Off Topic OLOF's political thread

[Eric Le Merde]

LL makes a good point, it’s a one off cost, not ongoing yearly.

I suppose it depends on the trade deals to be agreed and the ability of the UK to export as much as it did whist it was in the EU, only time will tell. If it exports more then you'll be quids in, if less then in a comparative sense you will be losing, or Brexit will be costing on an on-going basis.

 

[LeedsLover]

To be fair (appreciate we don’t major on fairness round here) there was a reluctance domestically in the US to get involved in another major war thousands of miles away, and a significant number of German immigrants in the US. So we have much to thank Roosevelt for.

Naturally, we have the Japanese to thank for pearl harbour and Roosevelt was pretty smart in then declaring war on japan only - to prompt hitler to declare war on the US rather than the other way round.

He played public opinion well.. but it’s semantics. The US had done plenty to provoke Japan and were practically at war with Germany already - having sent supplies across the Atlantic for some time, utilising the lend-lease act (to maintain official neutrality) and instructing a shoot on sight policy on German U-boats.

Some historians believe Hitler ‘blinking first’ was actually a strategic move on his part - so they could ramp up attacks on shipping and cut our supply lines... which very nearly worked. But regardless, the US joining was a when not an if.

And much as we love to goad our friends across the pond... we’d be speaking German were it not for them.

Actually you'd be wrong Milky.

There are several reasons why we aren't speaking German and goose stepping everywhere, the main one is, we are British, we bow down to no one.

The Battle of Britain (before America popped over for the party).......Not only the bravery, courage and skills of our fighter pilots, but also the contribution of many European and commonwealth fighter pilots who come to Britain to fight Hitler's mob. The Messerschmitts proved to be no match for our Spitfires and Hurricanes. The ordeal lasted 4 months, Hitler's Luftwaffe was supposed to be the best and strongest in world at the time. Hitler believed it would bring Churchill and Britain to its knees and surrender............yeah right.

Dam Busters and the bouncing bomb. Our scientists lead by Barnes Wallis invented and developed the bouncing bomb, something the Germans weren't expecting. The Dams that were destroyed took out major power stations and major industrial areas and factories severely damaging Hitler's Army and plans.

Pilots were made up of predominantly British bomber pilots, as well as American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand bomber pilots. The raid was led by the now famous 617 Squadron and Guy Gibson, who was only 24.

Blitzkrieg..........went on from Sept 1940 to May 1941 with German Bombers consistently making raids on London over 9 months.

Quote "One of Hitler’s key strategic blunders of the war was to consistently underestimate the will and courage of the British people. They would not run or be cowed into submission. They would fight." unquote

Dunkirk evacuation 1940 (before the yanks turned up late for the party)...........took place at the Battle of Dunkirk. This is the place where Hitler halted his troops, it said Hitler told his machine gun nests not to fire on the troops on the beach. They also say this was the battle that lost Hitler the war.

I believe this is when Churchill asked the yanks for a few ships, they said they couldn't spare any. The result was Britain rallied after Churchill's speech of "We'll fight them on the beaches" Ships and boats of all sizes ranging from Naval vessels to yachts and ferries to small boats went back and forth across the channel to bring the troops home.

D Day.........this was planned by the 3 biggest allies, Britain, America (after they turned up late) and Russia (who also entered late)............the rest is history.

2 other major factors to winning WW2 was Churchill's 2 fingered salute to Hitler........Hitler had asked Churchill and Britain to fight side by side with the German Army, Hitler believed with his mighty forces and Britain's brains, he could take the world............Another plonker who didn't know what thought did.

The courage, bravery and stubbornness of the British people to never cower and bow down or surrender..........who the hell do BLM/Antifa and EU think they are any way.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/did-winstons-words-win-the-war/zjdn7nb

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-churchill-led-britain-to-victory-in-the-second-world-war

 

[brisbane-lion]

To be fair (appreciate we don’t major on fairness round here) there was a reluctance domestically in the US to get involved in another major war thousands of miles away, and a significant number of German immigrants in the US. So we have much to thank Roosevelt for.


And much as we love to goad our friends across the pond... we’d be speaking German were it not for them.

Bull **** we would. What n=makes you think hat? France didn't change it's language, neither did Poland, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium or Denmark. In fact a very large number of those people speak English.

 

[Easternwhite]

And much as we love to goad our friends across the pond... we’d be speaking German were it not for them.

