What other nations and the nationals of other nations do outside our jurisdiction are actually beyond our control. So taking your example of Nepal. If the Nepalese Government enter into a treaty with the UK, with India and with Brunei that allows it's citizens to volunteer, compete for, and gain places to train as soldiers to serve in the armies of those nations there can be nothing illegal, or morally wrong in anything done by the Nepalese Government or any Nepalese national.

The reason Rhodesia was mentioned was historical and fully explained in the section I pasted. Highly relevant it showed respect and regard for the Head of State while UDI showed utter contempt for her British Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 05:00 AM

Nigel,

They are private citizens of a foreign state, an independent foreign state, they volunteer to join the British Army. The fact that the British Army formed a Regiment especially for these foreign nationals does not alleviate the fact they are foreign citizens fighting for a state that is not their own.

So to use the logic applied to British Citizens, the Nepalese Government should (according to that logic) shred their passports.

There would appear to be duel standards if we say on the one hand British Citizens should have their passports shredded if they fight for a foreign state but allow foreign national to fight for Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 04:44 AM

Raggytash: In your previous post you stated ""Bloody right they did, today I hope that the British Government shreds the passports of any who have gone abroad to fight as private citizen volunteers in someone else's wars. They represented a potential danger as much then as they do now"

If the British Government should shred the passport of anyone who has gone to fight for a foreign state, surely that should according to your logic, also apply to any government anywhere in the world, and thus thus Nepalese nationals should not fight for Britain.

Or perhaps, in your logic, Britain is "special"

I think you are missing an important part of the quote that you give:
to fight as private citizen volunteers in someone else's wars. The Ghurkhas fight as part of our armed forces, not as private citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 04:18 PM

A very interesting cut and paste Terikins. You mention Fiji, Rhodesia (I presume you mean the modern State of Zimbabwe) and the islands of Guernsey, Jersey and Man amongst others states. Very interesting but not very relevant.

I'm not too sure as to the point you're trying to make.

In your previous post you stated ""Bloody right they did, today I hope that the British Government shreds the passports of any who have gone abroad to fight as private citizen volunteers in someone else's wars. They represented a potential danger as much then as they do now"

If the British Government should shred the passport of anyone who has gone to fight for a foreign state, surely that should according to your logic, also apply to any government anywhere in the world, and thus thus Nepalese nationals should not fight for Britain.

Or perhaps, in your logic, Britain is "special"

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 12:17 PM

no never bothered me either - but i'm always amazed to find the number of people who are still nursing a grievance.

the thing is when i'm dead, i won't hear all the rotten things they say about me - unlike now.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 11:40 AM

Raggy take a look at the following:

"The number of states headed by Queen Elizabeth II has varied during her 65 years on the throne, altogether seeing her as sovereign of a total of 32 independent countries during this period. In her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom (including the British overseas territories), she is also monarch of three Crown dependencies—Guernsey, Jersey, and Man—and, in her capacity as Queen of New Zealand, she is monarch of two associated states—the Cook Islands and Niue—since they acquired this status in 1965 and 1974, respectively.

Two countries are unique: The government of the unrecognised state of Rhodesia proclaimed its allegiance to Elizabeth II as queen of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1970. However, she did not accept either the role or the title and it was not accepted or recognised by any other state. Fiji became a republic through a military coup in 1987, after which its Great Council of Chiefs continued to recognise Elizabeth II as queen, or Paramount Chief of Fiji, until the council's de-establishment on 14 March 2012. However, this was only a ceremonial title, with no role in government at all."

Now that would mean that anyone from any of the above could swear an oath of allegiance to HM Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State without any problem.

As far as Nepal goes, the country through long standing treaties and agreements with the UK, India and Brunei. The connection with the British goes back to 1815 and any Gurkha who serves a minimum of fours years in the British Army earns the right to settle in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to choose on June 8th-UK Elections
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 11:39 AM

Like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade?

I rather assume the answer would be "yes". I wonder if he'd apply the same criteria to those Americans who volunteered to serve in the British forces before their country had come into the war. Or how about the Free French, after their nation's legitimate government had made a deal with the Germans?