Not quite true though. The Battle of Britain stopped the Germans in so far as how they hoped to knock Britain out of the war and even if they had won the air battle because of the RN (not the RAF) they had very little chance to succeed.
The Battle of the Atlantic was the greatest threat which before the brief 2nd 'happy time' had already been won by the RN and RCN, it was only the lack of preparation for American convoys, the expansion of the area where the U boats operated and loosing the decrypts from ultra for a while that lead to the second 'happy time'. Mid 1943 onwards being in a U boat was just a death sentence.
After the BoB and the retreat in the far east the commonwealth forces turned the tide in every theatre that they operated in and this was unique because from the start of the war until the end they were the only major combatant to operate in them all.
People say we only operated in side shows, look at North Africa, well look at the eventual mess of Tunisia (there was US involvement but it would have happened in any case) and compare it to the amount of men and material captured at Stalingrad, it tells a different story.
People say that American production saved us, well it helped us win but our production equalled Germany's throughout the war and exceeded it in other areas.
Even post D Day until January 1945 the largest army in WTO was the commonwealth forces.

It's a leg pull I know, we tease them about turning up late they tease us about saving our asses but there is a sense of an increasing move to belittle the commonwealths achievements in the war.

There is absolutely no doubt that the US helped us win but if they didn't get involved what would have happened ?
There is the biggest factor that not one person has mentioned and even fewer consider, The Soviet Union. They won the war, they did the killing and the dying that enabled all of us to be free. No US would have simply ended with a continental Soviet Union stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, indeed Stalin was quoted as being disappointed at the end because Peter the Great had got to Paris.

 

[milkyboy]

Bull **** we would. What n=makes you think hat? France didn't change it's language, neither did Poland, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium or Denmark. In fact a very large number of those people speak English.

get off your high horse Brissie... it's an expression

The point was the US were coming into the war regardless of whether Hitler decalred war on them... that gave the excuse. The US had been provoking Japan and Germany for some time, whilst getting their economy geared for war.

 

[milkyboy]

Not quite true though. The Battle of Britain stopped the Germans in so far as how they hoped to knock Britain out of the war and even if they had won the air battle because of the RN (not the RAF) they had very little chance to succeed.
The Battle of the Atlantic was the greatest threat which before the brief 2nd 'happy time' had already been won by the RN and RCN, it was only the lack of preparation for American convoys, the expansion of the area where the U boats operated and loosing the decrypts from ultra for a while that lead to the second 'happy time'. Mid 1943 onwards being in a U boat was just a death sentence.
After the BoB and the retreat in the far east the commonwealth forces turned the tide in every theatre that they operated in and this was unique because from the start of the war until the end they were the only major combatant to operate in them all.
People say we only operated in side shows, look at North Africa, well look at the eventual mess of Tunisia (there was US involvement but it would have happened in any case) and compare it to the amount of men and material captured at Stalingrad, it tells a different story.
People say that American production saved us, well it helped us win but our production equalled Germany's throughout the war and exceeded it in other areas.
Even post D Day until January 1945 the largest army in WTO was the commonwealth forces.

It's a leg pull I know, we tease them about turning up late they tease us about saving our asses but there is a sense of an increasing move to belittle the commonwealths achievements in the war.

There is absolutely no doubt that the US helped us win but if they didn't get involved what would have happened ?
There is the biggest factor that not one person has mentioned and even fewer consider, The Soviet Union. They won the war, they did the killing and the dying that enabled all of us to be free. No US would have simply ended with a continental Soviet Union stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, indeed Stalin was quoted as being disappointed at the end because Peter the Great had got to Paris.

time, money blood etc.

It's absolutely a fair point to not belittle the role of the commonwealth and that wasn't my intention.

As for whether we could have been speaking Russian too (expression Brissie) In principle that's a possibility, but there are two factors for consideration here:
1. The Russians benefitted from supplies from both us and the US which helped them at critical times on the eastern front... and then supplied them for their advance on Germany
2. Whilst The eastern front sucked in the vast majority of German troops, they were still having to fight two major fronts over vast distances.

So, do the Russians roll the Germans back into the Atlantic without US supplies AND without a western front?

 

[Easternwhite]

time, money blood etc.

It's absolutely a fair point to not belittle the role of the commonwealth and that wasn't my intention.

As for whether we could have been speaking Russian too (expression Brissie) In principle that's a possibility, but there are two factors for consideration here:
1. The Russians benefitted from supplies from both us and the US which helped them at critical times on the eastern front... and then supplied them for their advance on Germany
2. Whilst The eastern front sucked in the vast majority of German troops, they were still having to fight two major fronts over vast distances.

So, do the Russians roll the Germans back into the Atlantic without US supplies AND without a western front?

The popular image of the Soviet juggernaut bludgeoning its way to Berlin was very far from the truth. The figures show that by mid 1943 more Germans were being killed and captured than Soviets. They had learnt how to fight, their commanders had learnt how to command and much of their equipment was superior to anything the Germans or Allies had. They were short of infantry in 1945 but then so were the Germans.
It's a 'what if' but if the US hadn't entered I would still have expected them to have been the arsenal, too much of a good profit to be made but I would also have expected an albeit exhausted Soviet Union turning up on the English channel eventually.
Roosevelt however was a good POTUS and knew which way the wind was blowing.
We all played a part and none IMHO can claim to have saved or won anything

 

[lufctommo]

Our Irish friends have gone quiet with all this talk of the war. Are they claiming neutrality again.

 

[lifecheshirewhite]

Our Irish friends have gone quiet with all this talk of the war. Are they hiding under their beds claiming neutrality again.

.

 

[Irishshako]

Our Irish friends have gone quiet with all this talk of the war. Are they hiding under their beds claiming neutrality again.

A lot of Irish fought for Britain so you can stop with the **** stirring.

 

[milkyboy]

The popular image of the Soviet juggernaut bludgeoning its way to Berlin was very far from the truth. The figures show that by mid 1943 more Germans were being killed and captured than Soviets. They had learnt how to fight, their commanders had learnt how to command and much of their equipment was superior to anything the Germans or Allies had. They were short of infantry in 1945 but then so were the Germans.
It's a 'what if' but if the US hadn't entered I would still have expected them to have been the arsenal, too much of a good profit to be made but I would also have expected an albeit exhausted Soviet Union turning up on the English channel eventually.
Roosevelt however was a good POTUS and knew which way the wind was blowing.
We all played a part and none IMHO can claim to have saved or won anything

It's pretty obvious that all played a major part, no-one single handedly won anything. But that's the paradox isn't it - whether the US helped save us from the Germans or the Russians ... it would likely be their actions or none-actions that decided which. Enter the war? continue to supply aid? stop or never supply aid in the first place? What flavour of tyrant they saved us from having as a 'friendly neighbour'? That was down to to them.

https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend...viet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html

What profit did the US make from lend-lease?

 

[lufctommo]

A lot of Irish fought for Britain so you can stop with the **** stirring.

I know many brave men did Shaks, it was meant to be more a joke about neutrality than offend anyone. My mothers side of the family are Irish.

I see Brexit is back in the news today. You know the worlds gone to **** when everyone is happy to see Brexit trade talks back in the headlines again.

 

[lifecheshirewhite]

It's pretty obvious that all played a major part, no-one single handedly won anything. But that's the paradox isn't it - whether the US helped save us from the Germans or the Russians ... it would likely be their actions or none-actions that decided which. Enter the war? continue to supply aid? stop or never supply aid in the first place? What flavour of tyrant they saved us from having as a 'friendly neighbour'? That was down to to them.

https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend...viet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html

What profit did the US make from lend-lease?

Massive profit, it made them rich and GB poor.

 

[Irishshako]

I know many brave men did Shaks, it was meant to be more a joke about neutrality than offend anyone. My mothers side of the family are Irish.

I see Brexit is back in the news today. You know the worlds gone to **** when everyone is happy to see Brexit trade talks back in the headlines again.

yeah I know it was said tongue in cheek. No offence taken. In truth we certainly took advantage in WW1 to help get independence. But I'm certainly not a republican.

 

[lifecheshirewhite]

yeah I know it was said tongue in cheek. No offence taken. In truth we certainly took advantage in WW1 to help get independence. But I'm certainly not a republican.

That's because the boss is English, and you were created in an English factory

 

[milkyboy]

Massive profit, it made them rich and GB poor.

They didn't profit from lend-lease and wrote off the debts

They didn't fight a war in their country so ended it with a fully functioning economy, when the the rest of the world was fcked.

So they made money post war, but didn't directly benefit from their actions during it. Suggesting they did lend-lease as a profiteering exercise is disingenuous.

 

[JonnyLosAngeles]

They didn't profit from lend-lease and wrote off the debts

They didn't fight a war in their country so ended it with a fully functioning economy, when the the rest of the world was fcked.

So they made money post war, but didn't directly benefit from their actions during it. Suggesting they did lend-lease as a profiteering exercise is disingenuous.

America helped rebuild the economies of the European nations, especially West Germany, and Japan who all ended up with more modern facilities than we did, ironically putting us at a disadvantage!

 

[lifecheshirewhite]

They didn't profit from lend-lease and wrote off the debts

They didn't fight a war in their country so ended it with a fully functioning economy, when the the rest of the world was fcked.

So they made money post war, but didn't directly benefit from their actions during it. Suggesting they did lend-lease as a profiteering exercise is disingenuous.

They did lend lease after they had taken all our money, only after Churchill told them we couldn't pay anymore, did they offer us lend lease.
Apparently only made last payment to the USA in 2006.

 

[Gessa]

A lot of Irish fought for Britain so you can stop with the **** stirring.

My father did.

 

[Irishshako]

My father did.

Fair play Gessa.